Meaningless, he’ll never carry California, but liberals are setting a precedent that I guarantee will be used against them later.

jkmooney avatar

Well, should a Liberal incite an insurrection against the United States, that precedent should be used against them.

jkmooney avatar

As I understand it, so far, the courts aren't disputing that Trump incited an insurrection, they're disputing if the 14th Amendment applies to the office of the President.


Does the 2nd ammendment apply to my AK-47 even though it’s not explicitly determined in the wording? Then the 14th should also apply to office of the president.

They want to eat their cake and have it, and the hypocrisy doesn’t matter to them at all. They use laws, procedure and precident when it helps their case. They blatantly ignore it the rest of the time.

IHeartBadCode avatar

Tennessee State General Assembly: I saw a Democrat with a Biden T-shirt set fire to a trash can! It’s totally justified to disqualify Biden!

My State will sadly pull some stupid stunt like this for sure. I get your sentiment but for a lot of us red States our government will absolutely trip over themselves to demonstrate their “hold my beer” skills.

That’s not to say Trump shouldn’t be disqualified, but boy oh boy is it opening a box that looks like no one should open it. I really hope SCOTUS comes back and says something like “it went through three different courts and because of THAT reason we’re up holding it.” Just simply saying “well States should decide” will pretty much mean I’ll never get to vote.


Red states can, and likely will try something like that, but SCOTUS should reverse the decision if it violates the U.S. constitution. States have tried messing with who can and can’t be on the ballot before, and SCOTUS used the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment saying you can’t arbitrarily keep a person off the ballot. SCOTUS might do the same for Colorado and California since Trump has not been found guilty of anything involving an insurrection yet. But yeah, if SCOTUS goes full “state’s rights,” saying states can mess with elections however they want, the U.S. will likely become more like a confederacy of sovereign states. And I think states that currently have red governors or legislatures have more electoral votes and house seats than blue states, so we would have a perpetual Republican federal government.


Yes, if a Dem president incites an insurrection against the United States of America to illegally stay in power, I would absolutely support removing them from the ballot.

Liberals are weak fascist enablers but that take is not it lmfao


Fully agreed, but what if a Dem president is “allegedly” inciting an insurrection? In terms of electoral games, this is really one I would not want to play with the GOP. They will say that Biden is a traitor because he pulled troops from Afghanistan/the border/whatever other BS they can come up with.

With a conviction I would be fully in favour of removing Trump from the ballot. Without a conviction it’s just too easy for GOP to come up with a BS story. As a warning, many swing states are controlled by GOP.


So you’re reasoning is that we shouldn’t legitimately use the constitutional amendment to bar a criminal insurrectionist from running for president because other criminals may fraudulently use the same amendment in the future?

“If you legitimately try to stop the criminals with laws, those criminals may use those same laws illegitimately in the future” is not a reason to let them get away with their bullshit.


Far from it, and you are making exactly my point. I think a “criminal insurrectionist” (as in criminally convicted) should be removed from the ballot. Doing this to somebody who is not convicted opens the door to all kinds of shenanigans.


Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction. In fact, there had not been a conviction in ANY of the instances where the amendment was invoked.


It definitely matters. Primaries exist. This article is specifically about the primary. He won the Republican primary in 2016 with nearly 75% of the vote.

Also, I’m pretty sure California awards the winner more delegates than any other state.


If that makes a difference, the RNC might just decide to go the DNC route and give themselves the power to ignore delegates and just pick a candidate if they so feel like.

originalucifer, avatar

what is the precedent? if you get yourself tagged as an insurrectionist, you cant be president?

or are you implying that conservatives are such outright, terrible human beings they would just lie in the future and call whomever they want an insurrectionist to keep them off the ballot? i think the morons down in texas already have that in progress

Riccosuave, avatar

I agree with everything you said except it isn’t liberals setting a precedent. It is literally the legal standard set forth by the CONSTITUTION.

You are, however, correct that the GOP terrorist organization that is larping as a political party will certainly try to use this as a way to further undermine democracy. The question then becomes, how do you fight an opponent that is hellbent on usurping the rules in order to take over the country by legal fiat?

squiblet avatar

The suit in Colorado was brought by 6 republicans.


It would have been used against them anyway, so they might as well use it where it actually applies.


I’m surprised this had to be said. 6 days before the balots are ordered.

“The constitution is clear: you must be (at least) 40 years old and not be an insurrectionist,”


you don’t need every legal option. the law is clear as day, all we need to do is follow it and wait for the openly corrupt supreme court to decide that it doesn’t count in this case because they’d rather it didn’t.

EtherWhack, avatar

I see it more as to explore and close every loophole that could be used to prevent or discredit disqualification and make it as airtight as possible.


No matter what happens with Trump, the present GOP is planning to seize and consolidate power.


DeMocRaCy aT woRk


explain to me why this and only this constitutional amendment should be ignored


‘Explore every legal option’ to remove him from the ballot. Sure sounds awfully much like ‘Any excuse that the plebs will fall for’ to remove him from the ballot… Also, if you believe so much in the legal system, why does it only apply to the poor? Have a good day sir or ma’m.


A string of non sequiturs does not an argument make.


If you find those sentences confusing, I feel sorry for you.


So what happens if Trump wins the electoral college but California and other states don’t recognize the insurrectionist shit bag?


How would he win the electoral college without being on the ballot? I guess more than half could write his name in.

If, say, half the states don’t have him on the ballot though, that’s a pretty unlikely thing to happen to win the necessary votes for the whole country.


I’m gonna be frank and say it’s a long shot of Trump winning Colorado and California. He didn’t win those states the last two times.

If he’s not on the ballot in those two states, he could still win the EC as he did in 2016. The comment you’re replying to is wondering what California and Colorado will do, should Trump win the EC.


If he’s on in red states and purple states but not on the blue states.

Netrunner, avatar

Let’s hope more states do it. Maybe it would send a message to the boomers about a potential Trump 2nd term.

GladiusB, avatar

It’s just the deep state afraid of the truth! Time and persistence shows the real intentions!



The death of states rights here /s

AFaithfulNihilist, avatar

Just convince them to try again next time after all of Trump’s appeals surely succeed and he is ushered into the throne in the White House.


Not trying to be hyperbolic but states selectively choosing who is allowed to be voted on as opposed to having it run as intended can cause a justification for a second civil war. This shouldnt be allowed. I dont care how vile Trump is to you. There is no rule that it can be left to the states to withhold votes in a federal election.


Section 3 of the 14th amendment. It’s in the constitution. This Isn’t just random fuckery, he incited a violent mob to try to overthrow the government, therefore he is ineligible for office. Because no shit, but ALSO because it’s written into the rules of the country.

PatFussy, (edited )

Read section 3 for me please. Tell me where it says the states can take it upon themselves to decide to absolve. It does say insurrectionists would be inelligible for office but its not up to the state to decide that.

But either way, shouldnt he be charged with insurrection before you make decisions like these? Literally proving his point that they will try any way to get him off the ballot, legal or not. I wonder why other states like Minnesota and Michigan refused to take him off the ballot…


Again, the Colorado court ruled that section 3 is self-executing. That’s a thing, whether you like it or not. I suggest you Google the term.


Explain how someone can be labeled as “traitor of the union” in only certain states. Explain how only 1 state in the union can come to a conclusion that a person falls under self execution of a certain statute within the constitution.


This isn’t states choosing. It’s the US constitution rightly preventing those who tried to destroy the country from ever holding office.

PatFussy, (edited )

Was Trump convicted of insurrection or rebellion? Please remind me when he went to jail for insurrection. Ill agree with you 100% if he was proven guilty in a trial for insurrection. If not, then the state is taking it upon themselves to make shit up.


Were any of the Confederate leaders convicted? No, because the earliest incarnation of the law you’re referring to weren’t created until 50 years later. That was not the intent of the authors of the 14th amendment, as it would have hurt the reconciliation process to imprison all former Confederate leaders. They were nevertheless prevented from holding federal office.


The precedent is that he doesn’t need to be convicted of insurrection for the insurrection clause to apply.


You can be guilty of something without being guilty of something. Thats an interesting way to frame it. What is the precedent here?


What is the precedent here?

Former Confederates were barred from holding public office regardless of whether they were actually charged with treason, or anything else


A criminal conviction is not required to be disqualified under the 14th amendment. It’s not a criminal punishment, but a requirement for holding public office, in the same vein as being at least 35 is a requirement to be President. There haven’t been many that have been disqualified under the 14th amendment, but none of them were convicted either.


Whats the precedent here then? Or is the intent for this to be the precedent? I will actually send you a crisp $100 dollar bill if this doesnt get overturned by the US supreme court.


What’s going to qualify as “precedent” to you? Another elected official being disqualified from public office after their involvement in the January 6th insurrection, even though they weren’t convicted of insurrection? Or something else? Please be specific, I could really use that hundred bucks.


You are conflating New Mexico state authority to a federally elected authority. This is not precedent and im fairly certain the US supreme court would agree.


I’m not conflating anything. State precedent is still precedent, especially since federal precedent has not yet been set for this specific case. None of the other several cases where the 3rd section of the 14th amendment was invoked went to the federal Supreme Court. If you think that means “this is not precedent”, then you don’t understand the American judicial system.


Funny that you don’t even try to deny that Trump may have been involved in inciting/leading an insurrection. It’s only that he hasn’t been found guilty of it by the courts. How will the goalposts shift if he is found guilty?


Dont get me wrong, i am only trying to defend the process. I would never vote for trump, he is an incarnation of everything we should not like about a portion of our society. Trump should have been thrown in prison years before he was even president for his many instances of fraud.

With that said if trump is found guilty of insurrection, which he absolutely should be, then i would say toss him in jail and let him rot. He is a disgusting human being and society is better without him.


The argument is that section 3 of the 14th amendment is self-executing which in legal terms means that he doesn’t have to be convicted for it to take effect. Similarly, we don’t have to obtain a court ruling that Vladimir Putin isn’t eligible to run for US president, for example, because the part of the Constitution requiring presidential candidates to be natural born citizens is also self-executing.

Whether or not section 3 is in fact self-executing is not settled law, so that could be one way the SCOTUS overturns the Colorado decision, as I think is likely.

The upshot is that given the above, you are in fact incorrect as a legal matter since it’s well within the Colorado supreme Court’s remit to rule that section 3 is self-executing whether we agree or not.


Maybe don’t try to overthrow the government, mmk?


Back in the day, pro-life people set up fake abortion clinics used to trick women - delaying their “appointments”, forcing them to look at ultrasounds and not having people that could, you know, perform abortions. Democrats rightly passed a bunch of laws that forced any abortion clinic to, you know, perform abortions.

Then the republicans retaliated. They started passing ridiculous requirements - like going to the clinics and measuring door sizes then passing laws saying that doors need to be larger than what they had; then up-ing the ante by requiring “abortion reversing drugs” (that didn’t exist) should women want to stop mid abortion.

Should Trump be disqualified enough to loose, look to Republicans to start passing ridiculous disqualification criteria. Supported BLM once? Well, BLM rioted once, so that was an insurrection and thus you are now disqualified from ever holding office. In fact, look for this happening anyways. Cause if a republican is in power somewhere, under their logic it is unconstitutional to challenge them.


So now that Colorado has done it, do there even need to be future lawsuits in any state to follow?

I imagine there might be a lawsuit challenging the state doing it, but thats different than having to prove it in the first place like in Colorado


I’m no expert, but it seems logical that you could still win enough electoral votes from states that are not CO.

Dems have won CO every presidential election since 2008, so maybe not a huge issue for Trump? Again - I’m just guessing here.


The idea is that since Presidence has been set, more states will follow. But yes, probably still only states that wouldn’t have voted for him anyway.


Most states that are considering this are probably waiting for SCOTUS to weigh in.


Can they really weigh in on how a state runs its elections?

NotMyOldRedditName, (edited )

I think they could say they incorrectly found as a matter of fact that Trump incited insurrection.

If they nullify that, then they wouldn’t be able to ban him under the 14th.

Edit: if they force the Supreme cout to rule on this though (did he incite insurrection), that will set precedent country wide, and ban him from the presidency completely I imagine?


I think it’s not state election instruction that’s under question. It’s whether it’s sound to invoke the 14th amendment.


We must save democracy by not letting people vote for him in a democratic election!


Should we start allowing people under the legal age and non-citizens run for president without first amending the constitution to allow that as well?

If people want to change that outcome, then they should tell their representatives (the Constitution says Trump needs 2/3rds vote by both houses of Congress to be allowed to run for office in the US now) or amend the constitution. Its simply following the election laws that was accepted by the elected officials.


If you’re going to try to destroy democracy with an insurrection you don’t deserve to participate anymore



Not sure if you’re being sarcastic, but it’s not that complicated. Constitution says he’s not eligible, so that’s that.


We voted last time and he lost and refused to accept his fate. He committed crimes (some of them against me as a ga resident who didn’t vote for him). The law says you can’t be president if you have supported insurrectionists. He incited the insurrection and even if you don’t believe he wanted it to happen he still offered his support to the perpetrators after the fact. Even after they were convicted for insurrection. He literally did what it says he can’t do. It’s as plain as the hole in my ass dude.

squiblet avatar

Someone who tried to ignore election results and incite a mob to overthrow the government? Yes.


"In her letter, Kounalakis acknowledged there would be ‘political punditry’ about a potential decision to remove Trump from the primary ballot but said ‘this is not a matter of political gamesmanship.’ "


Not only is this gamesmanship, it’s foolish gamesmanship… Dems are gonna shoot themselves square in the foot with this shit.

If you do declare trump ineligible, what goes on the ballot? You gonna have one of them third world elections with just one name on it? No, you’re gonna have trumps mini-me clone… Fucking desantis…

You got Colorado right now. That’s not gonna have a huge impact on it’s own. Those electoral votes were going to be bidens regardless, so it’s something the GOP can, and likely will, completely ignore. In terms of the gamesmanship, all thatx happened is Colorado having made a statement.

If California joins them, it’s just as irrelevant (California’s electorals also belong to Biden), however, it’s now doubled as a statement. It’s twice as loud, and half as ignorable.

The real danger is that a state that matters jumps on the bandwagon. Notably Arizona… If a state that has the capability to determine the outcome opts to bar trump, the GOP will drop him and run desantis in 50 states. You’ll have every single red state supporting fucking desantis, and the potential to pull “martyr” votes in the battleground states for fucking desantis.

If you had to choose trump or desantis, would you go with desantis? That answer should definitely be no, because a lot of the shit cited as being what’s wrong with trump is more attributable to desantis than to trump himself.

Dems are playing with fire with this bullshit, and saying it ain’t gamesmanship is as valid in my opinion as trump saying he wasn’t responsible for the rioting. Possible, but I got some doubts :)


Fascists aren’t welcome on this platform. Truth social might be a better fit

Cornelius_Wangenheim, (edited )

Hey buddy, go check who filed the suit that got him booted in Colorado. Hint: their political party starts with an R, not a D.


Political Gamesmanship

You’re very verbose, but this is about all you’re saying. But there’s a reason these Supreme Court Justices (for Colorado) came to this conclusion other than “gamesmanship”: It’s the fucking right thing to do, and they believe in upholding the law and adhering to The Constitution.

Trump didn’t just not call off his supporters attacking the very heart of our country’s democracy, he didn’t just incite them and gleefully watch the violence and chaos on TV, he didn’t just violate his sworn oath to defend and uphold The Constitution, he didn’t just demand his Vice President violate his oath and refuse to certify the votes, he didn’t just send fake electors, he didn’t just call senators and governors begging for more votes to be “found”, he didn’t just participate in other illegal methods of fraudulently attempting to stay in power… He did all of these!!!

He is legally inelligible to be president again, and we can’t speak this truth enough.


It will be Haley. Why would it be DeSantis, he’s doing terribly.

Deceptichum avatar

You typed all this to say nothing of value.


Courts enforcing plain laws is gamesmanship?

If the RNC decides to unilaterally change their candidate to Haley or DeSantis or another candidate just because Trump is removed from a swing state ballot, I feel like Trump won't admit defeat and his supporters will just write him in or just not vote. His supporters are already distrustful of organizations like Fox. Winning any elections ever would become much more difficult for a long time.




No, it’s the Constitution, plain and simple. He violated his oath of office, so he is ineligible to hold that office or any other again. The only way for him to become eligible is for Congress to vote that he is, with a two thirds majority.


What is it your party is fond of saying? Oh yes, fuck your feelings.


Don’t have a party, I just dislike desantis even more than trump…


Meatball Ron might be more dangerous when it comes to legislation, he sucks when it comes to actually riling people up. People like it when he does dick things but he’s not gonna fill venues with people eager to do whatever he says. We are so far into the danger zone with trump that him getting into power will be the end rather than just being awful


I feel you, but it’s unlikely DeSantis will win the Republican primary next year even if Trump is booted out of the ballots of every blue state. DeSantis just sucks.


He’s kinda the only other option the weird cultist zealots will go for… The GOP kinda signed the contract in blood when they agreed to let trump put the R by his name… A lot of those voters won’t go back to anything resembling a jeb , etc


Then the problem is our countrymen, and us for whay we’re wasting our lives under their thumb to begin with.


“We shouldn’t uphold the Constitution because it might hurt ME Politically!”


So you believe in “shall not be infringed” then?

Constitution is usually those other guys… Ya know?


That guy may not, but I do. So, yes to recognizing the validity of the 14th Amendment’s applicability to Trump thereby rendering him ineligible for office, and to all gun laws being an infringement. If you go left far enough, you get your guns back.


Not sure if that’s “left”, as it’s kinda hard to define those terms anymore, but i exist in a similar place I think :)

My objections are actually related to due process. I feel there’s definitely shadow of doubt there, and while I don’t like trump, I’m not willing to ignore that shadow, and the current bullshit going on in Texas with Biden is a pretty solid example of why… Not to say they’re the same thing at all, the Biden thing is not even a shadow, it’s just outright bullshit, but if you don’t need an actual conviction, then that’s going to be the inevitable outcome…

Do you feel that “left” as you’ve defined it means democrat? I don’t. I certainly don’t think it means Republican either though. Not trying to stir any pots or anything, it’s just kinda rare for me to agree with a sentiment as much as I agree with yours and I’m genuinely curious about your opinion on the matter :)

CthuluVoIP, (edited )

Do you feel that “left” as you’ve defined it means democrat?

In principle? No. In practice? The US’s elections are governed by first past the post voting. Until we reform how politicians are elected by enacting more sensible term limits, make lobbying illegal and remove other moneyed interests from public service, and institute ranked choice voting or something similar, the only responsible party to vote for winds up being the Democratic Party despite them not aligning with my preferences on either end of the spectrum.

Ultimately, I think I’m something like a Libertarian who supports taxes for the betterment of society. I think centralized government’s responsibility is to provide services for the constituents they represent and to ensure that our laws are centered on maintaining as much individual liberty as possible.

TheSanSabaSongbird, (edited )

Why do you keep saying “Dems” like this is some kind of decision arrived at by the DNC or the Biden Administration? This is the result of a group of attorneys and 4 judges in Colorado. I and everyone else in this thread had zero say in the matter. I even think you may be right that this ends up being a negative for the Dems. We will see.

That said, attorneys and judges being what they are, I don’t see how this wasn’t going to happen one way or another regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

Also, I would take Desantis over Trump in a heartbeat. Desantis would be bad, but he is not a gifted politician and doesn’t have anything like Trump’s cultish following and ironclad control over the cowardly leadership in the Republican party. There is no universe in which a president Desantis becomes a permanent dictator. He’d be lucky to complete a single term in office.


Except that Trump is a crybaby little bitch who would never in a million years support Rhonda or anyone else for a position he feels is “his.” He’s more likely to encourage his rabid lunatic supporters to write him in even if it’s not going to work, and plenty of them would. Then you’d have the Republicans who would be slightly more rational and vote for the actual nominee in hopes that there’s enough of them.

I’m not saying it’s impossible that we’ll end up with a Republican president. I’m actually terrified that will happen. I’m just saying I don’t think states expecting the constitution to be enforced are going to be the reason.


If you had to choose trump or desantis, would you go with desantis?

No I’d go with neither, because I’m a registered Democrat, so I don’t get a say in the Republican primary in my state 🙂

Quaternions, avatar

And the precedent set by Colorado begins.


Yeah. Isn’t it great?


Colorado can’t set precedent for California. Koulanakis is just so mind-numbingly stupid she thinks you need to be 40 to be POTUS.

Quaternions, avatar

She’s off by 5 years.

You have to be a natural born citizen, be a resident for at least 14 years and be at least 35 years old in order to become president.


I don’t think the Lt Governor is the dumb one at hand, weirdly angry internet denizen.

And a state can, in fact, set precedent for another state in interpreting federal law, particularly the Constitution, as precedent is, and this will probably shock you, just precedent and not the law itself.

It is legally very simple to look at another state’s interpretation of the Constitution and say “Yes, they had a good argument, that’s the right way to do it.”

deweydecibel, (edited )

The question is will any purple states follow it. Trump was never going to win Colorado or California.

There’s about a hundred different outcomes to this election that scare the shit out of me, but the one I’m stressed about tonight is the possibility that even after this, it’ll make no difference, and then it’ll be abused later on by red states in reverse.

We impeached Trump, they retaliated by trying to impeach Biden on weak pretense. We drop Trump from a ballot in blue states, they’ll drop Biden in red states on some false pretense. Etc etc.

Even if it doesn’t happen that way, it will take another form. I guess what I’m worried about isn’t this specific event and it’s fallout, it’s the pattern of behavior. A democratic system can not operate when an entire party is hellbent on participating in bad faith, and increasingly willing to burn everything rather than accept a loss. No matter what twists and turns we take, it feels like it’s heading toward the same eventual breaking point.


Maybe a few less votes as there are a fair amount of trump voters who can’t spell his name on the write in?


30k people will vote for turnip in 2024.


I mean, red turnip may be rotten, but you wouldn’t want blue turnip to get in.


I don’t think it matters if he would win those states as much as it may suppress MAGA turnout in those states, which ATM is a good thing.


Which is why Democrats were doormats for so long. They were very aware of this and made concessions to maintain democracy.

Of course that didn’t work. It’s clearly not just a phase.

We can’t just keep getting run over to maintain some false sense of decorum.


I agree, but republican states need to find a legal way to remove Biden from the bailouts, if not I am sure that no matter what they try they will fail. Well I hope.


I feel like if this becomes a partisan trend of states whose reps/governors are up for election just kicking trump off the ballot it will only embolden his most angry voters, and energize those who are like, “well, I don’t care for the man, but I think the democrats are just out of control.” They don’t have to learn shit about the legal reasoning—in fact, they won’t. You have to assume no one will learn anything and they’ll just get the spin aimed at them. This serves as a boost to trump, i think


There’s one other thing to consider, that states where banning him makes no difference doing so will spark the fire of the reds in the purple states, making them vote more furiously.

CosmicCleric, avatar

A democratic system can not operate when an entire party is hellbent on participating in bad faith, and increasingly willing to burn everything rather than accept a loss.

This is what truly matters.

We have to all agree on following the law faithfully/honestly, or else the center will not hold.


And things will fall apart, right?

CosmicCleric, avatar

In regards to impeachment, there’s precedent that impeachment for BS reasons doesn’t resonate well with voters. Clinton was impeached for BS reasons (the process started with investigating his finances, before Monica Lewinski even worked in the white House). The following election, Democrats won a decent number of seats in congress despite Republicans expecting a Blue blood bath because of impeachment. Same with Trump, he was impeached twice (both of which Republicans said was BS), yet independents still voted for and continue to vote for Democrat candidates. I feel even Republicans know this, which is why McCarthy and McConnel, as well as other Republicans, feel this is a bad idea.


if enough states remove him, he’ll cause a big enough fuss that he’ll get 1/3 of the damn vote from loons writing him in


If he’s disqualified then write in votes for him won’t count either.


To be honest, I just don’t see how he can be disqualified without a conviction. Among others, it requires state courts to rule on out-of-state conduct. For instance, in the (admittedly unlikely) event that the jan 6th charges against T are dismissed, should he be allowed back on the ballot?


Does Arnold Schwarzenegger need to be convicted of having been born in Europe?


That’s a bit of apples to oranges. Nobody contests the fact that Schwarzenegger is born in Europe, while Trump’s case is literally pending in court.


What about Ted Cruz?


Ted Cruz was on the ballot for the primary election in 2016 across all states, so this doesn’t help your case. Remember that you are trying to make the argument that Trump should NOT be on the ballot (despite there being no conviction).


Wind back the tape and Trump argued Ted Cruz should be off the ballot.

My point is that there are some candidates where this has been contested! McCain suffered a similar lawsuit.

This whole argument is dumb as neither of us are lawyers and 90% of people who are disagree with you.


Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary.


Ok,but somebody has to make the determination that Trumps conduct is consistent with sedition. Just from a formal point of view I don’t see how a CO court can rule on this, when the action took place in DC.


So a CO judge makes this determination even though the act occurred in DC, where the court has no jurisdiction? Democracy is so fucked if this stands.

Again, if congress had convicted Trump, or a judge makes a ruling of seditious behavior within its own jurisdiction I am totally on board with striking him from the ballot. But this ruling just sounds flimsy to me.


The case is about the court’s home state ballot so in that sense they do have jurisdiction. The Colorado court isn’t ruling on the Wyoming ballots, for example. Litigators in other jurisdictions can refer to the Colorado finding in their own cases.

Congress’s role in the context of the 14th amendment is explicitly laid out. If SCOTUS wants to argue that the Colorado ruling isn’t binding then the only remaining constitutional remedy is a Congressional vote to remove Trump’s disability, meaning they have to vote to requalify him for office. Republicans can barely figure out how to put their slippers on in the morning let alone muster a 2/3 vote to forgive a traitor for trying to overthrow the country.


I think that the more concerning implication is that states are the ones that determine who should be allowed to run for president or not. This is messy and not cohesive, I don’t think this sort of structure which we may be building is conductive to a healthy democracy. But we will have to see how far reaching these events reach.


So a CO judge makes this determination even though the act occurred in DC, where the court has no jurisdiction? Democracy is so fucked if this stands.

Do you not understand how the constitution works?


Already told you; if section 3 is self-executing, nobody has to make that determination.


The question you are trying to get at is whether or not section 3 is self-executing. The answer is that it’s not a settled matter.

The consensus right now, as far as I can tell based on my media consumption, is that the SCOTUS will overturn the Colorado decision. The real question is how they will decide to do so.


Technically they will count.

The issue is that he is ineligible to be president. The the same as if he was foreign born or under 35.


A lot of foreign born presidents, so I’m calling bullshit on this one!

Many of the presidents were actually born in england…








originalucifer, avatar

ahhh votes have an eligibility multiplier... trumpvotesx0 bidenvotesx1

Fal, avatar

Typical, you have no idea how the country’s election system works. You have to register as a write in candidate for write ins to cont


You can vote for Vladimir Putin all you want. He can’t be the president of the United States.


Not with that attitude


How will they count if he’s ineligible?


It is a primary. A party can nominate whoever they want. It has no bearing on whether who they nominated actually is eligible to be sworn in.

ook_the_librarian, avatar

I think they mean the secretary of state may release a total of write-ins, but to my knowledge they make no effort to distinguish write-in names if there aren’t enough to swing it.

So technically, they count write-ins. Just not in the winner’s column.


Some 3rd parties have ran ineligible candidates. If they actually won, the electors wouldn't actually cast their votes for them, but the votes are counted and tallied AFAIK. Given these are parties that make the Green Party and Libertarian parties look like first parties, they've just been ignored.
For example:

Notably, Colorado is one of the states that wouldn't let Calero on the ballot because he was ineligible.


Don’t tell your racist uncle that though


Please do tell him. That’s one less vote for whoever the legitimate R candidate is.


That’s the point? Don’t tell him so he’ll write him in and the vote will be lost?

FlyingSquid, avatar

Not all states allow write-ins. And some that do have very strict rules about them.

surfrock66, avatar

Or claim the election is already rigged, causing enough of his folks to stay home and NOT vote in other races that the house and state governments see unprecedented flips.


I think you might be underestimating the sheer laziness of voters.

I honestly think we’re going to see something very similar to J6 both in the run up and in the potential for it to turn violent. I think it could happen on a larger scale because the consequences have not been very harsh, except for a handful of minor players. There’s nothing that will keep Bobo and MTG and that whole rogues gallery from calling on people to “make their voices heard 1776 style” or some such euphemism. I don’t even know if they’ll bother with euphemisms at this point.


Get 'em California! Isn’t it true the California bar exam is the most difficult out of all 50 states?


Idk if that’s a badge of honor. Maybe their laws are just more convoluted and hard to understand lol


Keeps folks like Alina Habba from popping up there… Jesus, she must have gotten her license out of a cereal box.


It’s due to their population. It’s like 10 times bigger than most other states so there are a lot of competing interests. Also, California is the only contiguous state that encompasses its own geographic region that’s not shared with any other states. I don’t know that this complicates its laws necessarily, but it is just one more way in which it’s unique.


The only other state that I think even has a shot at that title would be New York and most of that difficulty is from NYC


What does NYC have anything to do with New York’s state bar exam?


NYC is a really old and extremely populous municipality located within New York State sprawling over 5 burrows, as such its laws are likely to be very complicated with thousands of statutes that have nothing to do with the rest of the state, maybe I’m off but I figure the laws of that municipality and its subordinate communities would be on the state wide bar exam

Edit: obviously LA, SF, & SD are huge too but they aren’t quite as old and not nearly as complex


But like where is that specific caveat mentioned? I’ve never heard that even though in theory it could be correct.

cmbabul, (edited )

Not sure what you mean by caveat in this instance, I’ve heard from various sources in media and life that both of those bar exams are insanely tough. I was just pointing out that no other state is even in the ball park of those two, but if NYC weren’t part of New York, California would be all alone at the top of difficulty

Edit: New York is not a complicated or particularly populous state without NYC and its metro


Louisiana has a completely different type of law than the other 49 states, so I think it would be a good contender for difficult bar exam.


Didn’t know they work like Quebec, interesting!


Napoleonic law in Quebec? Did not know that!


Same thing as them, common law for criminal law and civil code for the rest, it was a compromise that the British had to do in order to keep control of Quebec when it was given to them.


In my opinion it’s a slightly better legal system than what we have. It just ends up being shitty because it’s Louisiana.


That’s its reputation, yes. Not sure if true.

originalucifer, (edited ) avatar

why? he doesnt have a chance in hell of CA anyway, why spin your wheels?

i guess im curious which of these states might split their electoral votes


This is for the primary ballots so it would mean he cant win Republican primary votes in that state. That means another Republican candidate could beat him and become the nominee if I’m understanding correctly.


All good points in response to your question, but here’s another: He attempted an insurrection, and is constitutionally prohibited from holding office. It’s in the 14th amendment, article 3. He’s legally prevented to be on the ballot, but laws like that only work if someone enforces it.


I really want his to be the case but, to a laymen like me, the GOPs counterargument that he’s never been convicted of inciting insurrection is compelling. At least with the mental gymnastics SCOTUS and the GOP use. That’s why the special counsel’s and Georgia indictments are paramount, and why Trump’s team is fighting tooth and nail to delay them until after the election.

baronvonj, (edited ) avatar

the GOPs counterargument that he’s never been convicted of inciting insurrection is compelling.

The Constitution mentions engaging in insurrection, not inciting. The district judge in Colorado rule as a finding of fact that he did engage in insurrection, and the state Supreme Court has upheld that decision. So it has been ruled upon in a court of law, twice.


They can cry about that all they want. That is not how the article lays out the disqualification.


The constitution doesn’t say “convicted.” In fact, it says anyone who has supported an insurrection, which wouldn’t be a crime at all.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Trump did engage in insurrection, and gave aid and comfort in the form of verbal support and encouragement. That’s not really in dispute. People have been convicted, and he supported them at a minimum.

Trump’s last tweet of the day:

“These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”


Denying him primary delegates, saving money during the main campaign, and effects on down ballot races are all good reasons to kick him out. Also, yknow, following the constitution which clearly disqualifies Trump.


Yeah, the immediate benefit is the lack of Trump on the ballot in these states will hurt Republican candidates. Also, the Democrats will not have to spend money in these states.


My guess: With the Colorado Supreme Court decision, he wants to build momentum of states disqualifying him. It would also send a message to the Supreme Court that this might be the right decision.

BolexForSoup avatar


ThePantser, avatar

State rights used against the GOPoopers


If enough of a spook is raised about losing any chance of an EC win, or if enough conservatives try running to pick those states up themselves, it will divide the right wing ballot.



  • Loading...
  • deweydecibel,

    Let’s get every blue state, and then maybe a few purple states will follow suit.

    That’s not as likely to happen as you may think.

    Purple states have purple or even red state governments.

    If there’s a chance Trump could win a state, then that state is already likely to have shitty voters that elected a shitty state government that will not jump to follow the blue states.


    I mean they should still do it because it's the right thing to do, but yes it won't carry much meaning in the upcoming election.