Laurence Tribe described how Trump can be excluded from ballot

[canetoad]

Apologies - I don't have a video link. This was a segment on 'The Last Word' three or four days ago.

Prof. Tribe described the mechanism by which Trump could be left off the ballots in the 2024 election.

First: The issue is down to the Secretary of State in the individual states to decide whether he is eligible under the 14th amendment or not to be a candidate on the ballot.

Obviously, Democratic SoS's will say no, Repugs will say yes.

Whatever the outcome of the State SoS decision, it will be challenged in higher courts, ultimately ending up in the Supreme Court. At this point I think Prof. Tribe rolled his eyes.

If the above is all correct, this potentially means 50 or so cases need to go to SCOTUS before the '24 election.

To paraphrase Rachel, have I understood this correctly? Is this a viable path to making sure he is not on the 24 ballot? TIA for your input.

[UTUSN]

1. K&R

[Ms. Toad]

2. They would almost certainly be consolidated at the Supreme Court.

And, as a practical matter, the focus should/would be on the swing states. He doesn't have to be kept off the ballot in every state - only in those states that have a potential to swing the election.

[2naSalit]

3. +1

[canetoad]

4. Thanks for your response

It seems to me that the most effective way to ensure he does not become president again is to keep him off the ballot. Prof. Tribe provided a pathway.

[onetexan]

26. This☝️

[2naSalit]

5. Also...

Litigation is slow and some of it might not be settled before some of those primaries. Maybe not even before the general.

[canetoad]

6. Exactly

But somehow or other, the system needs to deal with this.

[2naSalit]

8. True.

Wow, A big thunderstorm just whipped up and blasted over the pass. No hail expected, the wind is already passed. I stepped out on my porch to look at it a little bit ago, before it got here, and when I turned around to go back inside I saw there were four well endowed bucks standing right there a few feet away. They weren't sure about me but they weren't going to take off since there are still leaves to eat from the tree they've been devouring.

I sent them to someone else's yard.

[canetoad]

13. They sound confident

Like the big roos, the 7 footers that dont move and just stare you out.

[2naSalit]

16. Oh these guys are spoiled...

And roam this neighborhood and have quite the variety of delectable delights to eat and they will all stare you down. What's funny is that cats will chase after them and they respond real fast by taking off in high gear!

[Runningdawg]

7. IMO the very definition of a Constitutional crisis.

Removing him from blue-state ballots would play into his "stolen election" conspiracy. His cult can and will write his name in on the general election ballot.

[2naSalit]

9. Probably not enough to win.

[Runningdawg]

30. They don't want to win. Losing IS their winning strategy. It always has been.

He didn't want to win in 16. He wanted to gain access to global high rollers and get lots of attention. The actual job was a joke to him, beneath him. Find a vid showing the moment they told him he had won in 2016. He was alone, sitting in a chair. That's not the look of a winner and certainly not a POTUS. It's the look of a terrified child who knows he REALLY messed up.

The one thing DJT is actually good at is losing and he finally found a way to make it turn a profit.

[bedazzled]

23. That's presuming they can write

Sorry, couldn't resist

[HelpImSurrounded]

10. It's the start of a path...

Prof Tribe stated that Amd XIV Sec 3 was "self-enforcing". The Congressional Research Service disagrees.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

So, no matter what, there will be legal debates and questions to resolve about this. In each case, however, it has to start with the office if not the person of the Secretary of State to make a determination and then settle it in court.

It's not necessarily a discretionary power of the Secretary themselves, however. In most states the nominee of the Dem and Rep parties are automatically certified as eligible. In those cases the Sec would have to work around that rule.

There is also the question of who determines sedition was committed... The CRS report goes into that question in more detail.

Prof Tribe's assertion that this is a pathway to be used is correct. It's just not a silver bullet.

[canetoad]

11. Many thanks

For your input. It's good to read the finer details.

[stopdiggin]

12. So the political parties go through their primaries

followed by their conventions - and through that customary apparatus, select candidates to run for the presidency. Then - a handful of SOS decide as a discretionary measure that one of those candidates will not be included on the ballot. (and, we must assume, write in votes for that individual also will not be counted .. )

Regardless of what the good Prof. Tribe has to say about this - I can imagine eyes rolling the length and breadth of the land. And, without any doubt whatsoever - some of those eyes will be ensconced on the bench.

Yeah - like that's going to work.

(Further - even is by some wild stretch this maneuver were to actually succeed ... It is almost certainly still a terrible idea! Talk about whipping the opposition into a frenzy! It's just heroically stupid on a political level.)

[canetoad]

14. That may very well be the case

But so far, it's one of the few plausible ways of keeping him off the ballot that I've read.

Seriously, my head is spinning at the thought of this person being in the running at all, for president in 2024. His candidacy needs to be shut down long before the election.

[stopdiggin]

17. I would MUCH prefer

(and additionally see it as a much sounder course of action) to see him on the ballot - and suffering a crushing and humiliating defeat in Nov.

That is the way you cut the head off the snake.
Not by trying to 'job' the system. (that's the other guys - IMO)

[canetoad]

18. I hear you loud and clear

But that's what we all thought before Nov. 2016. OK, things have changed - dramatically but my preference is not to have him as a candidate.

[Brainfodder]

15. He is not electable any more, therefore makes no difference!

[Silent3]

20. Don't fool yourself. Trump's odds are low, but not close enough to zero for comfort.

When you've only got two major parties, a sharply divided public, and a frankly not-so-bright electorate, unexpected events can tip an election either way.

Think of the way our news media treats Democrats vs. Republicans. A story could come out that Biden underpaid his taxes by $3000 five years ago, and the media noise would be as full of consternation and fretting as it has been for all of Trump's litany of crimes and corruption.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. No it is not a viable path

If the sole authority of an SOS was all that was required to disqualify someone, then red state SOS would be disqualifying Dems by the dozens.

Who or what would stop them?

It doesn’t matter what Tribe says - reality and precedent dictate that anyone who wasn’t a Confederate soldier or official must have a finding of fact in the form of a relevant conviction, under due process and rules of evidence in order to be disqualified.

Period.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

21. This issue is going to get before the SCOTUS

I read the law review article from the two members of the Federalist Society. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751 This is an amazing law review article and is dense reading. The authors conclude that TFG is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

I downloaded the article in pdf and so some of the formatting will be strange.

The most politically explosive application of Section Three to the events of January 6, is at the same time the most straightforward. In our view, on the basis of the public record, former President Donald J. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from again being President (or holding any other covered office) because of his role in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election and the events leading to the January 6 attack.

The case for disqualification is strong. There is abundant evidence that Trump deliberately set out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election result, calling it “stolen” and “rigged”;421 that Trump (with the assistance of others) pursued numerous schemes to effectuate this objective; that among these were efforts to alter the vote counts of several states by force, by fraud, or by intended intimidation of state election officials,422 to pressure or persuade state legislatures and/or courts unlawfully to overturn state election results,423 to assemble and induce others to submit bogus slates of competing state electors,424 to persuade or pressure Congress to refuse to count electors’ votes submitted by several states,425 and finally, to pressure the Vice President unconstitutionally to overturn state election results in his role of presiding over the counting of electors’ votes.426....

The bottom line is that Donald Trump both “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid or comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution. All who are committed to the Constitution should take note and say so.

The issue to me was how to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The authors make the point that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is self executing but it still must be enforced. Among the mechanisms discussed is the concept of a secretary of state disqualifying TFG from the 2024 election.

Anybody who seeks office will at some point need to show that they are entitled to hold that office. At every point that this occurs, Section Three governs. So, for instance, state or local election boards, and state Secretaries of State, may possess statelaw authority to make at least initial determinations as to eligibility of candidates for elected office in that state or representing that state in Congress (as authorized by Article I, section 4 of the Constitution)—and, thus, whether or not such candidates shall be placed on a primary or general election ballot.65 Those state bodies or officers are obliged, often by oath—sometimes by oath mandated by the U.S. Constitution—to act consistently with the requirements of the Constitution in the discharge of their duties.66 Accordingly, such state actors can and must apply Section Three’s disqualification in carrying out their state-law responsibilities—just as they possess the authority and duty to comply with and enforce the Constitution’s other qualificationfor-office requirements......

Finally, what about the top of the ticket? What if the President or a presidential candidate (or likewise for Vice President) is constitutionally disqualified?104 Who has the power and duty to enforce Section Three’s legal prohibition? Again, the answer depends on whether the supposedly disqualified individual is seeking election to office or already holds it. In the case of a candidate, state election officials and state election law will frequently judge that candidate’s ballot eligibility, applying Section Three as described above, and subject to the usual avenues of judicial review. That eligibility question can be a part of a state’s Article II election for electors just as much as any other state election.105 Put simply: a state secretary of state (for example) might well possess state-law authority to determine candidate eligibility for federal elective offices—President and Vice President, U.S. Representatives, U.S. Senators—selected directly or indirectly via state elections; and among those relevant eligibility criteria is whether a candidate is disqualified from the office he or she seeks by Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Bottom line, is that the only way that I see to enforce Secton 3 of the 14th Amendment is for one or more Secretaries of State to rule that TFG is not eligible to be on the ballot. There will be litigation and the case will be decided by the SCOTUS

California has started this process

Link to tweet

FUN FACTS: According to FOX News, (D) 2028 presidential candidate, California Governor Gavin Newsom has become the first governor to declare that Donald Trump should be disqualified from running in future presidential elections. Consequently, Governor Newsom has requested the California State Assembly to enact a bill that will ensure Trump's name is omitted from any upcoming ballots. #DemVoice1 #wtpBLUE

[canetoad]

22. Thank you

For the detailed response.

[MichMan]

29. No, Fox News didn't report Newsom wants to remove Trump's name from future ballots Fact check

No, Fox News didn't report Newsom wants to remove Trump's name from future ballots Fact check

The claim: Fox News reported California Gov. Newsom asked for bill to remove Trump’s name from future ballots
An Aug. 21 Facebook post (direct link, archive link) claims the leader of one of the country's most populous states is taking action in an attempt to prevent former President Donald Trump from being elected again.

Our rating: False

A spokesperson for Fox News said the network did not publish any such report, and Newsom’s office also said the claim is false. Newsom has said he had a strong relationship with Trump during the COVID-19 pandemic, and he has been criticized by other Democrats for praising the former president. A search of Fox News’ website and social media platforms did not show any such articles, and the outlet told USA TODAY the claim is false.

“This is fake – there is no validity to this claim,” said spokesperson Irena Briganti.

https://news.yahoo.com/no-fox-news-didnt-report-205459011.html?src=rss

[Sogo]

24. Great interview with Tribe and Luttig.

They discuss the issue and implementation pretty extensively:


https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/j-michael-luttig-and-laurence-tribe-make-the-case-for-trump-s-disqualification-from-public-office-191177797850

[Sogo]

25. New Hampshire is considering whether TFG can be on their primary ballot.

per The Boston Globe today. I’d post but it’s behind a paywall. Maybe someone else can get around that….

[brooklynite]

27. "Obviously, Democratic SoS's will say no"

No - they won't. I've met almost all Democratic Secretaries of State and they won't unilaterally block Trump from the ballot absent a conviction for Insurrection.

[onenote]

28. +1