California’s lieutenant governor sent a letter to the state’s secretary of state on Wednesday asking her to explore "every legal option" to remove former President Don...
I think they mean the secretary of state may release a total of write-ins, but to my knowledge they make no effort to distinguish write-in names if there aren’t enough to swing it.
So technically, they count write-ins. Just not in the winner’s column.
Some 3rd parties have ran ineligible candidates. If they actually won, the electors wouldn’t actually cast their votes for them, but the votes are counted and tallied AFAIK. Given these are parties that make the Green Party and Libertarian parties look like first parties, they’ve just been ignored.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero
Notably, Colorado is one of the states that wouldn’t let Calero on the ballot because he was ineligible.
To be honest, I just don’t see how he can be disqualified without a conviction. Among others, it requires state courts to rule on out-of-state conduct. For instance, in the (admittedly unlikely) event that the jan 6th charges against T are dismissed, should he be allowed back on the ballot?
Ok,but somebody has to make the determination that Trumps conduct is consistent with sedition. Just from a formal point of view I don’t see how a CO court can rule on this, when the action took place in DC.
So a CO judge makes this determination even though the act occurred in DC, where the court has no jurisdiction? Democracy is so fucked if this stands.
Again, if congress had convicted Trump, or a judge makes a ruling of seditious behavior within its own jurisdiction I am totally on board with striking him from the ballot. But this ruling just sounds flimsy to me.
The case is about the court’s home state ballot so in that sense they do have jurisdiction. The Colorado court isn’t ruling on the Wyoming ballots, for example. Litigators in other jurisdictions can refer to the Colorado finding in their own cases.
Congress’s role in the context of the 14th amendment is explicitly laid out. If SCOTUS wants to argue that the Colorado ruling isn’t binding then the only remaining constitutional remedy is a Congressional vote to remove Trump’s disability, meaning they have to vote to requalify him for office. Republicans can barely figure out how to put their slippers on in the morning let alone muster a 2/3 vote to forgive a traitor for trying to overthrow the country.
I think that the more concerning implication is that states are the ones that determine who should be allowed to run for president or not. This is messy and not cohesive, I don’t think this sort of structure which we may be building is conductive to a healthy democracy. But we will have to see how far reaching these events reach.
Ted Cruz was on the ballot for the primary election in 2016 across all states, so this doesn’t help your case. Remember that you are trying to make the argument that Trump should NOT be on the ballot (despite there being no conviction).
The question you are trying to get at is whether or not section 3 is self-executing. The answer is that it’s not a settled matter.
The consensus right now, as far as I can tell based on my media consumption, is that the SCOTUS will overturn the Colorado decision. The real question is how they will decide to do so.
If he’s disqualified then write in votes for him won’t count either.
Technically they will count.
The issue is that he is ineligible to be president. The the same as if he was foreign born or under 35.
How will they count if he’s ineligible?
It is a primary. A party can nominate whoever they want. It has no bearing on whether who they nominated actually is eligible to be sworn in.
I think they mean the secretary of state may release a total of write-ins, but to my knowledge they make no effort to distinguish write-in names if there aren’t enough to swing it.
So technically, they count write-ins. Just not in the winner’s column.
Some 3rd parties have ran ineligible candidates. If they actually won, the electors wouldn’t actually cast their votes for them, but the votes are counted and tallied AFAIK. Given these are parties that make the Green Party and Libertarian parties look like first parties, they’ve just been ignored.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero
Notably, Colorado is one of the states that wouldn’t let Calero on the ballot because he was ineligible.
A lot of foreign born presidents, so I’m calling bullshit on this one!
Many of the presidents were actually born in england…
.
.
.
.
.
.
/S
ahhh votes have an eligibility multiplier… trumpvotesx0 bidenvotesx1
You can vote for Vladimir Putin all you want. He can’t be the president of the United States.
Not with that attitude
Typical, you have no idea how the country’s election system works. You have to register as a write in candidate for write ins to cont
Don’t tell your racist uncle that though
Please do tell him. That’s one less vote for whoever the legitimate R candidate is.
That’s the point? Don’t tell him so he’ll write him in and the vote will be lost?
To be honest, I just don’t see how he can be disqualified without a conviction. Among others, it requires state courts to rule on out-of-state conduct. For instance, in the (admittedly unlikely) event that the jan 6th charges against T are dismissed, should he be allowed back on the ballot?
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary.
Ok,but somebody has to make the determination that Trumps conduct is consistent with sedition. Just from a formal point of view I don’t see how a CO court can rule on this, when the action took place in DC.
a judge already made that exact determination.
So a CO judge makes this determination even though the act occurred in DC, where the court has no jurisdiction? Democracy is so fucked if this stands.
Again, if congress had convicted Trump, or a judge makes a ruling of seditious behavior within its own jurisdiction I am totally on board with striking him from the ballot. But this ruling just sounds flimsy to me.
Do you not understand how the constitution works?
The case is about the court’s home state ballot so in that sense they do have jurisdiction. The Colorado court isn’t ruling on the Wyoming ballots, for example. Litigators in other jurisdictions can refer to the Colorado finding in their own cases.
Congress’s role in the context of the 14th amendment is explicitly laid out. If SCOTUS wants to argue that the Colorado ruling isn’t binding then the only remaining constitutional remedy is a Congressional vote to remove Trump’s disability, meaning they have to vote to requalify him for office. Republicans can barely figure out how to put their slippers on in the morning let alone muster a 2/3 vote to forgive a traitor for trying to overthrow the country.
I think that the more concerning implication is that states are the ones that determine who should be allowed to run for president or not. This is messy and not cohesive, I don’t think this sort of structure which we may be building is conductive to a healthy democracy. But we will have to see how far reaching these events reach.
Already told you; if section 3 is self-executing, nobody has to make that determination.
Does Arnold Schwarzenegger need to be convicted of having been born in Europe?
That’s a bit of apples to oranges. Nobody contests the fact that Schwarzenegger is born in Europe, while Trump’s case is literally pending in court.
What about Ted Cruz?
Ted Cruz was on the ballot for the primary election in 2016 across all states, so this doesn’t help your case. Remember that you are trying to make the argument that Trump should NOT be on the ballot (despite there being no conviction).
Wind back the tape and Trump argued Ted Cruz should be off the ballot.
My point is that there are some candidates where this has been contested! McCain suffered a similar lawsuit.
This whole argument is dumb as neither of us are lawyers and 90% of people who are disagree with you.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna26765398
The question you are trying to get at is whether or not section 3 is self-executing. The answer is that it’s not a settled matter.
The consensus right now, as far as I can tell based on my media consumption, is that the SCOTUS will overturn the Colorado decision. The real question is how they will decide to do so.