Maine's top election official removes Trump from 2024 primary ballot

[swag]

Source: CNN

Godofredo A. Vsquez/AP
CNN
--
Maine's top election official has removed former President Donald Trump from the state's 2024 ballot, in a surprising decision based on the 14th Amendment's "insurrectionist ban."

The decision makes Maine the second state to disqualify Trump from office, after the Colorado Supreme Court handed down its own stunning ruling that removed him from the ballot earlier this month. The development is a significant victory for Trump's critics, who say they're trying to enforce a constitutional provision that was designed to protect the country from anti-democratic insurrectionists.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, issued the decision Thursday after presiding over an administrative hearing earlier this month about Trump's eligibility for office. A bipartisan group of former state lawmakers filed the challenge against Trump.

Bellows' decision can be appealed in state court, and it's all but assured that Trump's side will challenge this outcome.


Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics/trump-maine-14th-amendment-ballot/index.html

[onecaliberal]

1. K&R

[BumRushDaShow]

2. They are updated now!

(saw an ABC breaking too)

[malthaussen]

3. He won't get removed from the states he was going to win anyway...

... but if they take him off in a few swing states, that could be significant.

-- Mal

[republianmushroom]

4. This will sure upset Ms Collins.

[OAITW r.2.0]

5. Good for my State.

At some point, will the SCOTUS have to decide if the events of 1/6/21 meet the definition of Insurrection? Without such a declaration, seems like we are inviting Trump to claim that no such act occurred.

[FBaggins]

10. No. SCOTUS doesn't have to decide whether or not it was an insurrection

They could... but they don't have to (and that usually means that they won't).

They could simply rule that he would have to be convicted of the crime in order to be punished for it. And there's nowhere near enough time for that to happen (since he hasn't been charged with it at this point).

[speak easy]

21. Was Jefferson Davis convicted of a crime?

The whole point of 14(3) was that they did not have to be convicted.

[Silent Type]

26. By affiliation with the CSA, they were deemed insurrectionists. I think SC

will rule some designated officials, courts, jury, Congress (in future), etc., must decide what constitutes insurrection, assuming SC gets pushed into a decision.

With that said, it would be gawd’s will if he is removed/barred..

[SlimJimmy]

32. +According to section 5 of the 14th amendment, section 3 is only enforceable if Congress acts.

[speak easy]

36. "only enforceable if Congress acts" Not so.

While there is authority holding that Section Three is not self-enforcing in an area under federal jurisdiction (for instance, in the District of Columbia), states did enforce Section Three on their own during Reconstruction and can do so again.

https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/enforcing-the-14th-amendments-bar-on-insurrectionist-officers-and-candidates/

"The whole point of 14(3) was that they did not have to be convicted."

"The constitutional provision says nothing about convictions," Conway said. "It could easily when they wrote that provision say someone convicted of insurrection cannot hold public office. It does not say that, so that means the courts are free to determine on their own, based upon the valid judicial processes, what is an insurrection and whether the facts meet that, and what happened here [in Colorado] was there was a five-day trial where he got to participate and the judge made extensive findings [of fact - that Trump engaged in insurrection].

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/skeptical-george-conway-now-completely-sold-on-colorado-ruling-its-strong-evidence/ar-AA1lMW4e

[SlimJimmy]

40. Section 5 addresses enforcement. Why is DU ignoring this?

[SlimJimmy]

44. And the whole point of section 5,as it relates to section 3, requires a conviction

since a criminal penalty (prison time) is a possible punishment.

[speak easy]

45. ... because Jefferson Davis was convicted, right?

[SlimJimmy]

46. Was the law in effect at that time?

Once Congress passed the legislation, and it became law, it also became the means to legally enforce section 3 of the amendment. But being so smart, I'm sure you already knew that. No sarcasm.

[speak easy]

48. THE 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868.

Jefferson Davis was never charged nor convicted of any crime.

Confederate officers / grunts were pardoned on Dec. 25, 1868. The 14th Amendment kept them out of office - without a criminal conviction.

[SlimJimmy]

49. There was no 14th amendment (no section 3 or 5) Jefferson davis was

not convicted or charged under section 5 of the 14th amendment because there was no amendment at the time.

But this 1862 bill was enacted before the 1868 ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, Congress could not have enacted this law based on its authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress would have to rely on the Constitution of 1788. And, as explained, the original Constitution did not permit Congress to add additional qualifications for elected positions.

[SlimJimmy]

50. That's right. Because the 14th didnt exist then. But it does now.

And there is controlling federal law in section 5 that acts as the enforcement of section 3.

[speak easy]

52. This is ridiculous..

Last edited Sun Jan 7, 2024, 01:29 AM - Edit history (1)

You do need legislation for enforce civil rights. You do not need legislation to find an individual is disqualified from running for Federal Office.

Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that sense, self-executing.
Anderson v Griswold 2023 CO 63

[SlimJimmy]

51. The 14th didn't exist then.

[FBaggins]

35. He was the elected president of the Confederacy

There were formal declarations of secession with signatures

The whole point of 14(3) was that they did not have to be convicted.

Oh! That must be why it explicitly says that Congress shall have the power to craft implementing legislation and why Congress then went on to amend the Insurrection Act. I must have missed the "except for section III that is self-explanatory" part.

[Polybius]

41. With Davis, it was super clear-cut though

He was President of the country that broke free of the US, of course he was an insurrectionist.

[SlimJimmy]

31. The USSC doesn't decide if there was an insurrection or not. Neither do the various states.

Section 3 of the 14th amendment is very specific. Why does DU not get this?

Section 5 of the 14th amendment spells it out very clearly. Congress must act to make section 3 enforceable.

"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Congress did act by passing this law ...

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

6. BREAKING: Maine Secretary of State rules Trump is ineligible to appear on 2024 ballot.

Link to tweet

[LiberalFighter]

7. Maine does not allot all electoral votes to person getting majority in the state.

In 2020, Biden received 3 and Trump received 1.

[tinrobot]

8. So... Trump's Maine campaign may be in vain?

[BWdem4life]

30. Insane.

In the same vein, the 14th amendment may be the bane of his campaign.

[Novara]

9. Wheeeeeeeeeeee!

[Farmgirl1961]

11. Two down....48 to go!

Yes, I do realize that that's NOT going to happen...but it sure is fun to contemplate!

[VMA131Marine]

27. We don't need 48 more ...

Just Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Get Trump off the ballot in those states and he has no path to victory.

[SlimJimmy]

47. Fun? You think this is a game? Are you okay with the Repukes doing the same thing to us?

They can say that President Biden is part of an insurrection on the border by allowing nearly 8 million migrants in. It doesn't have to be true, just alleged, and he can be removed from the ballot by any conservative Secretary of State. Only one thing stops it. Section 5 legislation (now a federal law) requires charges and a conviction under federal law to enforce section 3.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

12. Maine's top election official disqualifies Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot on 14th amendment grounds.

Link to tweet

[DJ Porkchop]

13. Electorally disgorged.

Uncandidated.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

14. Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NNadir]

15. CNN is calling the Colorado ruling "stunning." It isn't "stunning." It simply refers to what the amendment says.

CNN is behaving rather as it did when Wolf Blitzer carried on breathlessly about "Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction."

They're a bullshit machine.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

17. Did they ever acknowledge WMD meant Words of Mass Deception?

There could be 'reporters' still looking.

[SlimJimmy]

33. No, it doesn't

It simply refers to what the amendment says.

I'm really trying, as hard as I can, to get DU to take a step back here. Section 5, which refers directly to section 3, states very specifically that Congress must act to make Section 3 enforceable.

Why are we ignoring this part?

[NNadir]

34. The word "must" does not appear in section 5 of the 14th amendment.

Here's what it says in section 5:

Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

There is no statement that any organization must do anything, nor does it say that no other power is precluded from enforcing what is clearly stated in section 3.

Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Congress may vote but Congress is not required to do anything, even to hold a vote on the subject.

[SlimJimmy]

39. Bottom line

Congress may vote but Congress is not required to do anything, even to hold a vote on the subject.

Whether they were required to or not, they did act and passed legislation that addresses the enforcement of section 3. What part of this does DU not get?

[getagrip_already]

16. C'mon scotus. Give us a ruling across all 50 states....

Either way, on all the ballots or off all of them, make it apply everywhere.

The risk in having him off some states that biden would win anyway is that without stinky on the ballot, another candidate might squeeze out a win if some of our voters stay home and some decide "what the hell, it doesn't matter anyway" and vote for someone else.

The issue being is biden still needs to get 270 electoral votes or it goes to the house, which goes to the gop because of how electors get selected.

[DemocraticPatriot]

23. *Maybe* the SC will not like the SMELL of this case....

hahahhahaahhaha

They could decline to accept it, after all....


"State's Rights" and all that.....

[getagrip_already]

37. They will absolutely take it.....

If there was ever a case that was designed to be taken up by scotus, this is it.

It revolves around a core constitutional issue, which is being interpreted differently by different courts, and which will directly impact the upcoming presidential elections.

They will feel compelled to resolve this quickly. Especially now that CO, MI, and ME have all ruled.

The only question is will they whiff and say he can't be removed for reasons, or do what the constitution demands for its preservation.

Tick tock.

[ffr]

18. BECAUSE he is not qualified to hold the office of the President under sect 3 of 14th Amendment.

"I find that the declaration on this candidate consent form is false because he is not qualified to hold the office of the President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment."

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. Do we really want a single person to have the power to disqualify *any* candidate? Nt

[DemocraticPatriot]

24. Which 'single person' are you referring to, here ?

[VMA131Marine]

28. It's not a single person ...

There are avenues to appeal the ruling.

[getagrip_already]

38. They stayed the ruling pending review by the courts....

So it is not a single person, nor is it even a single court.

Look, the gop will weoponize parking tickets if they can. It's not a reason not to issue them.

Yes, the asshole in tx can do this to biden, and it might survive the federal circuit in tx, but it won't survive scotus. They won't buy whatever crap paxton comes up with is an insurrection.

F him.

[FakeNoose]

19. Susan Collins must be so "concerned"!!!

[SouthernDem4ever]

25. She was bitching on xitter that the people of Maine should be able to choose for themselves

which only proves to me that she might be planning on being an insurrectionist sometime in the future.

[Orrex]

22. Has Clarence Thomas summarily overturned this by fiat yet?

[FBaggins]

42. It would have to be Gorsuch

Thomas is responsible for the 11th circuit. Colorado is in the 10th.

[Orrex]

43. I stand corrected. I had my circuits crossed.