• yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    11 months ago

    The US Supreme Court could rule against Trump, leading to similar lawsuits in additional states.

    If SCOTUS rules that Trump is an insurrectionist, barred from office by the Constitution, wouldn’t that make him ineligible in every state?

      • voracitude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        The fact of his eligibility for the Office of President is a Federal matter. Whether he goes on the ballots is a State matter. I have to admit, in all my readings of the text of the Constitution and the context around the drafting of the Amendments, never once have I seen anything banning a State from putting someone who can’t be President on their ballot.

        Maybe the Framers thought there was no way a State government would be so stupid as to put an ineligible candidate on their ballots, but that if they wanted to waste their votes on that then they should be so allowed, God bless 'em.

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          Ελληνικά
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          This seems right to me. If he was a participant in an insurrection, he can’t hold the office of President. He can still be on ballots, he can still get votes in the electoral college, heck, he can still win, he just can’t be President. In my mind, it would kick over to his VP, same as if he died or otherwise became ineligible while in office.

      • scripthook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yes if the Supreme Court agrees with the Colorado Supreme Court than it would make him invalid to run for any office including Presidency across all 50 states. This can’t be challenged be states if that’s the case. But I suspect a 25% likelihood of that happening.

        • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          I think the likelihood is actually higher than some would suspect. The justices don’t owe him anything at this point. He made a big blunder, in that he put them in office and then expected them to protect him. At best, he has nothing more to offer them, but can do a lot to drag them down in the future if he’s back in office. So even the conservative justices have very little incentive to favor him. From a pragmatic standpoint, it actually makes a lot of sense for the conservative justices to stonewall, or outright refuse to let him hold office.

          • scripthook@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            True I guess it’s just a constitutional question. The right doesn’t get that you don’t need to be convicted of insurrection in order to be ineligible for any Goverment position in section 3 of the 14th Amendment. If Trump did the same thing as a civilian if he lost to Hilary in 2016 the same principle would apply.

      • kameecoding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        And if they vote other way around they kinda open the doors for national popular vote don’t they? Since theyd be saying that federal government has authority over the election process of individual states

      • Elderos@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Ultimately they have to decide if he can hold an office, I’d argue this supercede any technicality about the election itself. At worst I guess this could be decided after he won, but this would break the country.

          • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Pretty sure you passed it long ago. That’s one way in which the US actually IS exceptional: it’s managed to make itself the nation equivalent of “too big to fail”.

            No matter how bad it gets, most of the world will continue to automatically side with the US bo matter what. Even if Trump wins and does everything we fear he might do and more, most of the world HAS to side with the US or face financial ruin.

            Hell, Trump could form an official alliance with Putin’s Russia and start WW3 and The West would join on the side of fascism.

      • kameecoding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        And if they vote other way around they kinda open the doors for national popular vote don’t they? Since theyd be saying that federal government has authority over the election process of individual states

    • CalicoJack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      If they ruled that way, then yes. The 14th Ammendment would overrule any state law and bar him from office, unless 2/3 of Congress voted to exempt him.