this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
260 points (97.8% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7192 readers
1 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
pangyuehung@lemmy.ml
yogthos@lemmy.ml
260
Donald Trump banned from Colorado ballot in historic ruling by state’s Supreme Court (apnews.com)
submitted 1 year ago by Type1@midwest.social to c/usa@lemmy.ml
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Read the full decision.

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hegar@kbin.social 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The ballot disqualification part is cool and all, but isn't the bigger deal a legal ruling saying yes it was obviously an insurrection and yes he obviously incited it?

This decision was about whether the whole "not being allowed on the ballot if you incite an insurrection" thing was intended to apply to the president, or just everyone else. That's a weird discussion to have after deciding a leading presidential contender obviously tried a coup. I'd really prefer we focus back on the coup part, and maybe less on the intentions of 150+ y/o lawmakers.

[–] mriguy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This decision was about whether the whole "not being allowed on the ballot if you incite an insurrection" thing was intended to apply to the president, or just everyone else.

Obviously, by any rational reading of the English language. But law is about arguing over what things that seem obvious actually mean, and this was slapping down a lower court that was arguing that it did NOT mean what it obviously means.

“The decision reverses a ruling by a lower court judge who found Trump engaged in insurrection by inciting his supporters to violence, but concluded that, as president, Trump was not an "officer of the United States" who could be disqualified under the amendment. The Biden campaign declined to comment.”

From the Constitution, Article II Section 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years… :

… No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office…

… Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States…

But sure. The person running the Executive Office of the President is not, in fact “an officer”…

[–] joelthelion@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What will happen next? I assume the (federal) supreme court will simply shoot it down. But I'd love to hear other opinions!

[–] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://learnconlaw.com/78-the-disqualification-clause goes into this in detail - the short answer is that the federal supreme court will probably rule that the amendment doesn't specifically call out the president as a person who can be disqualified and overturn the decision.

There is an argument to be made that the president is a "federal officer" so the ruling does stand, and that the intent was to bar confederates from public office so it would be weird to read the law as disqualifying a person from low level state office but not from the presidency, but it seems unlikely that the court would choose to do that given how partisan it is

[–] Unaware7013@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There is an argument to be made that the president is a “federal officer” so the ruling does stand

What's the argument that he's not a federal officer? Basically everything in the Constitution refers to the office of the presidency, so claiming the president isn't an officer sounds like some bullshit that idiots would come up with. Which makes sense why the republicans are trying that.

[–] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The argument that could be made is that in most of the rest of the constitution, anything that involves things the president can or can't do explicitly says "the president", so having an extensive list of positions that could be disqualified that doesn't mention the president by name implies that the president isn't included.

It's not a good argument, and I suspect in saner times it would be pretty clear that the intent is that Trump can't run.

[–] Rullejorge@feddit.dk 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As a foreigner I am surprised it took this long. Will likely not lessen the support for Trump, but nearly nothing will at this point.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

As a foreigner who's spent a lot of time in America, this may actually be good for Trump. I am not 100% sure how elections work in the US, but at most this will keep his name off a ballot Trump would never win and at best it will ensure his name has to be on every ballot. Assuming the SCOTUS overturns it, it sets a precedent that the POTUS is not an officer and therefore isn't included in any legal language that concerns officers. Which opens up expansion of the powers of the executive. Still assuming that the SCOTUS overturns it it could play right into the Project 2025 playbook.

[–] banshee@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

This kind of news gets you in the Christmas spirit! Cheers!

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

DENVER (AP) — The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday declared former President Donald Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause and removed him from the state’s presidential primary ballot, setting up a likely showdown in the nation’s highest court to decide whether the front-runner for the GOP nomination can remain in the race.

The decision from a court whose justices were all appointed by Democratic governors marks the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.

Dozens of lawsuits have been filed nationally to disqualify Trump under Section 3, which was designed to keep former Confederates from returning to government after the Civil War.

It bars from office anyone who swore an oath to “support” the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it, and has been used only a handful of times since the decade after the Civil War.

After a weeklong hearing in November, District Judge Sarah B. Wallace found that Trump indeed had “engaged in insurrection” by inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and her ruling that kept him on the ballot was a fairly technical one.

“You’d be saying a rebel who took up arms against the government couldn’t be a county sheriff, but could be the president,” attorney Jason Murray said in arguments before the court in early December.

The original article contains 639 words, the summary contains 234 words. Saved 63%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!