Colorado, who tried to remove an insurrectionist from the ballot under the terms of the 14th Amendment.
"THE HORRIBLE VIOLENCE COMMITTED BY THE LEFT AGAINST (fill in the blank) HAS CONVINCED ME, AS THE MOST POPULAR INFLATION AND WAR-ENDING AND WHITE HOUSE BEAUTIFYING PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME AS WELL AS THE RUNAWAY WINNER OF 38 GOLF CHAMPIONSHIPS (NO WHIFFS), THAT WE CANNOT ALLOW THE TRAITOR DEMOCRAT PARTY TO PLUNGE AMERICA INTO THE BLACK PIT OF WOKE MADNESS. THEREFORE I AM USING MY UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF TO SUSPEND ELECTIONS AND ROUND UP DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS (FOR THEIR OWN PROTECTION AGAINST THEMSELVES) UNTIL THE DANGER PASSES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!
The Supreme Court did not say “let the voters decide”. They said it wasn’t within the state’s authority to declare Trump guilty of a federal crime.
“Has this person already been elected twice” is not a question that needs to be federally adjudicated.
OK, so let’s suppose he tweets something like this at 3:55 AM on some idle Tuesday morning.
The what happens? By what process does he actually do any of that or make it happen, as opposed to any of his many other extraconstitutional rants that have gone ignored and unfulfilled like, say, the time he DID tweet something like that in July 2020?
This is a good post AKA I agree when applied to election cancellation.
The answer could be that Trump misuses some police force he arguably controls and that has, or will have in a year or two, a highly Trumpified staff. Possibilities include the Border Patrol, ICE, and maybe the National Guard of a deep-red state. However, I question whether he’s that close to having total control of these forces.
I also question whether these forces will be large enough in the time frame Trump needs. ICE and the Border Patrol are now hiring up to a combined 40,000 or so. Compare that to about 500,000 in the KGB, not including informers. And USSR population was lower.
The courts won’t even let him deploy a couple dozen Guardsmen to Portland to stand in front of a federal building, and the mass hires ICE has been doing are largely incompetents who washed out of police academy and are being successfully run out of cities across the country by unarmed civilians. The idea that he’s going to deploy legions of stormtroopers in open war against the states in an attempt to end democracy is highly implausible.
And once again, once you get to that point, it’s not “non-nutty”, it’s a coup and a civil war.
My reaction to this is that a coup is unlikely to lead to a civil war.
One qualification: The thousands of left-wing bombings, in the U.S., in the early 1970’s , were not perceived as a civil war. Compared to the war in Vietnam, it seemed like, and was, a nothingburger. But ever since 9/11, America has been more sensitive to internal political violence. Today, even what would be, by international standards, a small level of political violence might be perceived by other Americans as a civil war.
It’s frightening to think how Trump would overreact to something like the Symbionese Liberation Army or Weather Underground if it appeared today.
It would be a civil war being waged by Trump and his loyalists against the states over their right to elect the president. Remember that the states are also sovereign entities and the Constitution gives them the power to elect the president (though in practice it’s deferred to the voters, it’s still technically the state legislatures that appoint electors).
I didn’t say it was likely to happen. But I think it qualifies as “non-nutty”.
And it is still Colorado State Law that anyone ineligible to be elected to an office cannot be on the ballot.
Yes, it is possible, although highly improbable.
Captain Barbossa: “It’s not possible!”
Captain Jack Sparrow: “Not probable.”
Considering we’re talking about the Trump administration, the most improbable part is that it would be completely legal.
Here are three quotes from the Constitution that, it seems to me, Trump has already been violating without facing any headwind.
“no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
*“*Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
“[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; . . .”
The law isn’t what the law says it is. The law is only what the ruling politicians of the moment say it is.
That’s why Trump and Hegseth have turned to killing every person on the boats they fire at. No captures meant they are obeying the letter of the Constitution. Patriots all!
How about this for a scenario? The GOP (still in Trump’s thrall) renominates him for President. You and I and a million lawyers complain “Can’t do that! 22nd Amendment!” until we’re purple in the face, but Trump’s handpicked GOP Chair sez “Oh, no? Sue us,” and when someone does, the Supreme Court steps in and by a 6-3 ruling sez “Can too.” Which part of this is impossible?
-
As noted above, it’s the states which determine what and who goes on the ballot. Many may choose to actually follow the Constitution, and their own laws. Deep-red states might well bow to Trump, but in order to win in the Electoral College, he would also need to win some purple states.
-
Not that I would put it past this current SCOTUS, but they would want at least a fig leaf of constitutionality for such a ruling, and I have a difficult time seeing a way that they could justify simply ignoring an amendment entirely.
To quote myself earlier:
As I mentioned upthread, if the 6-3 majority was sufficiently proceduralist, they might rule that the 22nd indeed only explicitly talks about election, not any other way a person could come to the office of president. Pedantic? Absolutely, but that would be consistant with the way the court has been ruling.
Maybe; that seems to take us back to the “Trump becomes Speaker of the House” scenario that got bandied around some months ago.
But, I was replying to @hideousidiot 's hypothetical, which had Trump on the ballot and winning the election, with him and the GOP (and, ultimately, SCOTUS) simply ignoring the 22nd entirely.
kenobi was specifically talking about an election. There’s where the nutty interpretation of the Constitution comes in.