(January 4, 2024 at 11:58 am)Nanny Wrote: My guess is that SCOTUS will rule that Claus 3 of 14A does not apply because Trump is not yet running for POTUS. He's running for a party nomination. This would certainly beg a big question after the GOP convention, unless the GOP did the unthinkable and fails to nominate him.

That could be. I'd bet a big pizza the SCOTUS shitcans the challenges and keeps Trump on the ballots. As you said, it would take some serious Clarencethenics to justify overruling the states, but he'll come up with something.

Here is something interesting.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...097540007/

Apparently, Trump received millions of dollars from about 20 foreign countries, something that is apparently not allowed.

(January 4, 2024 at 1:16 pm)ShinyCrystals Wrote: something that is apparently not allowed.

The guy seems to be under the impression that no standard of behavior should ever apply to him. It's said that he violated the Hatch Act on a nearly daily basis, making White House staffers do work for his campaign. But if anyone tries to make him suffer consequences for this irresponsibility, he whines about witch hunts and a weaponized DOJ.

What an immature prick.

(January 4, 2024 at 9:51 am)Nanny Wrote: I am coming around to the 14th Amendment argument. The text is clear. Anyone who engaged in insurrection or who gave succor to insurrectionists is disqualified from holding federal or state offices.

The irony of Trump defenders crowing for civil war as if that should be the reason to leave the cheeto on the ballot -  that's precisely why section 3 of the 14th Amendment exists.  

I wonder how Clarence will weasel out of this one.

My guess is that if the six Roland Freislers are willing to keep T****y in the race, they'll simply rule that as the office of the President isn't explicitly mentioned in the clause it's not an office of the federal government and not covered by the clause. But like with Bush v Gore this ruling is only binding when it affects a republitraitor.

One of the specious defense offered up by Trump's legal team is that the President is not 'an officer of the United States'. As it turns out, they got this one wrong as well.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/leg...ed-states/

Boru

(January 5, 2024 at 5:26 am)GUBU Wrote:

(January 4, 2024 at 9:51 am)Nanny Wrote: I am coming around to the 14th Amendment argument. The text is clear. Anyone who engaged in insurrection or who gave succor to insurrectionists is disqualified from holding federal or state offices.

The irony of Trump defenders crowing for civil war as if that should be the reason to leave the cheeto on the ballot -  that's precisely why section 3 of the 14th Amendment exists.  

I wonder how Clarence will weasel out of this one.

My guess is that if the six Roland Freislers are willing to keep T****y in the race, they'll simply rule that as the office of the President isn't explicitly mentioned in the clause it's not an office of the federal government and not covered by the clause.  But like with Bush v Gore this ruling is only binding when it affects a republitraitor.

I read that the matter was debated when the 14A was being introduced. There's an exchange where senators ask the very question and the result was yes, POTUS is an officer.

edit - Boru posted it above

Quote:An attorney for former President Trump, Alina Habba, said late Thursday that she has faith in the Supreme Court and believes that Justice Brett Kavanaugh will “step up” in Trump’s ballot cases in Maine and Colorado.

“I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court. I have faith in them,” Habba told Sean Hannity on Fox News. “You know, people like Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the President went through how to get into place, he’ll step up.”

Habba added that Kavanaugh and the other justices will step up “not because they’re pro-Trump, but because they’re pro-law, because they’re pro-fairness.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/43...lot-cases/

I think the more interesting question is whether removing Trump is a violation of due process. The 14th Amendment says that you cannot deprive someone of "life, liberty, or property" without due process. It's a question of whether due process was adequately observed when the defendant was not given the same tools of defense as a criminal defendant, and whether this constitutes depriving him of liberty.

(January 5, 2024 at 9:18 am)Nanny Wrote: I read that the matter was debated when the 14A was being introduced. There's an exchange where senators ask the very question and the result was yes, POTUS is an officer.

edit - Boru posted it above

And yet I a lawyer on the radio claim that that "officers", by definition are not elected, but appointed.  I think he's wrong, but is there an accepted legal definition of officer?  If not, SCOTUS can make up any definition they like.

(January 5, 2024 at 11:06 am)HappySkeptic Wrote:

(January 5, 2024 at 9:18 am)Nanny Wrote: I read that the matter was debated when the 14A was being introduced. There's an exchange where senators ask the very question and the result was yes, POTUS is an officer.

edit - Boru posted it above

And yet I a lawyer on the radio claim that that "officers", by definition are not elected, but appointed.  I think he's wrong, but is there an accepted legal definition of officer?  If not, SCOTUS can make up any definition they like.

The Colorado Supreme Court noted that impeachment results in a person being disqualified from holding office. It would be absurd for impeachment not to apply to presidents.