An About-Face on Whether the 14th Amendment Bars Trump From Office
The documented disagreements are all among conservatives. The one more centrist law professor, quoted in the Times, said of the idea that Trump is exempt from 14th amendment Section 3 due to the President not being an “officer”:
No it doesn’t. Tammy Duckworth was born in Thailand but is a Natural Born Citizen. Similar to John McCain being born in the Canal Zone when he ran. And arguably had Obama been born in Kenya (he wasn’t but just go with this) and his parents were found to be not legally married due to bigamy, he would have had his mother’s nationality which would make him a Natural Born Citizen.
Here is a conservative refutation of the recent about face in my last post:
Pardon me. I meant unambiguously a citizen of another country.
This is getting serious consideration in California:
California politicians float removing Trump from 2024 ballot
In a letter obtained by Politico and the New York Times, nine California lawmakers reportedly wrote to Bonta that he as state attorney general is “uniquely positioned to proactively seek the court’s opinion to confirm Mr. Trump’s inability to hold office.” The lawmakers reportedly cited the Jan. 6 insurrection attempt and Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election as evidence that he’s potentially violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies politicians who’ve “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.”
“We are aware of the letter and will review the request internally. There is no denying that Donald Trump has engaged in behavior that is unacceptable and unbecoming of any leader — let alone a president of the United States. Beyond that, we have no additional comment.”
There’s nothing in the constitution that bars a dual citizen from the Presidency, so long as they’re a natural born citizen of the US.
Its clear (to me at least) what @Fear_Itself meant from the git-go.
Somebody who very clearly, by widely acknowledged facts, does not fall within the various citizenship requirements to be US President. Not the main one, and none of the niggledy exceptions or inclusions either.
As in my example of Arnold Schwartzenegger. Austrian born, no US parental, or US overseas mission connection, just a pure foreign baby. Who’s now a naturalized, but not natural born, US citizen. And oh by the way also an Austrian citizen, but as you say that doesn’t matter constitutionally.
As a humorous aside, I remember political deep thinkers lamenting, back when, Henry Kissinger’s disqualification.
Originalist thinking does not dominate the Court. Cowardice, however, does. That’s why I think that they’ll just wash their hands of it.
I did preface that by saying that it’s what I thought would happen, not what should, right?
And that is the danger in leaving it up to the SoSs of the various states. I’m sure at least one would have tried to keep Obama off of the ballot for not being an NBC. In fact, didn’t a few try or were those people filing court cases to keep him off of the ballot?
There were at least 17 lawsuits attempting to challenge his eligibility. In addition, in 2011 the Arizona legislature tried to pass a bill making any presidential candidate prove their citizenship prior to being put on the ballot, but the governor vetoed it.
No Secretary of State was involved from what I can see.
My question is was it because all 51 (counting DC) SoSs wanted to stay out of the birther fiasco or because they couldn’t legally disqualify him but some would have if they could?
I’m all for thinking about how this sort of thing can backfire. But the precedent being attempted is to have judges decide if the primary candidate is an insurrectionist. That doesn’t sound super-dangerous,
Also, if some deep red states somehow made it impossible for nationally viable Democrats to get on the primary ballot, the Democrats, in those few states, could switch to the caucus system, or, conceivably, run their own primaries without reliance on the government.
The GOP could also do that, but I don’t think there is enough time to organize it for this cycle. Maybe I’m wrong, Maybe there are people in the CA GOP tonight planning for caucusing next Spring should Trump be off the primary ballot. Depends on whether they really want Trump, or just say they do to their base.
This is only a WAG but I believe it’s the latter.
Note that we’ve been having elections for 235 years and in all that time there hasn’t been a disqualification along the lines we’re talking about. Think of how many Secretaries of State there have been and how many candidates there have been. There must have been plenty of times that a Secretary of State would have wanted to disqualify someone over something spurious, but legally couldn’t. It’s extremely improbable for that not to be the case.
Also, those sorts of accusations aren’t new. Andrew Jackson was accused of not being a natural born citizen, same with Chester A. Arthur.
This takes away one uncertainty I had:
Good find! That doesn’t mean he won’t backtrack so fast he’d get whiplash (see McConnell and Supreme Court nominations in an election year), but it’s so nice when you can show a hypocrite the receipts if warranted.
We’ve been having elections for 235 years and only once has the person who lost the election tried to stay in office anyway.
As a reminder, we were talking about people trying to disqualify Barrack Obama. I know it was a bit of a tangent, but it’s relevant to the overall subject of how and whether states can prevent a presidential candidate from appearing on the ballot, and what those attempts have looked like in the past.
Obama won both of his presidential elections and didn’t seek a third term (some presidents actually care about the US Constitution).
Legal Eagle has just posted a video on the subject.
When Congress counts the EVs, there can only be an objection if the vote(s) was not “regularly given” which I cannot find a definition for. Would an EV for someone ineligible for office be considered not regularly given?