I have heard, in the media, two basic thoughts on this. One, that he shouldn’t be on a ballot because of Jan 6, and the other, that the voters should be the ones to decide.
I’m Canadian so I don’t have a direct dog in this fight. However, though I understand the “let the voters decide” belief, that seems to me to be a terrible idea because, as we’ve now seen, there is a huge number of stupid, uninformed, uneducated and/or otherwise nasty people in the category of voter. As such, Trump on ballots could result in another Trump presidency.
This has interesting implications that could be seen as counter to democracy, such as restrictions on who is allowed to vote (eg people with minimum levels of education or some other qualifications related to wisdom, knowledge etc).
So what is the right answer here? I’m curious to hear different thoughts on this.
IMO the right answer is clearly that he attempted an insurrection, and thus he is not qualified. I doubt that’s what this corrupt GOP SCOTUS will determine, but that’s what should happen.
It depends on state law. The idea was shot down in Michigan, as Trump has not been convicted of the crime, per state laws. That actually makes sense, as convicting someone of a crime they might have committed seems a like bad road to drive down.
Either way it’s not healthy for democracy. Either you put your thumb on the scale to prevent a manifestly unqualified dictator-in-wait from infesting the office, or you allow angry morons to leverage their gerrymandered power to march the country off a cliff. Pick your poison.
There’s the “block Trump” school of thought and the “let voters decide” school of thought, but I think there’s another: favor stability and predictability of the law and the judicial system. I think that system should follow what Chris Coons called a “plain reading” of the 14th and remove Trump. I don’t want to see Trump win, and don’t think we will have much democracy left if he does, but I’m also wary of fiddling with the law to sway the election one way or the other. So in this case I want to see the 14th enforced.
If we’re going to ignore what the Constitution says about who can be President, I’d rather cut to the chase and elect Obama again.
This, IMHO, is the big conundrum and it could lead down a rabbit hole of issues. One could argue that there must be significant improvements made to the education system, against which Trump supporters would push back because they would see it as extreme left social engineering and woke-ness.
Clearly, let the voters decide is not the right answer. If it was, why even include Section 3 in the amendment in the first place? It’s obvious the framers understood you could have large segments of the population who could feel that insurrection was acceptable response to the US Government and it was in the best interest of the nation to keep them away from the levers of power.
IMHO, blocking Trump from the ballot is the best way for the Republican Party to rid its hands of Trump. They can “blame” the courts and the Democrats while now running someone other than Trump for president. They couldn’t get rid of Trump on their own, but now the courts are doing it “for” them.
In response to Guapo, this is exactly why we need a few red/swing states to ban Trump from the ballot. Then the GOP can very convincingly argue to its voters that Trump has no viable path to 270 and only someone un-banned like Haley can get there.
He needs to be beaten down in a fair election in order for this madness to end. But he also needs to be beaten down in Federal and State courts first with convictions that have teeth and huge settlements for fraud and defammation. His supporters need to be shamed into not voting for him by these convictions and the rest of the country needs to rise up and vote agasint the asshole, espcially in the red states.
As Biden said last night and will undoubtably keep hammering the point, our democracy is one the line. Voting is how democracy works. If he isn’t on the ballot then his followers will have reason to keep fighting. He was beaten before and he can be beaten again.
The question answered by the Colorado SC (and appealed to the US SC) is whether or not the state of Colorado has the right to keep a candidate who is disqualified from holding office can be kept off of the primary election ballot. This was, ostensibly, started by Republican candidates presidential hopefuls who were complaining that having an ineligible candidate on the ballot would dilute votes that should go to eligible candidates.
Even though Trump is not likely to win Colorado in the general, not having him on the primary ballot hurts his chances at receiving the nomination from the GOP since it removes the Colorado delegates for Trump. Furthermore, if a legal decision has been made that his involvement in trying to overthrow the previous election prevents Trump from being president, Republican voters in states where he is on the primary ballot may not want to waste their vote on a candidate who will be unable to serve.
My possibly biased opinion is that the SCOTUS should flat out declare him ineligible to serve as president due to a plain reading of the constitution. No need to drag states’ rights into it at all. Boom, he can’t serve. If he wants to run, if the Republican party wants to throw away their votes to an ineligible candidate, whatever, knock yourselves out. He very publicly (and also, even more, privately) engaged in an insurrection against the United States in order to overturn an election he lost. He’s never denied the facts, only tried to weasel his way clear of legal culpability. Thankfully, legal rulings aren’t mentioned as a factor in the Constitution, only actions.
The constitution plainly states that to be president you have to be 35 years old, and a natural-born citizen. The voters don’t get to decide to elect anyone who doesn’t meet those qualifications. I don’t see any difference between that and the 14th amendment; he is clearly disqualified from serving, and it would be best if SCOTUS came right out and said so.
As for him needing to be beaten in a fair election, that already happened in 2020. If it happens again this year, I can’t imagine that he or his followers will finally accept the results and go away quietly.
As for “bad for democracy”, I can’t imagine anything worse than his managing to squeak back into office and proceeding to pardon himself and all his cronies, and gutting the Justice Department. Yeah, he can’t pardon himself for state crimes. Are the Georgia State Police going to march into the White House and arrest him? Keeping him off the ballot may be considered bad for democracy by some, but it’s clearly the lesser evil.
But is the election fair if one side can run a candidate who is not qualified?
Democracy/fairness/the courts does not owe the side that made poor choices any favors here. If the Republicans don’t want to have the 14th amendment factor into elections, every other major candidate available to them right now can run without having to deal with this at all. Instead they are putting everything they have behind a candidate they know is not eligible and then saying it isn’t fair because he’s their number one choice.
I get that rules are rules, but we are talking about adverting a civl war here. It’s not about Trump being on the ballot, its about democracy being on the ballot. For decomacry to work he has to face up to his crimes in court, with the full weight of the law levied agasint him. Then if the majority of American want to trade democracy for dictatorship the experiment has run its course.
If we don’t have faith in the American people to come to their senses and decide what is right after being given a pursuading argumentt, then we have already lost.
Ensuring Trump is not elected again is about democracy, specifically, saving it. He is arguably a bigger and more immediate threat to it than a tortured SC decision making him ineligible to be on the primary or national ballot in some or all states. Whatever harm he inflicts on the country as a consequence will still be less than what he would likely do as president.
I do not have such faith because the American people already voted for Trump once and even more of them voted for him a second time.
Still, I would not say “we have already lost.” I would say we cannot win.
He lost a fair election, cried about it, litigated, blackmailed, coerced, lied, cheated, and stole. Ruined thousands of peoples’ lives by possibly or
actually landing them in jail for following his lead. He brought this country to the brink of civil war because he lost and refused to accept it. He planned and carried out an insurrection because he lost and refused to accept it. He’s a danger, a menace, and absolutely should be barred from serving as president again, no question in my mind.
These are important; I’ve often seen references in this board about guardrails and checks and balances that will prevent an elected Trump from fulfilling his dictatorial ambitions, yet it wasn’t guardrails that saved us (the US and the world btw), but his incompetence and the ad hoc nature of his first attempt. If he’s re-elected he will likely succeed.
This is the issue that concerns me. Not states, but a potentially jerryrigged group in control of a state that may be otherwise purple and swingable.
Sure in this specific case the candidate is guilty of the crime and should be ineligible. But what is to stop a future MAGA circumstance in which a Trump like populist has state level forces with nominal control of their state disqualifying competitors of same or other party?
I’m not sure guilt of insurrection should be determined at state level. Or any other determination of eligibility.