Sarah Palin says a civil war is possible

[Yttrium]

Does it have to say anything about being convicted? As without conviction there is no prove in a court of law without conviction anyone could disqualify someone because they "believed" something about a person which may or may not be true or a disqualifying factor. If conviction is not required then a person could try to have an opposing party disqualfied just out of spite. Which I think we can all agree was not the founding father's intend.

Yes, a person could try to have an opposing party disqualified out of spite. Then the lawsuits happen, and it goes to the courts. If necessary, the Supreme Court is the final word on the matter.

 

[dogs4thewin]

The founding fathers had nothing to do with the 14th amendment.

I know, but they did have something to do with the constitution and in building due process into our justice system.

 

[SimplyMe]

I know, but they did have something to do with the constitution and in building due process into our justice system.

Though, arguably, this is Trump's "Due process," as the courts will determine if Trump should be able to run based on the actions he has taken. This does seem in line with what the writers of the 14th Amendment were planning, since the idea was to prevent those who fought against the North could not hold federal office -- despite the fact that the majority of them were never convicted of crimes.

I'd also point out that not being able to run for President (or hold federal office) is not a "punishment" in and of itself -- particularly since not all citizens can hold various public offices. For example, there are age restrictions that prevent citizens from being a Senator or the President, there are citizenship requirements for President, etc. The argument would be that this was intended to be just another restriction on being President -- that just as you don't have to be convicted of being too young, or convicted of not being Naturally Born, that this is another restriction that does not require a 'conviction.'

 

[returntosender]

Who cares what Sarah thinks?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Mike Huckabee: If Trump Doesn’t Win, 2024 Will Be Last Election ‘Decided by Ballots Rather Than Bullets’​

From his show on Trinity Broadcasting:

If these tactics [i.e. a DOJ that acts in accordance with the idea that no one is above the law] end up working to keep Trump from winning or even running in 2024, it is going to be the last American election that will be decided by ballots rather than bullets.

Hucklebee has this almost exactly backwards. If Trump wins he'll trash government and law so badly that voting will become almost meaningless.

 

[Pommer]

Hucklebee has this almost exactly backwards. If Trump wins he'll trash government and law so badly that voting will become almost meaningless.

All the better to stay in the Office to help “fix things”, my dear!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Matt Gaetz: MAGA will turn to 'bloodshed' if Trump's crimes exclude him from ballot​

"Like what we were talking about earlier with, you know, with secretaries of state trying to decide certain, you know, Trump can't even be on the ballot."
"I really worry that that type of action could lead to violence,"
"But when you start telling people that they can't express their participation in this American experience through a vote, then they start looking for other ways, and they're not, the vote is the best way to do it," he continued. "The other ways are not so good. And I worry if they start to take the vote away, you could see bloodshed in this country. Like none of us want."

 

[Pommer]

Matt Gaetz: MAGA will turn to 'bloodshed' if Trump's crimes exclude him from ballot​

"Like what we were talking about earlier with, you know, with secretaries of state trying to decide certain, you know, Trump can't even be on the ballot."
"I really worry that that type of action could lead to violence,"
"But when you start telling people that they can't express their participation in this American experience through a vote, then they start looking for other ways, and they're not, the vote is the best way to do it," he continued. "The other ways are not so good. And I worry if they start to take the vote away, you could see bloodshed in this country. Like none of us want."

“d0n’T m4Ke Us Sh0Ot tHe h0sTaGeS, y0U m0nSt3Rs!”

 

[essentialsaltes]

 

[Pommer]

View attachment 335987

Wasn’t this attempted once before?
How’d it turn out that time?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Wasn’t this attempted once before?
How’d it turn out that time?

It did lead to the end of human trafficking.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Wasn’t this attempted once before?
How’d it turn out that time?

Sing it with me!

Treason fled before us
For resistance was in vain
While we were marching through Georgia

 

[essentialsaltes]

Looks like it will be tested by SCOTUS. I understand this particular plaintiff doesn't have the best chances, but it will be interesting to see how it works out.

Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot​

Other lawsuits here and there in the several states. Again I feel doubtful of any of them prevailing.

A Venice [California] attorney filed a federal lawsuit Saturday to bar Donald Trump from California’s 2024 presidential primary election ballot, arguing that the former president is constitutionally disqualified because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

The lawsuit, one of several expected to be filed in states nationwide, argued that Trump is barred from running because the 14th Amendment states that no one can hold office who has previously taken an oath of office to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or gave aid to those who did.

Similar lawsuits are expected to be filed in states across the nation before the 2024 primaries start. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed legal action last week to bar Trump from the ballot in Colorado. A Florida judge appointed by President Obama dismissed a similar effort in Florida last month, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing but not weighing in on the constitutional issue.

Two conservative legal scholars recently wrote that Trump’s behavior after losing the 2020 presidential election disqualifies him from office because of this amendment.

However, other experts argue that the case is not that clean-cut.

---

ETA:

Trump faces another 14th Amendment candidacy challenge, this time in Minnesota​

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of eight Minnesota voters, including a former GOP-appointed state Supreme Court justice, a former Democratic secretary of state and an Iraq War veteran who ran his county GOP chapter.

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat, acknowledged in a statement last week that Minnesotans have the right under state law to challenge in court a candidate’s eligibility for office, and pledged to “honor the outcome of that process.”

 

[essentialsaltes]

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed legal action last week to bar Trump from the ballot in Colorado.

Judge rejects Trump’s request to move Colorado ballot case to federal court​

Brimmer, who was nominated by former President George W. Bush, said Trump had not properly served Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, or obtained her consent for removal as required by law.

The best lawyers, ladies and gentlemen!

 

[Arcangl86]

Judge rejects Trump’s request to move Colorado ballot case to federal court​

Brimmer, who was nominated by former President George W. Bush, said Trump had not properly served Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, or obtained her consent for removal as required by law.

The best lawyers, ladies and gentlemen!

That seems like a strange decision to me though. There is a clear federal issue since the question is about how to apply a federal constitutional amendment.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That seems like a strange decision to me though. There is a clear federal issue since the question is about how to apply a federal constitutional amendment.

IANAL, but elections are run by the states. And focussing very narrowly, the question before them is not whether Trump can be president, but whether Trump's name should appear on Colorado ballots.

FWIW, CO's Sec of State Griswold was on the PBS NewsHour last night, and she definitely was looking for guidance from the courts. State laws don't really address the matter.

Politically, she might be opposed to Trump, while the SoS in New Hampshire may feel the opposite, but she suggested (hopefully accurately) that the SoS in any state, regardless of their politics, would obey a court decision.

 

[Arcangl86]

IANAL, but elections are run by the states. And focussing very narrowly, the question before them is not whether Trump can be president, but whether Trump's name should appear on Colorado ballots.

FWIW, CO's Sec of State Griswold was on the PBS NewsHour last night, and she definitely was looking for guidance from the courts. State laws don't really address the matter.

Politically, she might be opposed to Trump, while the SoS in New Hampshire may feel the opposite, but she suggested (hopefully accurately) that the SoS in any state, regardless of their politics, would obey a court decision.

Yeah it's complex. It is a matter of state law, but it's specifically how the constitution applies to state law.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The lawsuit, one of several expected to be filed in states nationwide, argued that Trump is barred from running because the 14th Amendment states that no one can hold office who has previously taken an oath of office to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or gave aid to those who did.

Similar lawsuits are expected to be filed in states across the nation before the 2024 primaries start. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed legal action last week to bar Trump from the ballot in Colorado.

Trump's lawyers weigh in on the Colorado case:

"The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution — not to 'support' the Constitution," said the filing by Trump's attorneys. "Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to 'support' the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President."