Two states have removed trump from the ballot on grounds of insurrection. Illinois seeks to do the same. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. 
Blocked From the Ballot
Please note Trump is Blocked from the GOP Primary Ballot in 2 States.
First, Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump wasn’t eligible to run for his old job in that state. Then, Maine’s Democratic secretary of state ruled the same for her state. Who’s next?
What’s the legal issue?
After the Civil War, the U.S. ratified the 14th Amendment to guarantee rights to former slaves and more. It also included a two-sentence clause called Section 3, designed to keep former Confederates from regaining government power after the war.
The measure reads:
“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 did remove that disability from most Confederates in 1872, and the provision fell into disuse. But it was rediscovered after Jan. 6.
Is this a partisan issue?
Well, of course it is. Bellows [Maine Secretary of State] is a Democrat, and all the justices on the Colorado Supreme Court were appointed by Democrats.
Nancy Pelosi Chimes In
The Hill reports Pelosi on Trump 14th Amendment ruling: Laws are ‘up to the states’
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Sunday that the laws surrounding former President Trump’s ballot eligibility are “up to the states.”
Asked by ABC News “This Week” co-anchor George Stephanopoulos if her belief Trump engaged in an insurrection means she thinks he’s ineligible to be president, Pelosi said, “Those laws … those are up to the states, they have different laws from state to state.”
“I don’t think he should have ever been president, but nonetheless there is a view of the Constitution in Article 14, Section 3, that he should not be able to run for president,” she continued, in reference to the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause.”
“But that’s not the point, the point now is that again, different states have different laws,” she continued. “We don’t think in California that it applied in our state, that’s what the decision was made here.”
Monumental Case
The Supreme Court had little choice on this. They had to take this case. Leaving it up to the states would lead to chaos. I expedited fashion, the SC agreed to hear the case on February 8.
Colorado and Maine will not prevail. That we can all be confident of. But it’s not clear on what basis the court will rule. The Slate sums up the issues nicely.
Three Issues
To prevail, Trump’s opponents will have to make a clean sweep of three primary legal questions: First, is the presidency an “office” and is the president an “officer” subject to Section 3? Second, did Trump “engage in insurrection” in constitutional terms? Third, is the amendment “self-executing”—meaning Congress need not pass enabling legislation before individual states can enforce it? SCOTUS must say “yes” to all three to affirm the Colorado Supreme Court. Then there are a slew of secondary but still urgent questions swirling around. A sampling: Did state election laws give Trump sufficient due process to defend his inclusion on the ballot? Did Trump have a First Amendment right to engage in the speech that fomented the Capitol riot? Does the Colorado Republican Party have a First Amendment right to put Trump on the ballot? Then this puzzle, too: Section 3 technically prevents insurrectionists from holding office, not running for office; does that mean the judiciary has no authority to block Trump from the ballot, only to block him from actually taking office if he wins? Or is the decision to prevent him from taking office even if he is on the ballot left exclusively to Congress?
The U.S. Supreme Court has never before confronted any of these questions. It has become conventional wisdom that a majority of justices will find a reason to answer at least one of them in way that justifies reversing the Colorado Supreme Court, clearing the way for Trump to run in all 50 states. But which one? Scholars have put forth a growing pile of evidence that the presidency is indeed an “office” subject to Section 3’s restrictions; that Jan. 6 was an “insurrection” in which Trump “engaged”; and that Section 3 is “self-executing,” enforceable with or without an act of Congress.
The trouble for SCOTUS—and, specifically, for the conservative justices—is that this evidence creates a strong originalist justification for removing Trump from the ballot. It is rooted in the original meaning of Section 3, as understood by the lawmakers who wrote and ratified it, as well as the American public at the time. The conservative majority purports to follow original meaning wherever it leads, with no regard for politics, policy concerns, or real-world ramifications. If the Republican-appointed justices stay true to their principles—a huge “if”—they may feel compelled to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court on these main questions. That leaves two options. The court could seize upon one of Trump’s backup arguments as an escape hatch, even though they are pretty flimsy and do not necessarily provide an answer to other states questioning his eligibility. Or the court could face the music, disqualify Trump, and let the chips fall where they may.
The Arguments
The Slate presented the conditions nicely but the article reeks of massive partisanship.
PBS summed up the arguments without the politics, then smacked Maine over politics.
Trump’s lawyers have several arguments against the push to disqualify him. First, it’s not clear Section 3 applies to the president — an early draft mentioned the office, but it was taken out, and the language “an officer of the United States” elsewhere in the Constitution doesn’t mean the president, they contend.
Second, even if it does apply to the presidency, they say, this is a “political” question best decided by voters, not unelected judges. Third, if judges do want to get involved, the lawyers assert, they’re violating Trump’s rights to a fair legal procedure by flatly ruling he’s ineligible without some sort of fact-finding process like a lengthy criminal trial. Fourth, they argue, Jan. 6 wasn’t an insurrection under the meaning of Section 3 — it was more like a riot. Finally, even if it was an insurrection, they say, Trump wasn’t involved in it — he was merely using his free speech rights.
Of course, the lawyers who want to disqualify Trump have arguments, too. The main one is that the case is actually very simple: Jan. 6 was an insurrection, Trump incited it, and he’s disqualified.
Why did Maine do this?
Maine has an unusual process in which a secretary of state is required to hold a public hearing on challenges to politicians’ spots on the ballot and then issue a ruling. Multiple groups of Maine voters, including a bipartisan clutch of former state lawmakers, filed such a challenge, triggering Bellows’ decision.
Bellows is a Democrat, the former head of the Maine chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, and has a long trail of criticism of Trump on social media. Trump’s attorneys asked her to recuse herself from the case, citing posts calling Jan. 6 an “insurrection” and bemoaning Trump’s acquittal in his impeachment trial over the attack.
She refused, saying she wasn’t ruling based on personal opinions. But the precedent she sets is notable, critics say. In theory, election officials in every state could decide a candidate is ineligible based on a novel legal theory about Section 3 and end their candidacies.
Conservatives argue that Section 3 could apply to Vice President Kamala Harris, for example — it was used to block from office even those who donated small sums to individual Confederates. Couldn’t it be used against Harris, they say, because she raised money for those arrested in the unrest after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police in 2020?
No Way the Rulings Stand
The Supreme Court is certain to smack down these rulings, and likely in a way that states will not try again.
Slate says “It is rooted in the original meaning of Section 3, as understood by the lawmakers who wrote and ratified it, as well as the American public at the time.”
How the hell does the slate know? Especially since an early draft contained a reference to the president and it was removed.
Why was it removed?
The Slate also calls Trump’s arguments “flimsy”. Hello Slate, care to bet?
Now we wait. But expect to see Trump on the ballot in every state.
That’s one interesting headline. Nancy Pelosi wants to take the federalist position and return the administration of elections to the states and the Republicans want to nationalize them. Hmmm. The constitution is pretty clear who conducts elections and Nancy gets it right.
But really primaries are party functions and should not be administered by government agencies. So, if Colorado and Maine and Illinois Republicans want to nominate Donald Trump, so be it. They would be wise to nominate someone for VP who is interested in governing because Mr. Trump is clearly guilty of giving aid and comfort to the January 6th tourists.
“Pelosi Says States Should Decide on Trump”
Pelosi says whatever benefits Democrats. Trump was impeached over a legal phone call with Zelenski, while she said that no one is above the law, even the President. Trump should not have been impeached over a legal phone call. No crime was committed. She now does not support an impeachement investigation of Biden, despite ample evidence to initiate one. Pelosi has a double standard.
Capitol Police Chief Sund said that National Guard troops were not present on J6 because Pelosi would not have approved of them. Sund also said he was left out of the intelligence loop. Why was he kept uninformed, when he was in charge of Capitol security that day? That has a suspicious ring to it. An objective investigation of J6 is needed, not the politicized Democrat controlled J6 committee hearing.
Our country would be much better off if Nancy got on her broomstick and flew off into the sunset forever.
If this does work, then FIX the votes. Either way, Trump must put up with paying his own expenses.
“Insurrection” is a Democrat Party propaganda operation, just as the legal phone call between Trump and Zelenski was used, to charge impeachment.
Trump requested 20.000 National Guard troops for crowd control. Trump’s request was denied. From the podium, Trump told the crowd he spoke to, to protest peacefully. Trump was not inciting an insurrection or even the riot that happened outside the Capitol.
The other day Victor Davis Hanson wrote a timeline of events.
Hansen noted that at 1:07, Joshua Black, standing in the crowd, was shot through the cheek with a rubber bullet fired by a police officer.
This edited video shows police firing on the crowd. Note that the crowd was not storming the Capitol Building at the time. The man wounded in the cheek is shown with the rubber bullet protruding from his wound.
link to twitter.com
I remember the final days of the USSR when all the leaders of the politburo were geriatric men. Seems like the USSA is at the same point in its history. Why are all these degenerate geriatrics from the 1960s still clutching so greedily to the ring of power. Let’s ship them off to the soylent green factory.
“Why are all these degenerate geriatrics from the 1960s still clutching so greedily to the ring of power. ”
Becasue US money printing went completely unconstrained, full throttle indistinguishable from Zimbabwe, in 1971.
Hence those who accidentally were in the amassing-stuff stage in the years immediately following, were the ones receiving most of the initial-access-to-unlimited-freshprint advantage. IOW, they were handed free money with which to buy up everything. Including our totalitarian government, who hence ensures all future freshprint is also channelled to those same early accidental beneficiaries.
50 years hence, those guys are guys “from the sixties.” Who, since they own everything, also run everything.
That’s why.
OK, I’m not a Trump fan. On the Republican side, I’d be more interested in Desantis. But that’s neither here nor there. I say let the voters decide. If those states don’t want him on the ballot, it won’t matter, he’ll be written in by his supporters or state Republicans will simply caucus instead of have a primary. And of course, such a move would open the door to red states finding some excuse to remove Joe Biden from the ballot (at least 3 are currently working on this), which would simply lead to pandemonium. And it would show the world that the US is now a banana republic.
And let’s not even talk about how the 14th Amendment was passed in an unconstitutional manner in the first place. Don’t believe me? Go read the Congressional record archives for yourself, how one representative stated on the floor during debates that 11 states (the former Confederacy) were not represented in Congress when the amendment passed, and were going to be forced to ratify it in order to regain their representation. Unconstitutional 100%. Of course, nobody reads real history anymore.
Oh, and one more thing, who gives a rat’s a** what Pelosi thinks?
Agreed about letting the voters decide because opening the door for any candidate to be disqualified from the ballot definitely turns the US into a banana republic.
The whole part about the 14th being unconstitutional is silly. It will only be unconstitutional if the Supreme Court says it is.
Gotta stop underestimating what the communists will do next out of desperation.
Voters should decide Trumps fate, not politicians. The Supreme Court will set the record straight.
The Dems are looking completely desperate as Trump does too at times. What a political class we have in Washington. Aren’t we so proud of them.
i am not American.
though, dont youvneed to be convicted of anbinsurrection first? before being banned from being on a ballot? this doesnt make sense?
almost like a big brother little brother fight?
A less-than-100% completely arbitrarily governed America. How quaint!
Anyone remember when Saddam Hussein won the elections in Iraq with 99% of the vote?
Pelosi probably remembers that too. How else is she going to keep picking stocks?!
If the consevative justices stay true to the core beliefs of original wording and states rights then they’ll continue to allow states to apply this disqualification to potential presidential candidates.
The fact that specific reference to the Presidency was edited out could simply mean that the writers felt it was redundant with “officer”. If they intended that it not apply to a former president that could have been clearly stated in a simple sentence. (As a practical matter they probably considered it inconceivable that a president/former president would foment an insurrection like trump did. The ineptitude of his coup attempt doesn’t make it an insurrection, an insurrection doesn’t have to be a major civil war.
But I think they will grasp at some of trump’s straws to overrule Co & Me. This is just too hot for them to handle, their hands are still burned and blistered from their abortion rights reversal.
It wasn’t edited out, so stop trying to edit it in.
It never said president, and it never meant president.
Even if you get your way, how are you going to govern a country when half the population is disenfranchised by judicial interference in the electoral process?
Do you not see that any government that is elected after that will have an immediate and permanent crisis of legitimacy? Banning Trump is a declaration of Civil War.
Trump did not foment an insurrection. That is Democrat Party Gaslighting.
Alinsky tactics.
The SC will avoid the political judgment about whether J6 is an insurrection.
They will focus on whether formal facts of law could be an impediment, and will of course find that there are no formal facts of law: Trump has not been accused let alone has anything been found by any formal legal process.
The more interesting issue is whether disenfranchisement can ever happen (e.g., breaking the oath to the constitution), but certainly not without due process. History also suggests that any such (legal) disenfranchisement is not part of American tradition.
In the period after the civil war the constitution could still be changed, and theoretically that is still possible. But it will never happen. It is already a dead letter.
The important thing about the law and the judiciary, as is understood in other police states like Singapore, is that in order to retain the veneer of legitimacy, all matters have to be separated out, and rendered mundane, diluted and insignificant.
just suppose this for a moment… that the Jan 6th upriaing was staged. staged not by Trump?
is there proof that Jan 6th is was orchestrated by the Republicans? democrats? the censorship of information, such as miscounted ballots too many ballots in Georgia? 90% electronic votes are democrat votes? not enough to call for a recall? or a change in how voting works? Nov 2024, should have the old ballot boxes used. until therebis resolve? both sides should be okay with this…… it would create certainty. unless of course that isnt the goal here???
Your economic analyses are much more insightful than your political pieces.
Politics and economics are the same subject. This is especially true in the age of fakery and corruption.
whoa .. u need to study behavioural economics Olsen. All in the same pot.
Removing Trump from the ballot for a crime that he hasn’t been charged with let alone tried for is the height of ridiculousness.
I have no idea by how the Supreme Court will handle this but I am fairly sure that disenfranchising half the population on a technicality is not a good idea and that they will see the danger of letting that happen.
It’s funny when a campaign to mold a narrative is failing yet the campaign continues on as if nothing happened even when the measures taken become more and more absurd.
It would undermine the judiciary itself… due process (or at least the pretence of it) is essential if the US wants to avoid becoming like Venezuela.
Would any other Republican candidate want to win without the credibility of beating Trump? Any candidate who can’t beat Trump in a fair fight will be a lame duck.
Even the opponents of the Republicans and Trump can see that… you want to win, but to earn that victory by actually being better and winning the public debate.
“Would any other Republican candidate want to win without the credibility of beating Trump?”
That’s a dumb question. A win is a win. PERIOD.
A law is a law and must be enforced for everyone, regardless of threats that doing so may cause civil strife.
I posted an NYT article above that suggests the onus should be on Congress to exempt Trump from existing laws, not the Supreme Court.
If the Supremes determine in their ruling that Jan 6 wasn’t an insurrection does that nullify all the convictions of the protestors for any insurrection related charges?
Does it make any future similar protest protected by the Constitution?
Does it change the death of Mrs Babbitt from a death during an insurrection to a death during a mostly peaceful protest and if so does it make her shooting a case of wrongful death and therefore her killer be charged for murder?
So is this just about Trump or will it have other implications?
They have to rule on the J6 hoax separately – which itself implies that no ruling that references the J6 hoax can stand, because it hasn’t been ruled on yet. Where’s the indictment? where’s the prosecution? what does a decision by a state SC stand on?!
so if the nancy refused 20,000 national guard troops at request of President Trump
then who is INSURRECTIONIST?? nancy of course
She certainly has questions to answer – under oath. Even she would take the 5th on the 6th.
Despite the fact that nothing about J6 was an insurrection in any way, I think there is a non-zero chance the SCOTUS affirms the Colorado ruling 5-4 with Roberts joining the liberals.
The Intel/Security State Blob now runs the country (even liberals like Jeff Sachs has publicly said so) and they also determine the outcome of the elections
They WILL NOT allow Trump to become POTUS again under any circumstances
They have visited Roberts before, not sure what they have on him, but I would not be surprised if this all goes sideways.
If it does, then watch out below. It will be all over but the shooting.
Yeah but it would be far easier to just assassinate Trump in a vehicular accident, than try to mangle and play games with the legal system and by doing so, break it, and the credibility of their regime.
I watched a portion of this Pelosi interview. She literally couldn’t stop stammering and sounded like a babbling fool. She’s entered into the Feinstein twilight zone and has absolutely no business being a Senator. Someone needs to send her and McConnell out to pasture. They both are an embarrassment to themselves and their respective parties.
She really should replace Jim Cramer since she never loses money in the market. I would absolutely watch her show. I think she missed her calling. Sad such a great investment guru is working in D.C. but I get it. It is me who is being greedy. Her services to this country are more important than my measly investments.
Dems are very worried. It is clear the court cases will not stop Trump, so they have moved on to trying to remove him from the ballot.
This article nails the proper solution. It is up to Congress to make the decision, NOT the Supreme Court.
——-
What the Supreme Court Should Not Do in Trump’s Disqualification Case
Jan. 5, 2024, 5:26 p.m. ET
By Gerard N. Magliocca – Mr. Magliocca has researched Section 3 of the 14th Amendment extensively and is the author of two legal papers on the provision.
Many Americans are convinced that the disqualification of Donald Trump from Colorado’s primary ballot is a terrible idea and want the Supreme Court — which agreed on Friday to take up this question — to find a way to let the former president run. Mr. Trump’s supporters are eager to vote for him and argue that his exclusion from the election would be anti-democratic. Some of Mr. Trump’s opponents are just as eager to see him thrown in prison but believe that throwing him off the ballot would set a more dangerous precedent.
What unites these two sides is their unwillingness to ask Congress to exempt Mr. Trump from disqualification or admit that they want him to receive special treatment.
Unlike other constitutional provisions, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment draws a sharp line between law and politics. The first part of Section 3 is a legal command about who cannot hold office that focuses primarily on individual conduct and does not require congressional action. But the second part says that “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House remove” a disqualification for any reason.
The framers of the 14th Amendment deliberately gave Congress — not the president or the Supreme Court — the power to grant a Section 3 waiver on public policy grounds. Congress’s amnesty authority for disqualification from office is the equivalent of executive clemency in criminal cases, which can be exercised in the interests of justice or for the common good.
…
link to nytimes.com
6 thumbs down as I write this but no retorts to the article. SAD!
The court already said they will review and decide the case ASAP. They wouldnt have done that if they hadnt asked each other in the hallway how they were gonna vote, and had five guaranteed “Trump does whatever he wants” votes.
Eugene Debes and Lyndon LaRouche Jr. both ran for president while they were in jail. Trump has not been convicted of any crime.
The 14th amendment does not require a conviction.
I would bet a large bag of cash you never read the 14th amendment. I would also bet everything I own you never read the first article of NATO.
Which does not address what I posted. If you have something worth reading to say, then say it.
and the 25th amendment on mental capacity? what does that require? a doctor on the payroll of the patient?!
and I guess you believe the presidency doesn’t require an election either?
The presidency requires a vote of the Electoral Congress made up of representatives of each state. How the states choose those voters is up to them. They could draw names out of a hat if they decided to.
In some cases, what would be considered would be a primary election office, and winning a primary does not elect you to office. The USSC could rule that the 14th Amendment does not refer to primaries, and postpone the day. They could also rule the amendment referred to the Rebellion of the Slaveholders, and Congressional action was needed to determine what an insurrection is. With respect to ‘let the voters decide’, consider the following scenario:
It is 2028, and (which of the duo you like less) won his second term. He now announces that he will in violation of the 22nd Amendment run for a third term. Do you want to ‘let the voters decide’? Really?
Pure hyperbole.
What rebellion of the slave owners? Over 98% of the Confederates did not own slaves and the rebellion was over states rights and the economic discriminatory policies of the federal government against the South. The last slave owning states were Union states and Lincoln was agreeable for slavery to continue as long as the Confederate states rejoined the Union.
So ending slavery was a major issue but not the primary issue
As for letting Congress making decisions about the Constitution instead of the Supremes well I would have to point out that they have done a great job of wiping their butts on it for many decades.
Semantic games are fun, but that’s not what law and due process is or how it works.
Of course you mentioned partisan. The SC is our most partisan court and has been for our entire history. Of course Trump committed insurrection the only question for individuals is who were you rooting for. I voted for Trump in 2016 but not 2020. He’s like many politicians of both parties but worse. Listen to what he says. He’s a cancer of America. Whether courts or voters I simply want him and his cult gone along with most of the geriatric politicians of both parties.
Um, I vote based on actions, not what the person says. Sounds like TDR is setting in. Can’t take the mean tweets?
Opinions are like assholes – everyone has one… but that’s not how laws work.
Like it or not, there are a lot of alienated people who vote for Trump not because they like him, but because people like you hate him, and they are just as sick of y’all.
I’m not voting for Trump I’m voting against you. If that means Trump then that means Trump. Make no mistake, you will be responsible for the man being elected again. Most conservatives were perfectly content letting him fade away until your political prosecutions meant to keep him off the ballot.
If it turns into a write-in spelling test, then the parties can go with Paul vs Xi.
Hmmm. I thought they were called “National Elections” because they were for everyone in the Nation.
Well, no. In each state, the voters are choosing the Presidential Electors for that state.
Unless excluded by a partisan.
t
Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution sets only three qualifications for holding the presidency. To serve as president, one must:
Framers of the 14th Amendment removed the word president because would not compromise the original qualifications.
The clause including POTUS in a draft of the amendment was probably removed since POTUS (Lincoln) was never part of the Confederacy; therefore, there was no logical need to include POTUS on the list of those ineligible to run for POTUS. Removing POTUS from the list implies the drafters believed POTUS could never commit insurrection by definition, or they simply forgot that scenario.
Well unless Lincoln was alive and all former presidents dead when the 14th was ratified your theory doesn’t hold water.
I should add that of course Lincoln was dead and not only at least 3 former presidents were alive but most importantly the then current president (Johnson) was a Democrat from North Carolina ( a Confederate state) with sympathies for the Confederates. He only survived impeachment for those sympathies by one vote.
So it was intentional that the position of president wasn’t included as it would have caused mayhem
whoops… only three? how’s that water holding now?
Also to be clear – Trump will be on the ballot in Colorado just as a point of law. You should have read the decision (think I told you that once before). The CO Supreme Court stayed its own decision until the earlier of the Trump campaign appeal to the US Supreme Court or January 4, 2024. Since Trump appealed, the decision is stayed and Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Yeah, Demogogue activists jumped the shark.
To be clear – the CO justices were appointed by a Democrat, but in CO the justices are chosen from a small pool of candidates that are selected by a non-partisan panel. The whole point of the CO process is to minimize to the extent possible (never fully possible) the impact of partisanship.
It’s not fair to Coloradans to call it 100% a partisan decision. CO voters have gone to great lengths to try to reduce the impact of partisanship.
Another interesting wrinkle is that the 4 judges who voted in favor of removing Trump from the ballot are Ivy League educated and the 3 dissenting judges graduated from the University of Denver.
What exactly is the penalty, remedy, consequence for disobeying a Supreme Court ruling?. Has anything ever been enforced? Contempt, fines? BFD Much like nothing will stop illegal aliens from voting, nothing but the People can stop their state from fixing and cheating on an election.