And this folks, is why voting in November is IMPERATIVE. Don’t listen to the right-wing propaganda-spreading accounts here that post all day about how you should not vote because both parties are bad for America.
They KNOW you’re not voting for Trump and they KNOW you cannot be persuaded to- so the next best thing is for them to bullshit you into not voting at all- which in the end- will still help Trump win America.
If you think conservatives judges denying us our right to ban a “man” from running because of an attempted overthrowing of our government- denying us AFTER we went through due process to arrive at a legal decision to-
Just wait until the someone even worse than them has the authority to pass laws.
Do the right thing and vote.
It’s so wild that the ‘but the people have democratic rights to choose among candidates’ crowd invoke that argument to make the candidate that’s promised to end democracy and rights one of the options they can vote for
You know, because democracy
Also it occurs to me that there are other factors that disqualify candidates from being president- the bit about being 35 or older means AOC can’t be president right now and the bit about being a natural-born citizen disqualifies Schwarzenegger and isn’t it interesting that the court hasn’t taken up the issue on how that denies voters their democratic rights? I mean, when you want to understand how to apply the constitution as it pertains to who may not serve in office, don’t you want to consider all the disqualifiers and their mechanisms?
If you’re under 35 or foreign-born, it doesn’t take an act of congress to bar you from office, those things are the law and already in the constitution with plain wording. A plain reading of sec 3 of the 14th amendment basically reads as if the authors of the amendment intended it to take an act of congress (with 2/3rds majorities, in both houses) to allow an insurrectionist that previously took an oath of office to serve again, but the court magically inverted that by asserting the only congress could invoke section 3
Nope, this is the court bending over backwards to deliver a political outcome
Tenth Amendment: “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.”
Right, and per the opinion, Amendment 14 sections 3 and 5 specifically take rights away from the States to delegate for the federal government.
deleted by creator
Time to violently storm the Supreme Court, then. After all, they approve.
This is a shit take. This ruling is not saying “Trump did nothing wrong”, this is specifically saying “States cannot unilaterally decide to remove federal election candidates from ballots”, which I completely agree with. As others have noted, it would open the doors to so much bullshit if this were allowed.
The SC could come out tomorrow and say “We’re disqualifying Trump”, this doesn’t preclude that.
States have always had that power. Whether its age, naturalization, or oath-breaking, it’s never been up to the federal government to decide disqualification.
it’s never been up to the federal government to decide disqualification.
It’s up to Congress to decide if someone is guilty of federal insurrection, not the states.
Edit: I see the downvotes, but I don’t see replies. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate, but it’s as bad as r/politics where anything regarding the orange man is concerned.
On the contrary, Congress is expressly forbidden from deciding whether someone is guilty of a crime.
IMPEACHMENT has entered the chat.
Impeachment is expressly not a criminal procedure. It can’t result in prison or fines, nor can it can’t be pardoned by the President.
But it is the process by which a candidate can be removed from the ballot.
So if you want to go with Trump is criminally guilty of insurrection, and therefore ineligible to be on the ballot, when and where was the trial?
States remove federal election candidates for eligibility reasons all the time. Trump is yet again getting special treatment.
[citation needed]
List one federal candidate a state successfully removed (that wasn’t convicted in a federal court, or died before the election.)
Edit: I see the downvotes, but I don’t see a name. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate, but it’s as bad as r/politics where anything regarding the orange man is concerned.
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020
Every state has a different number of candidates on their ballot, because every state has different requirements to be on their ballot. Is this ruling going to require every state to accept every candidate? Even those with no chance of winning? Who should decide when someone has no chance of winning? (Silly question, it’s the state, of course.)
States are generally free to decide their own candidates for State level elections.
Federal elections are subject to Federal law and the Federal Constitution. A State just deciding someone is disqualified based on their interpretation is both unconstitutional and incredibly stupid. It was always going to SCOTUS and it was always going to be decided this way.
Me, I don’t want to live in a country where ANY level of government can just decide you are guilty of something without due process. And that’s what these states tried to do. The mad downvoters lack critical thinking ability and are going off emotion.
deleted by creator
I’m neither a Constitutional scholar nor a lawyer. I’ll go with Marbury v Madison as who gets to decide those finer points.
And they decided 9-0.
Is this ruling going to require every state to accept every candidate? Even those with no chance of winning?
Only those thrown off the ballot using section 3 of the 14th amendment. Ballot access requirements in general have been before the court many times before and upheld generally, while some have been struck down when excessive or discriminatory.
It’s legal to say something like all candidates must get signatures equal to 3% of the number of voters for the office in the last election in order to be on the ballot. It’s illegal to say something like black candidates must get signatures of 15% of voters.
Funny. Have you read the ruling? They absolutely do not stop at section 3 of the 14th. They are over turning 200 plus years of precedent in which states disqualified ineligible candidates.
They opine that there is no bar to campaigning, just holding office. And that any disqualification must therefore come after the election, via a federal law or congressional framework.
Which is fucking ridiculous.
Have you read the ruling? It actually states there was no precedent of its use as applied here, and was in violation of precedents such as prohibitions against congressional term limits. Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
