Is keeping Trump off state ballots a good idea?

[Cyrano]

Here's my concern. How many Democrats will turn out because Trump is on the ballot and they want to defeat him?

And, if Trump isn't on the ballot, will they show up to vote for Democratic House members and Senators who are on the ballot, not to mention all the other down ballot candidates?

I don't know the answer to this. But I do know that we need a blue tidal wave to take control of everything we can.

So again, the question is, will Dems show up to vote if Trump isn't on the ballot?

[intrepidity]

1. Good question

But I don't know the answer either.

[appmanga]

2. Democrats had better turnout...

...because Trump is not the only authoritarian, fascist-adjacent Republican running for office. The only guarantee to preserve American democracy is to vote against EVERY Republican running in any race, fro dogcatcher to president. They all must go.

[J_William_Ryan]

3. No one is 'keeping' Trump off of state ballots.

Trump disqualified himself the consequence of his engaging in a treasonous insurrection.

Unlike Republicans, Democrats follow the Constitution and the rule of law.

[SoFlaBro]

36. +1 Perfect. That orange sack of soggy sow shit sucks liquid scat straight through a straw.

[hydrolastic]

43. This

14th amendment article 3 is there for a reason. To keep people out of power that would bend the system to their will.

[TomSlick]

4. Whether or not it is a good idea is not the issue.

The only question is whether the 14th Amendment disqualifies an insurrectionist from holding the office.

[Cyrano]

7. I'm sure the current Supreme Court will find a

loophole to keep the prick on all state ballots, while also ensuring that some future court can't fuck up the 14th Amendment in the same way.

(This is the kind of crap the Republican Supreme Court pulled when they APPOINTED George W. Bush to the presidency.)

[hydrolastic]

44. I keep hearing this...

But I read the 14th amendment article 3 and it is crystal clear. Loophole is not possible. Now its always an issue when the courts haven't done a procedure or paperwork correctly and the person goes free. But you would think that on something this important they would be careful.

[Cyrano]

45. Basically, no one can stop them from doing whatever they want to do.

If this right wing court can't find a legal path to put him on all state ballots, they'll make one up. Who's going to stop them? They have lifetime appointments and no one gets to review or override their decisions.

If Democrats can gain an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate, perhaps they can impeach a couple of Justices, (e.g. Clarence Thomas for "selling" his votes to billionaire friends who have done him favors).

[hydrolastic]

48. The republicans have been obstructing for 50 years now

If we got the overwhelming majority in the house and senate. I hope they don't screw around with impeaching justices. They will have their hands full with a hundred other items that need to be passed like healthcare for everyone and passing the ERA. Then if there is extra time increase the amount of justices and install ethics on them.

[FHRRK]

58. This

Do the right thing always. Live with the consequences.

[Lovie777]

5. Off topic.........................

GQP "let the voters decide"......................

while the GQP are systematically taking away voting rights from American citizens who don't vote for them.

[Tree Lady]

17. and beyond rights they take away democrats

by hundreds of thousands from voting for stupid reasons when most should still be able to vote. This only seems to happen in red states to democrats. We would probably win more elections if people could vote that wanted to.

[Cyrano]

47. If all eligible voters could vote, there would be no Republican Party.

It's why they have to cheat by using gerrymandering, and a variety of voter suppression tactics, to "win."

[doc03]

6. Chances are if he is not taken off the ballot he will be re-elected. nt

[brush]

14. No. Chances are that criminal be be convicted and in jail.

[doc03]

20. No I don't think that will happen. nt

[brush]

21. But you think trump will be elected again?

Ok, then. We all have opinions.

[doc03]

32. Yep with Biden's polls and the others running like RFK Jr. absolutely. It is going to be

very hard for Biden to win. Hopefully he will go to jail but I think that is a long shot.

[brush]

35. The election is a year off so believing polls saying trump...

will win because RFK will take votes from Biden is a bit premature as women are still pissed at trump for snatching away their abortion rights and now bragging about it. RFK Jr, you mean the anti-vaxx creep with the voice like chalk squeaking on a chalkboard?

Pls note that inflation is way down, as are gasoline prices, which continue to fall. Biden infrastructure projects are being funded in red and blue states with thousands of good jobs all over the country.

The 4-time indicted criminal defendant trump will not beat all of the 91, I repeat, 91 felony charges against him.

Suburban soccer moms are scared of him and his anti-democracy, pro-fascist, dictator-wannabe ravings, as are never-trumper republicans, traditional republicans and right and left leaning independents, and pro-democracy voters everywhere.

VP Harris and Joe Biden have signaled they're both about to hit the campaign trail in the new year to talk up Biden's 50-year low unemployment rate and other accomplishments, but please carry on believing those polls about criminal defendant trump beating Biden.

I think I'll pass on believing easily manipulated, right-leaning polls a year from the election.

[doc03]

42. Now I read today Manchin and Romney may run. All of the 3rd, 4th and 5th party

candidates are going to take votes off of Biden. MAGAs are totally loyal to Trump and nothing will change them.

[brush]

50. Yeah sure.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

56. His support has not grown, and he lost even at its peak.

You don't win if you don't expand your base.

It's really that simple.

[Generic Brad]

8. That's like asking if the Constitution is a good idea

He made himself ineligible with his actions. If that is a bad thing, then he has only himself to blame for the situation.

[cloudbase]

9. I don't believe so.

Biden handily defeats Trump.

If the Republican nominee is Haley or Christie, things get dicier.

[yardwork]

10. I don't think it's a good idea.

I know I'm in the minority here in this opinion. I don't think a person should be banned from running unless they've been convicted of the crime of insurrection.

Yes, I know we all believe that Trump is guilty. There's no doubt in my mind that he's guilty, but he hasn't been convicted.

What's to stop Republicans from doing this to us? Look at the ridiculous accusations they make against Biden.

[MichMan]

18. Nothing

There is no definition given in the part of the 14th that says disqualification for "given aid and comforts to the enemies thereof" ?

What enemies ? What constitutes aid and comforts? Is it up to 50 different state elections officials to interpret ?

[dpibel]

24. Slippery slope argument

To answer your question:

What stops rogue application of the insurrection clause is the fact that, as has happened in Colorado and will happen in Maine, these administrative actions are reviewable by courts.

Now you may believe that red state courts will just go along with bogus charges--and you could be right. But if you are, then the rule of law is over. And not because someone enforced Article 3 of the 14th.

Incidentally, statutory and Constitutional language is interpreted all the time. It's not some random thing where decision-makers just pull stuff out of the clear blue. You should read the Colorado Supremes' opinion; you could learn a lot about statutory interpretation.

[MichMan]

27. Why have other states interpreted it differently?

Michigan, California, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Arizona among others. So it isn't as clear cut as it is made out to be if every state has a different interpretation. Even Colorado's decision was 4-3.

The poster I replied to said "What's to stop Republicans from doing this to us? Look at the ridiculous accusations they make against Biden." My response was nothing is stopping them.

Your reply ; "Now you may believe that red state courts will just go along with bogus charges--and you could be right. But if you are, then the rule of law is over. And not because someone enforced Article 3 of the 14th." That concedes that a red state court could rule against President Biden being on a ballot. If they did, it would have just as much weight legally regarding that state's ballot, as does the rulings in the blue state courts that ruled against Trump.

[dpibel]

30. Again, you are declaring the rule of law dead

Last edited Sat Dec 30, 2023, 09:47 PM - Edit history (1)

If you believe that the courts, at every level, are purely political, then, indeed, all is lost.

And I don't necessarily disagree with you, given the direction of the current Supreme Court.

But if that's the argument, then let's make it plainly.

Put another way: The reason there is not already a flood of frivolous civil and criminal matters pending against Joe Biden is not that there's no motivation for it. It's that people still understand that the courts are pretty good at handling frivolous matters. People like Kenneth Cheseboro and Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani are discovering that pretty clearly.

So the reason that applying the DQ part of the 14th to Trump does not open the floodgates is that it's not a random, single trier of fact who gets the final say. The decisions are subject to review, and they are being reviewed. The same would happen with "Joe Biden is off the ballot cuz immigrants." As for which decision is likely to hold up on review, I'm gonna put my money on Trump the insurrectionist.

[TheKentuckian]

23. I agree. He is guilty as hell in my estimation but

believe a step is being skipped.

Otherwise, the direction leads to lawfare chaos.

This happened within our framework. No uniforms were put on. No allegiance publicly sworn. No letters of succession signed.

Nor is it a civil matter, a coup is criminal and must be addressed as such.

[dpibel]

25. DQ for the ballot is, however, not criminal

This is not a case where poor Mr. Trump is about to be jailed or fined without due process of law or a finding of guilt by a jury of his peers.

This is not a question of addressing the criminality of a coup. It is a question of whether a person engaged in insurrection. If the answer to that is yes (and, contrary to a great deal of DU legal authority, that finding does not require a jury), then the person is disqualified from sitting as president. That is not a criminal sanction. Hence, this is not a criminal proceeding.

[tritsofme]

40. I just don't understand why folks as yourself talk with such certainty

Over an issue that is completely untested in the court system. It’s not just some simple routine requirement to be applied; outside of the the Civil War era, its application is nearly unprecedented.

I tend to have a hard time believing Roberts will not be able to write a consensus opinion that is near if not unanimous and keeps Trump on the ballot.

[dpibel]

53. My only certainty is that it's not a criminal matter

I can see how you could read what I wrote as expressing certainty as to the ultimate outcome.

That I do not have. I am entirely in agreement with you that this Supreme Court is very likely to figure out some way to weasel out of it.

I was simply addressing the poster's statement that this has to be handled as a criminal matter. It just plain isn't.

[dsc]

26. I also don't like the idea of not requiring a conviction

but the 14th Amendment doesn't and for frankly understandable reasons. It was ratified in June of 1868, while Andrew Johnson was still in office and not prosecuting any Confederates. He also was known to be considering an amnesty, which he followed through on, in December of 1868. They knew that prosecutions were very unlikely to occur so they couldn't require convictions. I don't think banning Trump is a good idea but if one is an originalist in regards to the Constituion, then I don't see how one doesn't think Trump should be banned. They clearly didn't require a conviction or even charge of insurrection or anything else. Trump clearly engaged in conduct that fits the definition of insurrection both then and now. But that said, I do agree with your point about misuse and I also tend to be very opposed to limits on whom voters can vote for. I don't think the 22nd amendment was a good idea, I oppose term limits for Congress, and don't think this qualification is a wise idea either, but in the final analysis my opinion on all of those is irrelevant. The clear words of the constituion are and they favor the first one, oppose the 2nd, and favor the third.

[SWBTATTReg]

11. The 14th Amendment is there for a reason. Each state also probably has their own '14th Amendment' too, so

the powers that be, will argue and fight over this, even into the Courts until on and after Election Day, 2024.

To me, this is a moot question as I think the focus has swung away from tRUMP and is now starting to point at other candidates, not tRUMP. The voters are starting to speak out, voters in primaries and it's not looking good for tRUMP. I guess the voters are getting sick and tired of the constant drama w/ tRUMP and his trash talk.

[Polybius]

12. Depends how you look at it

I personally think that Trump will be the easiest for Biden to beat. If we take him off and it's Haley, we risk losing 2024 and 2028, since an incumbent losing three Presidential elections in a row in modern times would be unheard of. But at least she won't try to be dictator.

I still say go against Trump. It's a gamble, but at least we win. Probably.

[brush]

13. According to the Constitution, he's ineligible. So yes.

[Ponietz]

15. Does it make it more difficult for Stanky to regain power?

Then, yes, it’s a good idea.

[LiberalFighter]

16. The message should be...

to the voters. Go and vote and show that we have the numbers. Show that even if he was on the ballot he would have lost.

Instead of him losing by 3 million in 2016 and by 7 million in 2020. It will be more in 2024. Ten or more million.

And if they complain that it was because he wasn't on the ticket. Tell them that he killed off his supporters during Covid.

[RandomNumbers]

19. I think it's bad strategy but correct morally.

So a bit of a tough spot.

I have NO problem with him being on a Republican primary ballot - especially if I think we would win the case that he isn't eligible to actually hold the office.

But if the state SOS / Election Board is supposed to only allow candidates who are eligible to hold the office they're running for, then if they believe he is ineligible then they have a duty to disallow him to appear on the ballot.

I think it's bad strategy for reasons you cite. I think Trump is one of the worst candidates they could nominate. Although he would draw a big vote from his true believers (what is wrong with America???) and we would still have to work hard. But ultimately there are people who will stay home rather than vote for him, or would even vote for Biden. Put a more normal white man on the ticket who gives them their talking points, those defectors will go and vote for them.

[Emile]

22. Our constitution demands it!

[DemocratInPa]

28. Only will be a matter of time before..

Red States take Biden off the Ballot.

[Emile]

39. What part of the Constitution did President Biden violate?

[BlueTsunami2018]

29. Not as I see it.

President Biden will beat him. I don’t have confidence he’d beat Haley or any of the other Republicans except maybe DeSantis and even that is really iffy.

[LeftInTX]

31. The 14th amendment does not say anything about ballots

It just states they can't hold office. In other cases, it was used to kick people out of congress who were already elected. One guy was kicked out and ran in the special election to replace himself. They did not kick him off the ballot. When he won, they kicked him out of congress again, they way they kicked out George Santos.

[doc03]

33. WTF do we even have a Constitution?

[Raven123]

34. Trump relies on not being held accountable. I'd prefer we not assist him

[MistakenLamb]

37. Dems have had significant victories in elections ever since 2016, and Trump has only been on the ballot once since then

So yes Democrats will show up next November regardless if that traitorous scumbag fascist wannabe dictator is on their states ballot or not. The House matters, The Senate matters, local and state elections matter. Most Democrats finally realize what Republicans have for 50 plus years now

[uponit7771]

38. Democrats will run FOR reproduction rights that will crush MAGA

[Cyrano]

49. Hopefully, this one issue will crush the Republicans in this year's elections.

[Voltaire2]

41. Of course it is. It's required by the 14th.

A person who attempted to overthrow an election is an existential danger to our system. He and his fellow insurrectionists should all be in prison and barred forever from holding any public office. Not only is it a good idea, it is the law.

[kentuck]

46. If the Courts say he was engaged in the insurrection...

Then it is not the Democrats taking him off the ballots, it is the Constitution.

[ecstatic]

51. If we want to guarantee turn out, tiny D would have to be on the ballot

Tiny D has angered and alienated so many people. Trumpers hate him too, so they'll stay home.

Just to clarify, I do not want trump on the ballot. It's too risky and we can't go through that again.

[tazkcmo]

52. Yes. nt

[Ocelot II]

54. The tricky part is the procedural one.

The argument that the 14th Amendment par. 3 is self-executing and doesn't require a criminal conviction is pretty persuasive, but even if SCOTUS accepts that part, the sticky wicket has to do with how it's implemented. In Colorado there was an actual trial and a court decision on the issue of whether TFG had "engaged in insurrection or rebellion ... or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." In Maine, the Secretary of State came to the same conclusion. In my state, Minnesota, the supreme court held that under state law only the political parties, not the courts, could decide who could be on their primary ballots, but left the issue open as to the general election. I think Michigan came to the same conclusion. CA says he can be on the ballot. So, where does that leave us? Even if SCOTUS affirms the Colorado case, the Constitution leaves the administration of elections to the states, so can they or would they say that case applies to all the states? I think the result is going to be messy and controversial no matter what it is. Or would they just deny cert, let the Colorado case stand, and hear each state's case individually? And what if the cases can't be decided before the election? This could be a real legal goat-fuck.

[Bev54]

55. Doesn't matter if it is a good or bad idea, it is written in the constitution so it is

the right and lawful thing to do.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

57. It TFG is not on the ballot, then a good number of his supporters will stay home

Link to tweet

Link to tweet