Maine barred Donald Trump from the primary ballot Thursday, making it the second state in the country to block the former president from running again under a part of the Constitution that prevents insurrectionists from holding office.

The decision by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) is sure to be appealed. The Colorado Supreme Court last week found Trump could not appear on the ballot in that state, and the Colorado Republican Party has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The nation’s high court could resolve for all states whether Trump can run again.

Archive

  • BreakDecks
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Constitution doesn’t give the deciding power to the SCOTUS, it requires a 3/4 vote of Congress to resolve this.

    It’s completely unconstitutional for the SCOTUS to be making the final decision. They should be the ones penalizing any state that doesn’t remove him from the ballot for violating the Constitution.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      scotus decides what the constitution means, though. and they’ll decide it doesn’t mean this, because they’re openly corrupt, bought and paid for with receipts.

    • Zengen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      That would only hold true if Donald trump was officially convicted of the crime of insurrection. A crime which so far he hasn’t even been charged with. Until he is charged tried and convicted of insurrection the 14th amendment isnt applicable here and I’d bet my money that’s exactly what the surpreme court is going to rule on.

      If they are serious about wanting to remove him from the vallt then they should start there. By trying him for insurrection.

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        58
        ·
        1 year ago

        The 14th doesn’t require a conviction. It was written in the wake of the civil war, to prevent confederates from holding office without needing to convict them.

        The union didn’t want to have to drag every confederate to court just to keep them out of office, because the union knew it would be impossible for the courts to handle and would run counter to reunification efforts. But they were afraid that the confederates would attempt to seize power via the elections once it became clear that the insurrection had failed. So they wanted a way to preemptively bar any former confederate from running for office.

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I bet Zengen is right though. I bet if SCOTUS hears the case the majority opinion will pretend that a conviction is a necessary requirement to use the 14th amendment, even though it obviously isn’t.

          • lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sec 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment has been invoked at least 8 times, none of them were convicted. The most recent case was in 2022, when a judge ordered a county commissioner be removed from office for his actions on Jan 6.

            But the court isn’t concerned about the lack of a conviction. Trump and his team are claiming that the amendment does not apply to the President.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        constitution says absolutely zero about conviction, and 14th has been invoked in the past against people without convictions. but you’re right, scotus will ignore both the constitution and precedent because they’ve been hand selected to grant the presidency to the traitor.

      • Rusticus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Let us know where the wording of the 14th requires a conviction. He’s being judged in COURTS by the state supreme courts. You are creating hurdles that simply aren’t present.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      So it’s liberals for “states’ rights”, like in “Firefly” and SW Prequels?

      (Not American, so you may consider this joke dumb.)