# Various states, including Colorado, determine Trump is disqualified from holding office **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [August 11, 2023, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412 "2023-08-11T16:27:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 56
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1102 "2024-03-04T16:51:25Z")
> [@flurb](#): > > Impeachment is not a criminal trial, so double jeopardy does not apply. That’s why I said extended. ---
**Author:** ![Guapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ed655f/32.png) [@Guapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guapo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1103 "2024-03-04T16:52:29Z")
So what happens if a 34 year old or someone who is not a native born citizen tries to get on a state’s presidential ballot? Can the state refuse? n ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1104 "2024-03-04T16:59:29Z")
> [@DesertDog](#): > > Texas calling them ‘workers.’ [‘Prisoners with jobs’.](https://9gag.com/gag/aq7ZppM) ---
**Author:** ![TeroSunbear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terosunbear/32/14748_2.png) [@TeroSunbear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeroSunbear)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1105 "2024-03-04T17:15:21Z")
The SC decision is faulty. States cannot pull off candidates for a federal election? Then who can? The federal government and the supreme court certainly can’t. Only the states can run elections. ---
**Author:** ![carrps](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carrps/32/2957_2.png) [@carrps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carrps)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1106 "2024-03-04T17:41:10Z")
I found it interesting that ACB sided with the minority on limiting the decision. I was wondering if because she’s the only female rightwing judge she socializes/chats/whatever more with Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson than the rightwing dudes. Might it a teeny bit be moderating her opinions, I ask hopefully? ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_Sudan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chad_sudan/32/4509_2.png) [@Chad\_Sudan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chad_Sudan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1107 "2024-03-04T18:09:13Z")
Under those distinguished judicial robes, you can catch the glint of golden sneakers. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1108 "2024-03-04T18:13:08Z")
> [@TeroSunbear](#): > > The SC decision is faulty. States cannot pull off candidates for a federal election? Then who can? The federal government and the supreme court certainly can’t. Only the states can run elections. Each house of Congress has the inherent power to remove members from itself. If I’m understanding the decision correctly, I think they’re saying the states can’t remove federal candidates from the ballot without enabling legislation from Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1109 "2024-03-04T18:52:43Z")
I wonder if we are going to see a law that speaks to who can enforce the Constitutional requirements including age, national born citizen, insurrectionist, etc. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1110 "2024-03-04T19:28:53Z")
> [@carrps](#): > > I found it interesting that ACB sided with the minority on limiting the decision. Partially. October 2020: [Justice Barrett Promises to Serve ‘Without Fear or Favor’](https://thetablet.org/justice-barrett-promises-to-serve-without-fear-or-favor/) Yes, a platitude, but a good one. This morning, she sided with fear: [Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf) How about the Trump immunity case? How are you going to turn down the temperature on that one? ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1111 "2024-03-04T20:06:56Z")
I wish there was somewhere to bet on SCOTUS decisions. I would have gone all in on a unanimous decision. I wouldn’t have even guessed what the decision said but I was sure none would vote to take him off. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1112 "2024-03-04T20:18:57Z")
I saw some coverage on this that annoyed me. They framed the decision as the SC ruling that Trump “could remain on the ballot”. Except that’s not really what they said, is it? What they said was, “Individual States can’t decide to remove him”. Were Congress to miraculously stop being partisan for a day, they could pass legislation to bar him, and that would stand up to this ruling. But the MAGAs, of course, will jump on that erroneous wording, and declare the issue settled. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1113 "2024-03-04T20:50:10Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > I saw some coverage on this that annoyed me. They framed the decision as the SC ruling that Trump “could remain on the ballot”. Except that’s not really what they said, is it? What they said was, “Individual States can’t decide to remove him”. Were Congress to miraculously stop being partisan for a day, they could pass legislation to bar him, and that would stand up to this ruling. > > But the MAGAs, of course, will jump on that erroneous wording, and declare the issue settled. For all in tents and porpoises it is settled. Trump will not be off the ballot. Any future issues with the amendment are just an intellectual exercise that has no bearing on the current election. As per section 5 of the amendment Congress can pass legislation to lay out the conditions that would apply to make someone ineligible. In 1866 they didn’t need that. They knew exactly who they were writing it for. Even if a law was enacted stating if you do A, B and C you are ineligible under the 14th amendment could states still put someone on the ballot? What would be the enforcement method? Would Congress have to pass legislation about candidates as individuals if it comes up again? ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1114 "2024-03-04T20:54:34Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Even if a law was enacted stating if you do A, B and C you are ineligible under the 14th amendment could states still put someone on the ballot? What would be the enforcement method? While I can’t imagine any such legislation passing under the current US political mess, which isn’t going away any time soon, surely if they were to pass something, they’d understand that the law would have to have some explicit rules for how to implement such a thing, and spell out exactly who is (or can be) responsible for making such decisions. We could speculate on what sorts of rules they might impose, but they’d have to have _something_. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1115 "2024-03-04T21:38:31Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > And I struggle to think of a scenario in which Congress would feel empowered to overrule the will of the people after the fact to bar from office the President-elect. In two previous elections, Trump has never won the popular vote, and he won’t win the popular vote this year. He can’t claim to represent the will of the people. He represents the will of the electoral college, which enshrines tyranny by the minority. Yes, it’s in the Constitution; yes, it’s how we choose presidents. But it in no way represents the will of the people. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1116 "2024-03-04T21:43:05Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > While I can’t imagine any such legislation passing under the current US political mess, which isn’t going away any time soon, surely if they were to pass something, they’d understand that the law would have to have some explicit rules for how to implement such a thing, and spell out exactly who is (or can be) responsible for making such decisions. I don’t see why presidential qualification laws are needed. Take the native born requirement. There is no constitutional clause, concerning an implementation law, for that one. But courts still removed [Cenk Uygur](https://apnews.com/article/arkansas-cenk-uygur-democrats-president-2024-election-a2e5991c5186ab56cc61b45d30a38718) off ballots, just as courts [kept Obama on the ballot when he was challenged by birthers](https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/nation-world/2011/12/23/federal-appeals-court-tosses-out-birther-lawsuit/15880456007/). Maybe we just need a simple law stating that the United States Constitution is to be regarded as a law. If Mike Johnson won’t let that get to the House floor for a vote, disrespect for the constitution becomes a legitimate campaign issue. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1117 "2024-03-04T21:55:08Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > He represents the will of the electoral college, which enshrines tyranny by the minority. Yes, it’s in the Constitution; yes, it’s how we choose presidents. But it in no way represents the will of the people. The intended viewpoint would be that you’re electing a group of representatives (the Electoral College) who convert your will into something more intelligent. From there, they elect the most qualified candidate that aligns with the will of the people. Due to state laws that turn the person into a party hack and give him no freedom of choice, however, it ends up as you say. The original strategy should be restored and strengthened. Right now, you win by campaigning to the lowest common denominator in the most geographically favorable way. You should win by campaigning to well-intentioned but skeptical persons who have the weight of the future of their fellow citizens on their shoulders. ---
**Author:** ![TeroSunbear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terosunbear/32/14748_2.png) [@TeroSunbear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeroSunbear)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1118 "2024-03-04T22:09:41Z")
That is what they said. Federal law in this case is the amendment itself. It merely suggests congress act laws. Those are not required. The SC refuses to take the parts of the amendment as meaningful alone. Why is the SC involved in election details? I thought those powers went to the states and congress. The Bush Gore thing was wrong too. The state court was the one to decide that. ---
**Author:** ![TeroSunbear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terosunbear/32/14748_2.png) [@TeroSunbear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeroSunbear)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1119 "2024-03-04T22:28:21Z")
(Continued) The last bit of the amendment reads: Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. I recommend that Democrats pass such laws, since SC now (incorrectly) demands such laws. The insurrectionist law shall have these: each state can ban any candidates for federal office. Procedures shall go through state courts. When 2/3 of the states ban a candidate, he or she shall be removed from any federal election that and following years. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1120 "2024-03-04T23:11:32Z")
> [@TeroSunbear](#): > > The insurrectionist law shall have these: each state can ban any candidates for federal office. Per page 6 of [Trump v. Anderson](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf), I think that would be an unconstitutional law: > [@](#): > > We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency. > [@TeroSunbear](#): > > When 2/3 of the states ban a candidate, he or she shall be removed from any federal election that and following years. Sounds to me like an additional qualification for the presidency not in the constitution. Not only would it be struck down, it probably should be struck down. For authoritarians to gain power, elites, unwilling to take responsibility, need to let them. That’s what happened today. SCOTUS looked for an excuse to avoid saying whether or not Donald Trump is an insurrectionist oathbreaker, and found one. A detailed insurrectionist law, with extra-constitutional provisions, would just give them more excuses. If SCOTUS didn’t have legal excuses to avoid saying what Trump really is, might they have simply ruled that he isn’t an insurrectionist? Yes. But not for certain, and not unanimously. The only legal change should be to take away their excuses for not following the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412/1121 "2024-03-04T23:30:27Z")
Since the states cannot remove candidates from a federal ballot, would a winning candidates’ eligibility to serve be challenged on Jan 6? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412.md?page=55) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/various-states-including-colorado-determine-trump-is-disqualified-from-holding-office/988412.md?page=57)