January 5, 20241 yr 33 minutes ago, vikas83 said: What they should do, what is Constitutional, is say -- states can not disqualify Trump from the ballot using the 14th Amendment, and if he meets all the other requirements the states have to be on the ballot, then he's on the ballot. Section 3 says "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...." So he can't HOLD the office. Doesn't mean he can't run for it. If I were on SCOTUS, I'd say this argument isn't ripe because no one is trying to make Trump the President, yet. I'd reserve the right to revisit the issue if he is elected. So basically...take the risk if you want GOP. If Trump were to win, and then be found ineligible, the person elected Vice President would be the President (I believe, but this is another quagmire). But there's no reason electors can't throw their vote away voting for someone who is ineligible. Ok, let's play this scenario out and assume Trump actually wins the election. In a nutshell, this approach then just kicks the question down the road so we end up with SCOTUS stepping in after the election to determine if the elected POTUS can actually hold office. This would be the moment they would have to address whether or not Trump did indeed render himself ineligible based on the 14th. We would then have a debate between those that strictly interpret the Constitution and those that want to "translate" the words and we might see some flip flopping of opinion among the justices from their normal positions on this topic. We end up with Trump as POTUS or Trump's VP as POTUS. That all puts us right back to the need to beat Trump at the polls and then be able to fend off his claims of rigged elections, etc.
January 5, 20241 yr 20 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: What's crazy about that scenario (aside from, well basically everything), is that you're saying the VP is running for President. Which means Trump is personally choosing the nominee. I really wonder what that does to his decision making. He doesn't care even a little bit about the Republican Party so it would have nothing to do with elect-ability. It would still be about loyalty of course, since he would really, really need this person to pardon him, but since he wouldn't ever be President, it would need to be 100% an extension of himself. I actually think in this scenario, he'd choose Don Jr. Trump isn't nearly smart enough to see this coming. Also, Don Jr. might be disqualified on the same criteria 1. Nikki Haley drops out, endorses Trump, agrees to be his running mate 2. Trump/Haley win 3. After he is made President-Elect by the Senate, a group sues saying he is ineligible. Haley publicly backs Trump while privately supporting the lawsuit 4. Trump is disqualified 5. Nikki Haley is the 47th President Now that's how you play politics.
January 5, 20241 yr 23 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: What's crazy about that scenario (aside from, well basically everything), is that you're saying the VP is running for President. Which means Trump is personally choosing the nominee. I really wonder what that does to his decision making. He doesn't care even a little bit about the Republican Party so it would have nothing to do with elect-ability. It would still be about loyalty of course, since he would really, really need this person to pardon him, but since he wouldn't ever be President, it would need to be 100% an extension of himself. I actually think in this scenario, he'd choose Don Jr. Trump will never believe SOCTUS will disqualify him
January 5, 20241 yr 51 minutes ago, vikas83 said: So, this remains just an incredibly interesting Constitutional question which really requires going to the language. Let's start with -- @Dave Moss is correct that the Constitution leaves the administration of elections to the states per Article IV. Now clearly, that is for the election of Representatives and Senators, but Article II says "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." But it doesn't end there for a couple of reasons. First, the SCOTUS ruled in 1995 (U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton) that states can administer elections and safeguard integrity, but "[T]he Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints." So, this was about trying to enforce term limits, or note candidates that didn't favor term limits. But the words "favor or disfavor a class of candidates" is interesting. Second, of course, is the 14th Amendment itself. No, the amendment does not require conviction, simply for one to have "engaged in insurrection" after " having previously taken an oath...or as an officer of the United States...to support the Constitution of the United States." So did Trump engage in insurrection, and was he an Officer of the United States that had taken an oath to support the Constitution? The second test is self-evident -- he took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution live on TV. The argument the President isn't an officer of the US is idiotic. The first -- what does "engage in insurrection" mean is the crux of this -- Colorado has said he did, but Trump argues we wasn't afforded due process to defend himself. The 14th amendment states " nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and the 5th Amendment says "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Well, no one is depriving Trump of life or property, obviously. Liberty? No one is putting him in jail. Does restricting his right to run for President deprive him of "liberty"? I would say not as the word was understood at the time. So...if I were Colorado, I'd argue that Trump is not Constitutionally granted due process here. So basically, we are left with this going to SOCTUS as the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional questions. There's a few ways they can go. They could conclusively rule that Trump did not "engage in insurrection" and therefore must be eligible in all 50 states -- I think there is almost ZERO chance of them doing that because they frankly lack the evidence and testimony. They could rule that states have the right over elections to disqualify Trump on a state by state basis -- I think there is ZERO chance of this, as the 1995 decision is easy enough to fall back on here. They could do what I said previously and say he is auto disqualified if convicted in the Jan 6 trial, but I don't think they do that. What they should do, what is Constitutional, is say -- states can not disqualify Trump from the ballot using the 14th Amendment, and if he meets all the other requirements the states have to be on the ballot, then he's on the ballot. Section 3 says "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...." So he can't HOLD the office. Doesn't mean he can't run for it. If I were on SCOTUS, I'd say this argument isn't ripe because no one is trying to make Trump the President, yet. I'd reserve the right to revisit the issue if he is elected. So basically...take the risk if you want GOP. If Trump were to win, and then be found ineligible, the person elected Vice President would be the President (I believe, but this is another quagmire). But there's no reason electors can't throw their vote away voting for someone who is ineligible. I find it more interesting (and horrifying) because (I know I've mentioned this before) that I think there's a real possibility he gets back in the Whitehouse in 2025. If that were to happen he definitely runs again in 2028 and this all plays out again. In both cases I think he prevails. He stays on the ballot in 2024 and in 2028. Trump apologists will bend over backwards explaining how an 82 year old senile insane Trump going for a 3rd term is a great thing for America. By then he will have been such a disaster, he'd have no prayer of winning a legitimate election in 2028. It will either be completely rigged Putin style with Fox News reporting Trump beats Newsome (or whomever) with 96% of the popular vote.... or we have a real election, he loses, and refuses to turn over power...again, but succeeds in remaining in office.
January 5, 20241 yr 42 minutes ago, vikas83 said: The first -- what does "engage in insurrection" mean is the crux of this -- Colorado has said he did, but Trump argues we wasn't afforded due process to defend himself. The 14th amendment states " nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and the 5th Amendment says "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Well, no one is depriving Trump of life or property, obviously. Liberty? No one is putting him in jail. Does restricting his right to run for President deprive him of "liberty"? I would say not as the word was understood at the time. So...if I were Colorado, I'd argue that Trump is not Constitutionally granted due process here. I would argue the due process claim is hogwash. He was represented in the Colorado District Court proceeding by his attorneys, and Judge Wallace ruled Trump did engage in insurrection but the 14th Amendment didn't specifically name President under Section 3. This was a judgment "in fact" that Trump engaged in insurrection. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed Wallace's ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection "in fact", but overruled Wallace and found that Section 3 does include the office of President. The Secretary of State in Maine also held a hearing before making her determination; Trump and his attorneys were given opportunity to attend that hearing as well. Trump has been given crap-tonnes of due process; a lot more than you or I would get. SCOTUS is supposed to put a lot of weight on factual findings and rarely overturn them -- because the judge who makes the factual ruling is the only one who personally oversaw witness testimony, cross examination, etc. There were 8 witnesses who testified -- 2 police officers, one Representative of Congress, 2 law professors, a sociology professor, a deputy elections director, and the Chief Investigative Counsel on the January 6 committee. Trump and his lawyers also called 7 witnesses. Plenty of due process.
January 5, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, vikas83 said: They could rule that states have the right over elections to disqualify Trump on a state by state basis - This is where I think they'll land. But I'd have to read up a bit more on this term limits case you cite. Not that this SCOTUS has held prior precedent in the highest of regards for other cases they've heard.
January 5, 20241 yr 33 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Trump isn't nearly smart enough to see this coming. Also, Don Jr. might be disqualified on the same criteria 1. Nikki Haley drops out, endorses Trump, agrees to be his running mate 2. Trump/Haley win 3. After he is made President-Elect by the Senate, a group sues saying he is ineligible. Haley publicly backs Trump while privately supporting the lawsuit 4. Trump is disqualified 5. Nikki Haley is the 47th President Now that's how you play politics. Or maybe he goes with DonJr and then we end up with Mike Johnson
January 5, 20241 yr Something, something... false prophet. Trump puts out a BIG NEON SIGN and those evangelicals still can't see it.
January 5, 20241 yr 37 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Or maybe he goes with DonJr and then we end up with Mike Johnson That assumes the GOP keeps the house and re-elects Johnson as speaker. Going down this rabbit hole is fun.
January 5, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, vikas83 said: Going down this rabbit hole is fun. No, it's not. Stop it! LOL I am interested to see how this plays out. Wonder what he'll do when he doesn't get the nomination. If that happens. I sure hope it does.
January 5, 20241 yr 19 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: He doesn't really come in sheep's clothing now does he? Wool suit?
January 5, 20241 yr 31 minutes ago, Toastrel said: Let's go live to WV where Mike331mt has just finished watching this ad:
January 5, 20241 yr 42 minutes ago, vikas83 said: February 8th oral arguments Is "look at him" an argument? Should be all that's required to secure an affirmation from SCOTUS
January 5, 20241 yr 2 hours ago, Toastrel said: Dude stayed in bed and watched fox and friends all morning instead of working, then rage tweeted most of the evening. Part time worker at absolute best.
Create an account or sign in to comment