Booted off the ballot

[Inkstain'dwretch]

I know there's a "Fuck Trump" thread, but I started this one because I'm just so doggone proud of my native state, and it deals with broader issues of states' rights, the Constitution, and so on.

SCOTUS will have to consider its own conservative philosophy about the Constitution, which is to apply a strict originalist standard and support the conservative mantra of states' rights, when it decides whether Colorado can boot trump off the ballot.

Neal Katyal, former Acting Solicitor General of the United States who is now a Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown University Law Center, said on MSNBC the conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have little choice but to apply their “textualism” method of reading the Constitution to the Colorado case. Textualism requires the text of the Constitution to be not interpreted but applied via a plain reading of the words on the document.

In addition, the Colorado Supreme Court cited precedent by then-appeals judge Neil Gorsuch in denying trump the ballot spot. In 2012 Gorsuch ruled that "(I)t is 'a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process' that 'permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.'"

That case involved a naturalized citizen wanting to run for president, which is constitutionally prohibited. It'll be interesting to see whether Gorsuch will side with his conservative fellows and do trump's bidding, or will be allowed to dissent, thus giving him the patina of consistency.

I'm no legal scholar, but neither am I as optimistic as Prof. Katyal. I predict Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kavenaugh and Barrett will argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't specifically apply to the President (the text doesn't contain the word "president") and therefore can't be used to deny trump a ballot spot. That will more or less mesh with their "textualist" leanings, and Gorsuch will be allowed to join the libs in dissenting.

States' rights, anyone?

[kirin]

I know there's a "Fuck Trump" thread, but I started this one because I'm just so doggone proud of my native state, and it deals with broader issues of states' rights, the Constitution, and so on.

SCOTUS will have to consider its own conservative philosophy about the Constitution, which is to apply a strict originalist standard and support the conservative mantra of states' rights, when it decides whether Colorado can boot trump off the ballot.

Neal Katyal, former Acting Solicitor General of the United States who is now a Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown University Law Center, said on MSNBC the conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have little choice but to apply their “textualism” method of reading the Constitution to the Colorado case. Textualism requires the text of the Constitution to be not interpreted but applied via a plain reading of the words on the document.

In addition, the Colorado Supreme Court cited precedent by then-appeals judge Neil Gorsuch in denying trump the ballot spot. In 2012 Gorsuch ruled that "(I)t is 'a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process' that 'permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.'"

That case involved a naturalized citizen wanting to run for president, which is constitutionally prohibited. It'll be interesting to see whether Gorsuch will side with his conservative fellows and do trump's bidding, or will be allowed to dissent, thus giving him the patina of consistency.

I'm no legal scholar, but neither am I as optimistic as Prof. Katyal. I predict Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kavenaugh and Barrett will argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't specifically apply to the President (the text doesn't contain the word "president") and therefore can't be used to deny trump a ballot spot. That will more or less mesh with their "textualist" leanings, and Gorsuch will be allowed to join the libs in dissenting.

States' rights, anyone?

It's not a States' rights issue; it's a qualification for federal office issue, which was situated in the context of the post-Civil War years. It is Congress that must ultimately determine whether or not an candidate is eligible for federal office. Good luck finding that bipartisan integrity in this congress.

[Jaglavak]

OTOH, it would be a golden opportunity for a small group of moderates to scrape off a big fat millstone. With the backing of an increasing wave of donors who correctly assess that four more years of the clown show would be bad for business.

[hajario]

No way SCOTUS lets it stand. And if they do, other states will take Biden off the ballot

[Sputnik]

It’s not that easy. Voting is a state rights issue (10th amendment). But it’s a federal election, a federal issue. With trump loving MAGA morons like Clarance Thomas on the SCOTUS, expect there to be a “he ain’t been convicted of anything” ruling.

The true answer is for everyone to cross their fingers that trumpy falls victim to a meteoroid strike between the ears, while golfing.

[hajario]

I also think they’ll go with “this is a Federal issue”.

[Inkstain'dwretch]

It's not a States' rights issue; it's a qualification for federal office issue, which was situated in the context of the post-Civil War years. It is Congress that must ultimately determine whether or not an candidate is eligible for federal office. Good luck finding that bipartisan integrity in this congress.So, you're thinking SCOTUS will slap Colorado down saying no state has the right to fiddle about with a national/federal election candidate? Hmm, yeah, that's a point. And while that would seem to conflict with wording in the Constitution that gives the states plenty of authority in running elections, it wouldn't be the first time the document seemed to conflict with itself. There still are legal scholars who say granting every state two senators violates the "one voter, one vote" rule. I still say it puts Gorsuch on a tightrope.

[kirin]

I also think they’ll go with “this is a Federal issue”.

Yep, because it is.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Section 3.
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.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Pretty obvious states can't enforce this section of the 14th Amendment unilaterally; they can only reinforce or act upon any guidance from Congress.