316
Colorado GOP Threatens to Go Rogue If Trump Decision Stands
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
316 points (96.5% liked)
politics
19144 readers
1498 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well, they can do their caucus thing as they like. As long as Trump will not appear on the ballot, I'm fine with it.
The courts decision is a bit wonky, though. I don't consider "being the candidate for party X" an "office, civil or military, of the United States", so banning him from the primaries is (IMHO) unwarranted. On the other hand, the court admits that Trumps actions are valid reasons to invoke A14, so removing him from the ballot papers for November would be justified. And that is the only place that counts.
Luckily for you, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch already ruled on that precise topic when he was a Colorado judge. A foreign born man who had become a US citizen, a person who is ineligible by default, still insisted he should have the right to run for president even if he can't take office.
Gorsuch ruled that the state had a responsibility to prevent anyone who is ineligible for office from even being allowed on the ballot.
His decision was even cited in Trumps ruling.
And that makes sense. If a person can't legally hold the office, it's letting people waste their votes by allowing that person to remain on the ballot.
You might argue that people should know all about who they're voting for, but we all know that's not the case.
He didn't actually rule on this. There was no question of eligibility in that case, it was just whether being ineligible for the position gave the state the right to block him from the ballot. This one will hinge on whether or not the amendment applies to trump. And based on the wording of the amendment, unfortunately, they have multiple ways to reasonably argue it does not, and we all know the conservative majority will rule he is eligible.
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
Can't hold any office. Pretty plain.
If by the 14th he is not eligible for the presidency outside of 2/3rds of Congress voting to waive that, then why the fuck should he be on the ballot? It’s pointless.
That’s like saying I’m banned from a venue but keeping me from getting in line to enter is unfair and unwarranted.
Do you hear yourself? I guess you think you know better than the high courts lmao
If there's one good thing to have come from Trump, it is that he has exposed how terrible at making laws, the politicians have been
that's the part that irks me the most about modern American politics.
30% of the current House and 51% of current Senators have law degrees. these are supposed "experts"; you'd think they would be able to write better laws...
The relevant laws were written hundreds of years ago, by people who probably thought the meaning was obvious.
Because the Republicans should be able to do whatever they want in their candidate selection process, all the way up to and including running a disqualified candidate. It's their club and they can run it however they like.
They should be allowed to choose the candidate but the state shouldn't be forced to put him there. He's disqualified. It should be equivalent to the party dropping out of the race if they pick him...
That's exactly what should happen.
You want to nominate a dog to run for president? You want to nominate a fictional character to run for president? You want to nominate a dead person to run for president?
Go ahead.
The state is not obligated to put that nominee on the ballot because that nominee is 100% ineligible to hold the office of president.
Although thinking about it, it WOULD be hilarious if he was on the ballot while being absolutely for-sure barred from office. At least unless he somehow won, then the evil Republicans would whip up the moronic conservatives and we'd have ourselves an actual civil war...
Yeah, it's more than just a social club electing a leader, though. It's quite literally our nation sorting out our presidential elections. I think some legal boundaries outside the norm are in order for these two particular "clubs."
You go ahead and make Trump the leader of your rotary club, though.
I reluctantly agree with this. If they want to nominate or even elect a candidate that cannot serve, so be it. When the time comes to take office, the person with the most votes that is qualified to serve should take the office.