Illinois Judge Says 14th Amendment Bars Trump From 2024 Primary Ballot

xser88 · Feb 28, 2024

A judge in Cook County, Illinois, on Wednesday ruled that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the "insurrection clause," bars former President Donald Trump from the 2024 Republican primary ballot.

The order overrules a January determination from the Illinois State Board of Elections that Trump could remain eligible.

Cook County Circuit Judge Tracie Porter placed an immediate stay on her decision until March 1 "in anticipation of an appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, or the Illinois Supreme Court."

A Trump spokesman responded in a statement, calling Porter's ruling "unconstitutional" and adding, "We will quickly appeal."

Free Speech for People, a watchdog group helping to represent the group of voters who brought the 14th Amendment challenge in Illinois, billed the decision as a "historic victory."

Porter's ruling is the latest in a string of conflicting decisions around the country about Trump's eligibility under the 14th Amendment. The dispute is expected to be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Illinois judge says 14th Amendment bars Trump from 2024 primary ballot

An Illinois judge on Wednesday ruled that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars Trump from the 2024 Republican primary ballot

abcnews.go.com

ThatRobGuy · Feb 28, 2024

I'm not a Trump fan, didn't vote for him, and won't in the next election...

But I still am scratching my head trying to figure out how/why state-level courts are trying to disqualify him from running for a crime that he hasn't been charged with (much less convicted of)

Insurrection was the one charge Jack Smith declined to pursue in all this mess.

And quite frankly, fixating on this angle just makes Democrats look weak. There's an easy enough way to make sure Trump doesn't win in November, it's called "pick a candidate that doesn't come across looking like an Alzheimer's patient"

xser88 · Feb 28, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
I'm not a Trump fan, didn't vote for him, and won't in the next election...

But I still am scratching my head trying to figure out how/why state-level courts are trying to disqualify him from running for a crime that he hasn't been charged with (much less convicted of)

Insurrection was the one charge Jack Smith declined to pursue in all this mess.

And quite frankly, fixating on this angle just makes Democrats look weak. There's an easy enough way to make sure Trump doesn't win in November, it's called "pick a candidate that doesn't come across looking like an Alzheimer's patient"

They are arguing Trump should be disqualified from the state's March 19 primary ballot and its Nov. 5 general election ballot for violating the anti-insurrection clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

GoldenBoy89 · Feb 28, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
I'm not a Trump fan, didn't vote for him, and won't in the next election...

But I still am scratching my head trying to figure out how/why state-level courts are trying to disqualify him from running for a crime that he hasn't been charged with (much less convicted of)

Insurrection was the one charge Jack Smith declined to pursue in all this mess.

And quite frankly, fixating on this angle just makes Democrats look weak. There's an easy enough way to make sure Trump doesn't win in November, it's called "pick a candidate that doesn't come across looking like an Alzheimer's patient"

I agree it would be much more satisfying (to me at least) and probably better for the long term health of the democratic system of the country to have him lose outright in the general election instead of trying to bar him from appearing on a ballot. It might start to sink in to people's heads that he's just a poor candidate and a bad horse to bet on.

Valletta · Feb 29, 2024

GoldenBoy89 said:
That's not an answer to my question. Here's the text if you need it:

"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."

It only talks about insurrection and rebellion or giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States (treason). Where does it say anything about "supporting an invasion of our country" being a disqualification from office?

What does the Declaration of Independence tell you to do?

That's the old Confederacy amendment. The truth is that if you somehow want to stretch and twist it to apply to the present, Biden qualifies much more than Trump.

Yeshua HaDerekh · Feb 29, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
I'm not a Trump fan, didn't vote for him, and won't in the next election...

But I still am scratching my head trying to figure out how/why state-level courts are trying to disqualify him from running for a crime that he hasn't been charged with (much less convicted of)

Insurrection was the one charge Jack Smith declined to pursue in all this mess.

And quite frankly, fixating on this angle just makes Democrats look weak. There's an easy enough way to make sure Trump doesn't win in November, it's called "pick a candidate that doesn't come across looking like an Alzheimer's patient"

Because the left is scared silly he will win so they are trying to keep him from running. US citizens are noticing this. I agree, it does make the left look very weak and grasping at whatever they can to keep him from winning.

ThatRobGuy · Feb 29, 2024

xser88 said:
They are arguing Trump should be disqualified from the state's March 19 primary ballot and its Nov. 5 general election ballot for violating the anti-insurrection clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

But wouldn't that still require him to be convicted of the crime? As I noted before, he hasn't even been charged with it.

There has to be some sort of legal standard, otherwise you open the door for activist players in the state-level judicial branches to start kneecapping frontrunners of the opposing party on the flimsy standard of "hmmm...what that person did felt a little insurrection-y to me, sorry, you can't run in the primary"

Maria Billingsley · Feb 29, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
But wouldn't that still require him to be convicted of the crime? As I noted before, he hasn't even been charged with it.

There has to be some sort of legal standard, otherwise you open the door for activist players in the state-level judicial branches to start kneecapping frontrunners of the opposing party on the flimsy standard of "hmmm...what that person did felt a little insurrection-y to me, sorry, you can't run in the primary"

No he doesn't need to be convicted. It clearly states " giving aid or comfort" towards an insurrection is enough. We know he, at the very least, did that.

Green Sun · Feb 29, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
But wouldn't that still require him to be convicted of the crime? As I noted before, he hasn't even been charged with it.

There has to be some sort of legal standard, otherwise you open the door for activist players in the state-level judicial branches to start kneecapping frontrunners of the opposing party on the flimsy standard of "hmmm...what that person did felt a little insurrection-y to me, sorry, you can't run in the primary"

Not necessarily, hence the court cases and the reasons the states felt confident to push for this in the first place.

The amendment doesn't state by what mechanism (or indeed, if any) is needed to verify that a person"engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof".

If we look back to the original "case" where this mattered, that is, with the Confederate officers post-civil war, they were all understood to be banned from office under the 14th amendment's anti-insurrection clause, even though there wasn't a conviction or even a trial for every individual confederate officer.

That lasted until Amnesty Act of 1872, which (unfortunately) gave those Confederate officers the ability to run for office again.

GoldenBoy89 · Feb 29, 2024

Valletta said:
That's the old Confederacy amendment.

I know the history of the law but there’s nothing specific to the confederacy in the text of the amendment, nor has it ever been overturned. You can’t just pick and choose which parts of the constitution apply and which ones don’t. That we haven’t had to apply it to any presidential candidate until Trump is irrelevant.

Valletta said:
The truth is that if you somehow want to stretch and twist it to apply to the present, Biden qualifies much more than Trump.

I already said I don’t want to and would rather beat him outright. It’s these judges you have to convince the law doesn’t apply.

I don’t know what insurrection or rebellion you think Biden has inspired but if you think the law applies more to him than to Trump why have no states even tried to remove him from the ballot?

ThatRobGuy · Feb 29, 2024

Maria Billingsley said:
No he doesn't need to be convicted. It clearly states " giving aid or comfort" towards an insurrection is enough. We know he, at the very least, did that.

So by that standard, would/should everyone who lent lipservice or support to other forms of what some other people felt was rebellion-related activity get DQ'd?

durangodawood · Feb 29, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
....But I still am scratching my head trying to figure out how/why state-level courts are trying to disqualify him from running for a crime that he hasn't been charged with (much less convicted of)...

This isnt the criminal justice system. Its the election system.

rambot · Feb 29, 2024

And again the Democrats with their whatabou....

Wait a sec!!!!!

KCfromNC · Feb 29, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
So by that standard, would/should everyone who lent lipservice or support to other forms of what some other people felt was rebellion-related activity?

File a case in your state's court and find out.

ThatRobGuy · Feb 29, 2024

KCfromNC said:
File a case in your state's court and find out.

That's actually what I'm concerned about...if the precedent is set where all you need is an activist group of some sort who can find a "friendly judge" in order to yank the rug out from underneath the top competitor for the other team, we're going to start seeing these types of efforts popping up all over the place.

It didn't take long for people in other states to start getting some "less than productive ideas" in their heads about tit-for-tat maneuvers...

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article283988618.html

If there's no legal standard as the groundwork for this type or process, it's another one of those things that I can see flying off the rails pretty quickly and turn our elections into an even bigger clown show than they already are.

And then there's the whole other angle pertaining to how an incumbent (who would be responsible for appointing certain judges) could be emboldened by a bad incentive structure in that regard. Anyone who thinks they're about to lose and gets the opportunity to appoint a judge can simply scope one out that they think we'll be sympathetic to the cause of removing their rival from the primary ballot.

KCfromNC · Feb 29, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
That's actually what I'm concerned about...if the precedent is set where all you need is an activist group of some sort who can find a "friendly judge" in order to yank the rug out from underneath the top competitor for the other team, we're going to start seeing these types of efforts popping up all over the place.

Could be.
Or maybe judges are actually able to see that someone who told his followers to "fight like hell" before directing them to a violent attack on the US Capitol is actually quite different from the examples used to try and convince others that both sides are the same. Let's see how the latter goes for the GOP attempts, it will be instructive. Perhaps it'll actually work, or perhaps the courts will see through it like they saw through, say, the dozens of failed attempts to prove election fraud in court.

ThatRobGuy · Feb 29, 2024

durangodawood said:
This isnt the criminal justice system. Its the election system.

Yes, but it's still based on certain legal standards and defined terms.

For instance, (much like there's a requirement that a person can't have engaged in insurrection/rebellion) there's also a requirement that a presidential candidate has to be a natural-born citizen and over the age of 35.

If you were looking to disqualify someone based on either of those grounds, one would still need to have a legal basis in doing so.

For instance, I couldn't just say "nah, that person doesn't look 35 to me, they look younger, so they're out" or "Nah, I just feel like they're not old enough", there would have to be some sort of proof provided that they are indeed under 35, or lied about their age, etc...

The burden of proof (when it comes to disqualifying factors in just about any realm) is on the side wanting to do the disqualifying.

ThatRobGuy · Feb 29, 2024

KCfromNC said:
Could be.
Or maybe judges are actually able to see that someone who told his followers to "fight like hell" before directing them to a violent attack on the US Capitol is actually quite different from the examples used to try and convince others that both sides are the same. Let's see how the latter goes for the GOP attempts, it will be instructive. Perhaps it'll actually work, or perhaps the courts will see through it like they saw through, say, the dozens of failed attempts to prove election fraud in court.

Your position seems to assume that all judges are level headed and not look at matters through a political lens.

I think we all know that's not the case. Thus the reason why people want to see their guy in power when it comes time to do the appointing (because it's commonly understood if that "Person from Party XYZ gets pick a judge, they'll pick one that has a track record of being in alignment with XYZ")

Otherwise nobody would care who's in power when it comes time to fill judicial vacancies

durangodawood · Feb 29, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
Yes, but it's still based on certain legal standards and defined terms.

For instance, there's also a requirement that a president has to be a natural-born citizen and over the age of 35.

If you were looking to disqualify someone based on either of those grounds, one would still need to have a legal basis in doing so.

For instance, I couldn't just say "nah, that person doesn't look 35 to me, they look younger, so they're out", there would have to be some sort of proof provided that they are indeed under 35, or lied about their age, etc...

The burden of proof (when it comes to disqualifying factors in just about any realm) is on the side wanting to do the disqualifying.

I agree there has to be some kind of public process to arrive at the finding. I dont think it has to be a criminal proceeding tho.

ThatRobGuy · Feb 29, 2024

durangodawood said:
I agree there has to be some kind of public process to arrive at the finding. I dont think it has to be a criminal proceeding tho.

I'm open to ideas lol...

But there at least has to be something objective that's part of said public process. It can't be entirely based in the realm of subjective.

If there's nothing tangible/objective, in theory, you could say it about anyone.

If the standard is simply "statements made that could be subjectively perceived by someone as giving comfort/aid to people engaging in rebellion", Jenny Durkan could be disqualified for expressing support for the people who did the Chaz/Chop thing.

I'd think we'd all want something a little more concrete than that.

I think people need to look at this through a lens that can see further into the future than November. While it may seem like a quick & easy way to ensure we don't get stuck with Trump again (which I don't want either), when the pendulum comes back the other way, it may not feel so great.

Being that insurrection is a crime, and that criminal status is the disqualifier in question, despite this being about elections, criminal law still is very much involved here.

If there was some office that had a requirement of "can't have engaged in drunk driving", it would stand to reason that a DUI conviction would be required to invoke the disqualification. It wouldn't be just a "well, half of the people in town said it sure looked like they were driving drunk that one night"

Illinois Judge Says 14th Amendment Bars Trump From 2024 Primary Ballot

Active Member

Part of the IT crowd

Active Member

We're Still Here

Well-Known Member

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

404: Star not found

We're Still Here

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

Senior Member

Regular Member

Part of the IT crowd

Regular Member

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

Part of the IT crowd

Similar threads