Colorado SC just disqualified Trump from the ballot using the Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 of the Constitution

Page 24 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,142
10,039
136
The problem there is that the first thing the incoming ineligible President is going to do is replace the AG and anyone else who would implement the law.

So would it come down to whoever got their ruling in first? The AG sitting ready to go as Trump is sworn in, then the instant the swearing-in is over, racing to declare he's ineligible to _hold_ the office, while Trump tries to fire him before he can finish speaking? Whoever gets their words out first, wins?
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,290
32,790
136
We are being setup for the argument “ because of a time crunch just let Trump slide”.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,243
136
Can't believe I'm posting this first as the story is a couple hours old. Maine's secretary of state just removed Trump from the ballot. Because of 14aS3.


It should be mentioned that Trump won one electoral vote there in 2020, and IIRC also 2016, because they split their electoral votes by Congressional district and award them separately, and their second Congressional district usually goes to GOP these days.

Now they just have to dump him in MI, WI, GA, PA and AZ.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,631
15,820
146
Can't believe I'm posting this first as the story is a couple hours old. Maine's secretary of state just removed Trump from the ballot. Because of 14aS3.


It should be mentioned that Trump won one electoral vote there in 2020, and IIRC also 2016, because they split their electoral votes by Congressional district and award them separately, and their second Congressional district usually goes to GOP these days.
Wonder if more states start to fall in behind Colorado and now Maine will SCOTUS realize they can’t wait and will need to Calvinball a ruling sooner rather than later.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,733
6,757
126
Wonder if more states start to fall in behind Colorado and now Maine will SCOTUS realize they can’t wait and will need to Calvinball a ruling sooner rather than later.
First thing that crossed my mind. The more the states block his candidacy, the more awkward a reversal becomes. I still expect 9,0 or they pass on a ruling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris

Dave_5k

Platinum Member
May 23, 2017
2,007
3,820
136
First thing that crossed my mind. The more the states block his candidacy, the more awkward a reversal becomes. I still expect 9,0 or they pass on a ruling.
Interesting point, the Supreme Court really does threaten its own legitimacy if it Calvinballs yet another partisan split decision critical to a presidential election. And a couple of the conservative judges pretend to still care about the appearance of the court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,243
136
Just read the Maine SoS's decision, which is here. She had a full evidentiary hearing on it, with Trump's lawyers being present. What I found amusing was that, in addition to the 14A argument which prevailed, one of the petitioners made a rather clever argument. He claimed that Trump is barred under 22A because it says "no President shall be elected more than twice" and since Trump claims he won in 2020, he can't run again. The SoS of course rejected the argument, saying that he has to actually be elected twice, not just falsely claim he was because...of course. It's still funny though.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,733
6,757
126
Interesting point, the Supreme Court really does threaten its own legitimacy if it Calvinballs yet another partisan split decision critical to a presidential election. And a couple of the conservative judges pretend to still care about the appearance of the court.
Not to mention that anybody with a functioning brain should know that an authoritarian like Trump would not permit any court to have the power to overrule his decisions.
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,866
3,297
136
Wonder if more states start to fall in behind Colorado and now Maine will SCOTUS realize they can’t wait and will need to Calvinball a ruling sooner rather than later.

Lawsuits to remove Trump from the ballot are pending in 14 states: Arizona, Alaska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
 

Amol S.

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,577
780
136
Alaska could be next. No joke, people in a red state is actually thinking of taking Trump off the ballot.

 
  • Like
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,243
136
Alaska could be next. No joke, people in a red state is actually thinking of taking Trump off the ballot.


According to the article's content, this does not seem like it will pan out.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
12,032
1,131
126
Even if the SC overrules this with something not straightforward, I think these cases will bring doubt in the minds of those in middle on if Trump should be President. The arguments being put forth and the counter-arrangements are making their rounds on many forums and you can see the anti-Trump ones are more coherent and likely to resonate with those that aren't already pro-Trump. So even if these cases ultimately fails, they might help in the election after all.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,631
15,820
146
LU1nP1r.jpeg

2024 starting early.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,631
15,820
146
Texas should disquallify Biden from the ballot for supporting abortion ( a shot term for "baby murder" made by Democrats so that other Democrats don't know what abortion really means).
Oh bless your heart. You conservatives abort more fetuses than all of planned parenthood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
39,749
20,323
146
Texas should disquallify Biden from the ballot for supporting abortion ( a shot term for "baby murder" made by Democrats so that other Democrats don't know what abortion really means).

Is that in the constitution? Because for this to be a serious comparison, then it should be like for like.

What conservatives seem to be doing is ignoring the constitution to protect their feels again. It’s not surprising, but still that’s what is happening
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,935
55,287
136
Is that in the constitution? Because for this to be a serious comparison, then it should be like for like.

What conservatives seem to be doing is ignoring the constitution to protect their feels again. It’s not surprising, but still that’s what is happening
This is basic personal responsibility. If you want to be eligible to be president don’t engage in insurrection.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,305
47,478
136
Texas should disquallify Biden from the ballot for supporting abortion ( a shot term for "baby murder" made by Democrats so that other Democrats don't know what abortion really means).


Yeah, Biden's got some nerve for making Trump commit 91 felonies, treason, insurrection and so on. Therefore, red state magats should be able to ignore the law and disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans over some issue they're butthurt over.

Makes total sense. Nothing petulant and pathetic about that.

Or better yet, Texans and other Team Treason pussies can just follow the Constitution and shut the fuck up about their fascist wet dreams. Maybe next time try getting behind someone who isn't a mentally ill Russian asset in a loaded diaper? Just a thought
 
Last edited:

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,823
10,217
136
One of the petitioners in Maine had a unique argument; Trump says he won the 2020 election, therefore he’s ineligible for the ballot due to term limits.


I wouldn’t expect that line of reasoning to hold up in court. But, It doesn’t have to hold up in order to be raised, and possibly force one of Trump’s nutty mouthpieces to say in a motion for summary judgment that Trump has not been elected twice. Which might be useful, and would certainly be even more amusing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,340
4,973
136
I was curious and looked up the many charges against the raging hoard from Jan 6th and it appears that no one was charged with insurrection for the January 6th riot. I wonder why?

I'm 100% all for legal action against the rioters that entered the capital building illegally and have stated so from day 1.



Criminal charges:

Approximately 350 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including approximately 110 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.
  • Approximately 140 police officers were assaulted Jan. 6 at the Capitol, including about 80 from the U.S. Capitol Police and about 60from the Metropolitan Police Department.
    • Approximately 11 individuals have been arrested on a series of charges that relate to assaulting a member of the media, or destroying their equipment, on Jan. 6.
    • Approximately 935 defendants have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds. Of those, 103 defendants have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.
    • Approximately 61 defendants have been charged with destruction of government property, and approximately 49 defendants have been charged with theft of government property.
    • More than 310 defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so.
    • Approximately 55 defendants have been charged with conspiracy, either: (a) conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, (b) conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder, (c) conspiracy to injure an officer, or (d) some combination of the three.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: iRONic