Illinois judge says 14th Amendment bars Trump from 2024 primary ballot

[F1fan]

You expect thr Supreme Court to come down 9-0 against states' rights?

MAGAs only support state's rights when MAGAs benefit. Look at how some MAGA states are trying to stop their citizens from traveling to free states that allow reproductive care. Unbelievable that MAGA government thinks they can control a women that is seeking reproductive care. They are in favor of state's rights if the state bans anything, abut against it if another state defends freedom to classes of citizens.

And a state with the authority to run its own elections can't use the constitution if MAGA doesn't like it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

MAGAs only support state's rights when MAGAs benefit. Look at how some MAGA states are trying to stop their citizens from traveling to free states that allow reproductive care. Unbelievable that MAGA government thinks they can control a women that is seeking reproductive care. They are in favor of state's rights if the state bans anything, abut against it if another state defends freedom to classes of citizens.

And a state with the authority to run its own elections can't use the constitution if MAGA doesn't like it?

The Constitution even gives state legislatures the power to forego presidential elections altogether.

If @esmith wants presidential elections to be a fully federal process, I'd probably agree that this is a good idea, but it would take a constitutional amendment to get there from what the Constitution says right now.

 

[F1fan]

The Constitution even gives state legislatures the power to forego presidential elections altogether.

If @esmith wants presidential elections to be a fully federal process, I'd probably agree that this is a good idea, but it would take a constitutional amendment to get there from what the Constitution says right now.

Could you imagine a state legislature trying to reject the popular vote in their state? It's bad enough they gerrymander. At least courts are starting to force fair district maps, with Wisconsin as a big example.

 

[esmith]

The Constitution even gives state legislatures the power to forego presidential elections altogether.

If @esmith wants presidential elections to be a fully federal process, I'd probably agree that this is a good idea, but it would take a constitutional amendment to get there from what the Constitution says right now.

Elections for President are mandated by the Constitution:

What Does the Constitution Say About Presidential Electors?​

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Elections for President are mandated by the Constitution:

What Does the Constitution Say About Presidential Electors?​

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Notice that the word "election" is nowhere in there.

It used to be common for state legislatures to appoint electors themselves.

When the popular vote started being used, it was often the case that the names on the ballot would be the unpledged electors, not the presidential candidates.

The Constitution allows states to go back to either system as long as they pass the proper state laws to do it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To start with Trump has not been charged, let alone convicted, of insurrection.

He's been indicted for seditious conspiracy... i.e. planning an insurrection. Whether the 14th Amendment's "engaging in insurrection" covers only carrying the plan out and not the planning of the insurrection remains to be seen.

If one or more states decided that Biden does not have the mental cognition to be the President what would stop them from removing his name from the ballot? That is the reason I think the SCOTUS will vote 9-0 against those states that want to remove Trump from the ballot.

The Constitution spells out the eligibility requirements for President:

- natural-born US citizen
- at least 35 years old
- lived in the US for at least 14 years
- can't have committed insurrection, etc. (unless pardoned by Congress)

Mental fitness isn't on the list... which is probably a good thing for Trump, too.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Illinois judge says 14th Amendment bars Trump from 2024 primary ballot.

Will it hold up or fail?

Illinois judge says 14th Amendment bars Trump from 2024 primary ballot

An Illinois judge on Wednesday ruled that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars Trump from the 2024 Republican primary ballot

abcnews-go-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Can't they just make him a write-in?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can't they just make him a write-in?

Writing in a candidate is just spoiling your ballot if the written-in candidate isn't eligible for the office.

And in Illinois, write-in candidates have to register before the election, so they'd be subject to all the normal eligibility rules.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Writing in a candidate is just spoiling your ballot if the written-in candidate isn't eligible for the office.

And in Illinois, write-in candidates have to register before the election, so they'd be subject to all the normal eligibility rules.

Oh, I had no idea. Thanks!

 

[esmith]

He's been indicted for seditious conspiracy... i.e. planning an insurrection. Whether the 14th Amendment's "engaging in insurrection" covers only carrying the plan out and not the planning of the insurrection remains to be seen.



The Constitution spells out the eligibility requirements for President:

- natural-born US citizen
- at least 35 years old
- lived in the US for at least 14 years
- can't have committed insurrection, etc. (unless pardoned by Congress)

Mental fitness isn't on the list... which is probably a good thing for Trump, too.

Better check you source:

The Executive Branch | The White House

From the President, to the Vice President, to the Cabinet, learn more about the Executive Branch of the government of the United States.

www.whitehouse.gov

"The Constitution lists only three qualifications for the Presidency — the President must be at least 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Better check you source:

My source is the American Constitution.

The Executive Branch | The White House

From the President, to the Vice President, to the Cabinet, learn more about the Executive Branch of the government of the United States.

www.whitehouse.gov

"The Constitution lists only three qualifications for the Presidency — the President must be at least 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years."

I understand why someone like you, who supports a traitor for president, would want to shop around to find a webpage that fails to mention how the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies candidates who have participated in various traitorous activities. Still, the Fourteenth Amendment is easy for you to find so that you can read it for yourself. I suggest you do that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You expect the Supreme Court to come down 9-0 against states' rights?

The Tenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

States' rights is not a blank check.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Illinois judge says 14th Amendment bars Trump from 2024 primary ballot.

Will it hold up or fail?

I live in Illinois. Withholding applause is difficult.

Still, I'm concerned about due process. As much as I hate to admit it, my preference would be that these attempts fail by unanimous vote of the U. S. Supreme Court.

 

[wellwisher]

Illinois judge says 14th Amendment bars Trump from 2024 primary ballot.

Will it hold up or fail?

Illinois judge says 14th Amendment bars Trump from 2024 primary ballot

An Illinois judge on Wednesday ruled that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars Trump from the 2024 Republican primary ballot

abcnews-go-com.cdn.ampproject.org

The Democrats cannot win a fair fight, but need to cheat to win. The big problem with this latest false hope, led by partisan hacks, is Trump was never convicted to even tried for insurrection. This false conclusion claim, is a Democrat propaganda mantra, like "Russian Collusion"; assumed guilty until proven innocent and not innocent until tried and convicted. It is a scam. Stop being bonehead patsies for these con artists. If the DNC did not have DEI operatives in legal positions; quid pro quo, this would not go anywhere in lower courts. This is not a hard legal angle to see and these DA's should be tried impeached and jailed for willful misuse of the law; Banana Republic.

Ignorance of the law, is not a defense for these scams. If and when this is blocked by the Supreme Court, Trump should be able to sue those states and lawyers for slander and liable, since these shady lawyers, who carved this scam, cannot claim ignorance under the law. The precedent is away to see, It should be treated as willful criminal, the goal of which is to slander a political opponent; mud slinging. Courts cannot be used this way and still have legal protection or else the Constitution is dead.

There are liable laws, which should allow Trump to sue NYC and the DNC via $multi-billion legal suits. Private citizens, slandered by legal con jobs, that should have been known by the lawyers to be a scam, are illegal; conscious slander, by DA ia not protected and seven figure judgments in Civil Courts can be awarded.

We have too much legal crime, by lawyers skirting law on the fence, skimming, until caught by the Supreme Court. If this was blue collar crime the system would punish. We may need to write laws for shady lawyer crimes. Why are lawyers exempt from legal crimes; break the law on behalf of a crooked client like the DNC? Lawyers should be sued and not buffered from their legal loophole crimes.

I would require that all Lawyer, from here on, to have to swear an oath to tell the truth, with jail for perjury. Why do crooked lawyers and crooked prosecutors get to skip telling the truth in court; no oath is required to tell the truth? This way shady lawyers and prosecutors could be called to the stand, to explain why they ignored the legal precedents, and are trying to run a banana republic scam? We may even need to make judges obey the law, if they are partisan hacks in partisan cases; minimize need for appeal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Better check you source:

The Executive Branch | The White House

From the President, to the Vice President, to the Cabinet, learn more about the Executive Branch of the government of the United States.

www.whitehouse.gov

"The Constitution lists only three qualifications for the Presidency — the President must be at least 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years."

The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution. That means that another qualification is not participating in an insurrection against the US.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I live in Illinois. Withholding applause is difficulty.

Still, I'm concerned about due process. As much as I hate to admit it, my preference would be that these attempts fail by unanimous vote of the U. S. Supreme Court.

Me too. Just think the Supreme Court could actually put on their big boy pants and do the right thing. Then Trump's endless attempts to delay would be rather meaningless. Unless his suspected dementia does get far worse to the point where punishing him would be pointless. I would not mind at all if the family was stripped of almost all of their wealth.

 

[PureX]

I live in Illinois. Withholding applause is difficulty.

Still, I'm concerned about due process. As much as I hate to admit it, my preference would be that these attempts fail by unanimous vote of the U. S. Supreme Court.

The SC isn't going to allow any state to dictate who can and cannot be on a national election ballot. The only solution (for the future) is going to be having a national elections board making that determination for national elections. While the states can still do so for state elections. And I suppose that probably should be how it works.

I wish the SC would determine Trump's (non) eligibility as per the 14th Amendment, but they will run away and hide on that one.