What do you suppose the odds are of some Republican controlled states, like Texas, throwing Biden off the ballet for “reasons”?
Better than 50-50. This election may be a total farce before it’s done.
I think you mean throwing Bidon off the ballet.
I don’t believe in odds, but — will not happen.
I do think the Supreme Court will want a nationwide standard, so individual state decisions will not matter.
And I am more sure that both Biden and Trump are unpopular candidates whose parties would be better off with other standard-bearers. Republicans look forward to facing a Biden-Harris ticket. They’d be fools —which they are not — to try excluding Biden from the ballot.
Except the drafters of the 14th Amendment chose not to use the word “treason”. It’s a general rule of statutory interpretation that when separate words are used, separate concepts are intended. Not always, the rule can be overcome, but in this case, the different wording suggests to me that they meant something other than “treason”, which is narrowly defined by the Constitution, as you comment. The different wording may indicate an intention to use a broader concept, not subject to the constitutional definition of “treason”.
Electors only vote once. The votes are recorded, and then sent to the Congress and National Archives.
Colorado voted 55% for Biden anyway.
You’re right. I had it confused with a different process. I wasn’t very wide awake.
Nothing this Supreme Court does can surprise me any more, but I’m betting they decline to take the case, because that’s the outcome that most resembles doing nothing, and I don’t think they have the guts to do anything on this subject. Never underestimate the ability of a bureaucracy to do nothing.
That’s most definitely not true.
Treason and insurrection can intersect but they’re very separate. Treason from a legal perspective requires the US to be at war and then to aid the enemy against the US.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Insurrection or rebellion is codified into law.
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
So if China invades Hawaii and the US declares war in response, and you start sending info to China to help them, that could be treason. But you’re not trying to overthrow the US government, so it’s not insurrection.
Similarly, trying to use fraud to subvert the election of the president doesn’t involve war in any way so isn’t treason from a legal sense, but you’re certainly trying to make someone take over the government against the democratic choice of the citizenry, so could be considered insurrection.
Now, you could do both at once. If a bunch of white power militia folks in Montana formed a civilian army called Q-Force and started using guerilla tactics against soft targets in an attempt to force the government to accept Trump and his kids as a new imperial family, and the US declared war against them, any member of that army would be both traitors and insurrectionists.
(Or historically people who fought for the Rebellion in the US Civil War would also count.)
If the Supreme Court does uphold the decision, I expect to see Republicans in reddish-swing-states like Florida try to keep Biden off the ballot with some contorted logic.
OK so Trump can’t appear on the Colorado ballot in the general election let’s say. Can “The slate of Republican electors” appear on the Colorado ballot? I realize the Amendment is about serving not being elected. But if Trump were elected, would the Supreme Court say he was ineligible? I truly doubt it.
If they try it, then I predict it will be over the border. They’ll say that Biden violates his oath of office by not protecting the countries borders. That will be the fig leaf.
But overall, I think they might make some noise about it, but I don’t think any of them will. I think, for the moment, it is a step too far.
I think this decision makes it much more likely that red states will attempt to block Biden from the ballot. Because if a bunch of states attempt to kick presidential candidates off the ballot, it gives the Supreme Court more ammunition for stepping in and insisting that there needs to be a nationwide standard.
No. CRS 1-4-304(5) says the electors must vote for the candidate with the most votes. That was upheld by SCOTUS so if you try to vote for someone else, they fire you and replace you.
That’s the danger we’ve all been talking about. No one would have an issue if they did not allow a non-NBC to run, but by what standard can you claim someone was a party to insurrection? Conviction? Confession in open court? Testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act? What has Biden done that can be considered an insurrection against the United States besides sniffing girls’ hair? Maybe the refugee crisis is allowing a foreign invasion (Republican logic) but who gets to be the arbiter of that being insurrection.
And here’s a thought. The 14th Amendment specifically omits the President because as Head of State by definition he cannot commit insurrection. Not saying I agree with it, just giving ideas to Trump’s lawyers.
I don’t see why. It’s not a criminal question, so the criminal standard (“beyond a reasonable doubt”) does not apply. It is a simple question of qualifications. There are three qualifications for being elected president: you must be 35 years old, you must be a natural born citizen, and you must not have participated in insurrection. The standard is a civil question, and the civil standard is “by a preponderance of the evidence”, which the Secretary of State can determine without a conviction in court. You don’t have to be “convicted” of being under 35, or not a natural-born citizen. The same standard applies to participating in an insurrection.
What on earth is this supposed to mean? The controversial issue about whether the president is “an Officer of the United States” has nothing to do with a candidate for office being president when they committed insurrection. It is about whether, having committed insurrection, they are eligible for that office in the future.
Which is dangerously close to a bill of attainder.
Republican logic.