All of those amendments say that states cannot deny the right to vote based on various factors.
I’m asking for a cite to support your statement that voting in presidential elections is, in itself, a constitutional right.
That would run directly counter to the Equal Protection clause – even if the court found that state Secretaries of State have the authority to ban candidates from the ballot per the insurrection clause, how they do so must ensure an articulable, rational and necessary process to pass equal protection scrutiny.
Then you said:
You contradicted yourself. If it’s “not absolutely spelled out” then it’s not a constitutional right, by definition.
Everything the US Constitution says about voting for the office of POTUS is set up in Article Two (and then modified a bit by the Twelfth Amendment). There it establishes the Electoral College. There is nothing in regards to a direct vote by citizens. Prior to 1824, the popular vote wasn’t a factor. The 1824 presidential election was the first election where any of the states determined that the electors would be chosen through a popular vote, and even then there were six states that didn’t; instead, it was the state legislatures that did so, as it used to be for all states before that year.
Again, according to the US Constitution, only the Electoral College has the right to vote for POTUS. The states decided for themselves that they wanted the popular vote to determine who the Electoral College was.
I suppose there isn’t anything stopping a state from going back to the old method (having the state legislature decide), or coming up with a new method never done before. I assume there would be a huge controversy over that, as people have had a couple of centuries to get used to the idea of the popular vote being the deciding matter. (By coincidence, the next election will mark the 200 year anniversary of the first presidential election decided primarily through popular vote.) But legally-speaking, I don’t believe there is anything that would prevent that.
Plus, it’s my understanding that felons serving their sentence are generally barred from voting. Is that not the case? What about felons who have been released after serving their sentence?
If they are barred from voting, that suggests no general constitutional right to vote.
Agreed. The courts can make a mess of this, or come up with some objective standard to make this determination.
Then there’s no right to remain silent as anyone who has seen a cop show would know. Not all rights are explicitly stated in the constitution. In this case laws and court decisions have removed restrictions on voting that discriminate while leaving in place the right of the states to determine how to conduct an election such as requiring registration and residency requirements. In addition, an individuals right to vote might be limited as in the case of felons. But those exclusions are based on due process of law where individuals convicted of crimes are excluded, not any class of people. Poll taxes and other eligibility requirements have been tossed by the courts.
Also not a constitutional right. The US Constitution does not encompass the entirety of the laws, rules, rights, and privileges of people in the United States.
Yes, discrimination is explicitly prohibited. But denying everyone the right to vote is not discrimination. It would only be discrimination if it denied certain people the right but allowed others.
As it is, as long as the state isn’t allowing discrimination that violates people’s civil rights, they can use whatever method they want to choose electors. Which is a bit scary, as there have been some discussions about Republicans wanting to take advantage of that fact to essentially guarantee that the state always chooses a Republican presidential candidate.
My interpretation is that it does, although not explicitly. If it’s not encompassed by the constitution then it is by definition unconstitutional. Your right to remain silent is not unconstitutional. Your distinction is meaningless.
Here’s the thing… You’re just flat-out wrong. You’re making an argument based on something objectively false. There is nothing either explicit nor implied in the US Constitution that guarantees the right to vote for the president. That is something adopted independently by the states, as I’ve already established. The states decided to start doing that, and they didn’t even all make the decision on their own. You’re just pushing fiction and nonsense.
Now, I speculate that if any states decided to revert or change that, there would be such a concern that it might be enough to pass an amendment that finally does grant the right that you are insisting already exists. Such proposals have been attempted in the past and failed.
Here is a similar proposal, an attempt to avoid the need for an amendment:
And I believe you are flat out wrong. The entirety of law in the US is established by the constitution, and the SCOTUS is given the final interpretation of what that means. Your rights are not all explicitly stated. It’s as simple as that.
And all of this nitpicking and interpretation does nothing to address the matter stated in the OP, or relates to who can appear on a primary ballot according to the 14th amendment. In addition to that the 14th amendment doesn’t specify the means of excluding candidates from the ballot, nor does it state that people disqualified under article 3 cannot run for an office, only that they are ineligible to hold the office.
I would hope this side track will end and further posts will address the actual topic.
Released felons are often barred from buying, owning, or possessing firearms. And there most certainly is an explicit right to bear arms in the Constitution.
Not arguing for or against your conclusion about voting rights, just that this isn’t the right argument to make here.
I don’t see what relevance guns have to this thread, which is about voting rights. 
My question is whether imprisoned felons have a right to vote. That is highly relevant to the question whether there is a constitutional right to vote in the US?
However, this issue is straying pretty far from the question whether Trump is disqualified, so I’ll drop it.
The question is more about whether states have the ability to exclude Trump from ballots, or if the federal government could intervene if they did. Not about who has the right to vote in a state’s popular election.
I personally don’t like the idea of a state removing someone from the ballot because I think it sets a bad precedent, whether they can or not.
If someone 30 years old, or not a US citizen, wants to run for president, should a state let them? If someone who is not eligible for the office tries to get on the ballot, it’s not a question of “removing” them, they shouldn’t be allowed on the ballot in the first place.
The question is about whether a state or a couple of states decide that in their opinion this person isn’t allowed on the ballot, despite all of the other states allowing it. It’s not always so black and white.
And removing someone from a ballot is the same thing as not putting them on it in the first place; it’s six of one, half a dozen of another. The presumption would be that someone who was nominated by a major political party should be included, and it would be up to the state to decide to exclude them, especially if that is a different decision than a majority of the other states.
A New Hampshire lawyer is trying to get Trump off the ballots using the reasoning put forth by those legal scholars. He does have a lawyer to try it yet, though. Why not do it himself?
Because he doesn’t want a fool for a client?
“We love you. You’re very special.”
Sounds like “comfort” to me. Providing comfort to those that have now been convicted of seditious conspiracy should be enough to disqualify him.
ISTM that one thing being kicked around here – legitimately – is some combination of a Slippery Slope Argument and the Argument of the Beard.
Without Due Process – not explicitly called for under Section 3 of the 14thA – how and where do we draw the line for “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”
?
And while I understand the precedent issues, and the impetus to set a high bar, I’m always mindful that – like the Kavanaugh Hearings – this isn’t a matter which threatens a person’s life or liberty. It’s a job interview.
Which, to me, means a lower bar – closer to “preponderance of the evidence” than to “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
And as TO the Argument of the Beard: it’s an interesting fallacy, but what I see in the extant case is akin to this:
Let some states exclude his name. Let the legal challenges commence. I honestly wouldn’t claim to have a strong sense of how SCOTUS would rule on this, but I think I’d damned sure like to find out.
David Frum at the Atlantic is having none of it:
Consider the scenario in which Section 3 is invoked against Trump in 2024. Although he has won the Republican nomination, Democratic secretaries of state in key states refuse to place his name on their ballots, as a person who engaged in insurrection against the United States. With Trump’s name deleted from some swing-state ballots, President Joe Biden is easily reelected.
But only kind of reelected. How in the world are Republicans likely to react to such an outcome? Will any of them regard such a victory as legitimate? The rage and chaos that would follow are beyond imagining.
And then what? If Section 3 can be reactivated in this way, then reactivated it will be. Republicans will hunt for Democrats to disqualify, and not only for president, but for any race where Democrats present someone who said or did something that can be represented as “aid and comfort” to enemies of the United States. Didn’t progressive Representative Ilhan Omar once seemingly equate al-Qaeda with the U.S. military? Do we think that her political enemies will accept that she was making only a stupid rhetorical point? Earlier this year, Tennessee Republicans tossed out of the legislature two Black Democrats for allegedly violating House rules. Might Tennessee Republicans next deem unruly Democrats “rebels” forbidden ever to run for office again?
Where are the federal courts in all this? Do they actually stand aside as local officials exercise veto power over who’s a loyal enough American to be listed on the ballot for county commissioner? Do they really let the “elected branches” decide? And what would that mean in practice?