|
Oil! posted:This is how Presidential ballots already work. Each state decides who qualifies to be on the ballot. It just hasn't recently happened that the debate was over a major party candidate who committed insurrection. Actually existing jurisprudence demands you can't add additional qualifications to the requirements for a federal office, only enforce existing ones. So you couldn't require a candidate for president be a resident of your state to E: be qualified. You have procedural leeway (such as signature requirements for ballot access) but firm criteria. The argument is what specifically are the criteria established by the 14th amendment and when a state may make the determination. The court currently seems to believe that there would need to be a finding of fact or situation where the defendant cannot reasonably assert they weren't participating in insurrection. Thus Trump's specific riot not insurrection claim. Barrel Cactaur fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Feb 8, 2024 |
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:41 |
|
|
people are already regularly excluded from ballots on a state by state basis because they failed to meet the states' requirement for ballot access.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:people are already regularly excluded from ballots on a state by state basis because they failed to meet the states' requirement for ballot access. Look the insurrection clause is just different and special Pay no attention to states barring 34 year olds or foreign citizens from running
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
Should ban anyone who isn't a Something Awful poster from running, then something awful could stop registering new members. perfect system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:56
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Pretty much. If you let states make the determination, they will inevitably make determinations that other states disagree with, and now different parts of the country are using different ballots to vote in federal elections. And something that requires keeping states in line and removing their agency is naturally the responsibility of the federal government Different ballots in federal elections isn't, by itself, a problem. States already have their own ballot access laws, which can differ enough that candidates are on the ballot in some states but not in other states. You see that a lot with third-parties. For example, the Green Party is on less than half the states' ballots right now, and while they'll likely line up a few more by election day, there's definitely going to be a couple dozen states where the Green Party candidate isn't even on the ballot. The problem here is that the states aren't citing state law against Trump, they're citing federal law, which doesn't differ by state. It's fine to be qualified under one state's laws but not under another's. But it's not possible to be qualified under federal law in one state but not in another state. If Trump's candidacy violates the federal Constitution, then that disqualifies him in all 50 states, period.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Look the insurrection clause is just different and special Can't lobby Congress to take a vote to look the other way on those though. Checkmate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:59
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:A 19th century cop pedaling as fast as he can on a penny farthing bike is a hilarious visual to me Only way you can be eye level with the horse-rider perp while demanding he pulls over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 19:36
|
|
|
Was trump's truth in support of Budweiser a ploy to get on Kavanaugh's good side?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
Pretty naïve to assume that Trump remembers that Brett likes beer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 20:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Different ballots in federal elections isn't, by itself, a problem. States already have their own ballot access laws, which can differ enough that candidates are on the ballot in some states but not in other states. You see that a lot with third-parties. For example, the Green Party is on less than half the states' ballots right now, and while they'll likely line up a few more by election day, there's definitely going to be a couple dozen states where the Green Party candidate isn't even on the ballot. That seems like a catch-22 argument. The states can't push Trump off the ballot because it needs to be done at the federal level, but it can't be done at the federal level because voting is managed by the states. The way to resolve this dilemma is to DECIDE IT AT THE SUPREME COURT (directed at Roberts).
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 20:56
|
|
|
Some good news: Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro ordered to report to prison quote:
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 21:01
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Look the insurrection clause is just different and special States don't bar 34-year-olds or foreign citizens from running. The federal government bars them from running, and thus no even remotely serious party bothers to nominate them in the first place, so they never get to the point of states needing to disqualify them in the first place. If a state accused a presidential candidate of being 34 or a non-citizen and tried to remove them from the ballot, similarly to what happened with Trump, then we would likely see the resulting lawsuit follow a very similar course. It's really not unique to Trump. For example, while pretty much all the challenges against McCain and Obama's citizenship were dismissed on standing, one of the courts suggested in their dismissal that the only body that had the Constitutional authority to disqualify McCain was Congress itself: https://casetext.com/case/robinson-v-secretary-of-state-debra-bowen quote:It is clear that mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. § 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and that the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications for president are quintessentially suited to the foregoing process. Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review — if any — should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300-02, 118 S.Ct. 1257, 140 L.Ed.2d 406 (1998). This circumstance also obviates any occasion to consider plaintiff's standing-cure suggestion that the American Independent Party (affiliated with Alan Keyes) be allowed to intervene. ------- SaTaMaS posted:That seems like a catch-22 argument. The states can't push Trump off the ballot because it needs to be done at the federal level, but it can't be done at the federal level because voting is managed by the states. The way to resolve this dilemma is to DECIDE IT AT THE SUPREME COURT (directed at Roberts). Whether someone is qualified to be president under federal law is inherently a federal issue, one that individual states cannot determine by themselves. It has to be handled at the federal level in some way. If it's handled at the federal level before states start printing ballots, then the ruling will naturally flow down to the states, which will remove him under state laws saying that a federally-ineligible candidate can't be on state ballots. That's the part you're probably missing here. Technically, Colorado's legal authority for removing Trump didn't come from the 14th Amendment. It came from a Colorado state law that says that federally-ineligible candidates can't be placed on the ballot. The Supreme Court is probably going to rule "there's nothing wrong with your state law saying that federally-ineligible candidates can't be on the ballot, but individual states don't get to decide federal eligibility for themselves, that's up to the federal government". From the perspective of federal law, there's not really anything wrong with an ineligible or potentially-ineligible candidate being on a state ballot. It's impractical and disruptive and overall a bad idea, but there's no direct legal problem with it. No matter who the voters vote for, it's expected that the Electoral College or Congress itself will block an ineligible candidate, and that's generally where courts have come down on the question in the past. If enough people write in Goku for president that he wins a state, then either the electors will go faithless and pick someone else, or Congress will reject Goku's electoral votes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 21:16
|
|
|
ballot access is not the same as running and states absolutely control ballot access quite actively to the extent that balloted options for president already vary state to state
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 21:17
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:ballot access is not the same as running and states absolutely control ballot access quite actively Oh, absolutely. If Colorado had said "Trump is not qualified to be on the ballots in Colorado under Colorado law", then they would have been able to reject him without any issue (assuming that Colorado had an applicable law, which it almost certainly doesn't). The problem here is that they said "Trump is not qualified to be on the ballots under federal* law", and that is not something Colorado gets a say in. * technically, Colorado said "Trump is not qualified to be on the ballots because of a Colorado law that says only federally-qualified candidates can be on the ballot", but that still ultimately puts it on federal qualifications (which Colorado does not get to decide) rather than Colorado qualifications (which Colorado does get to decide)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 21:21
|
|
|
I’m pretty intrigued by President Goku tbh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 21:22
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I’m pretty intrigued by President Goku tbh. For one thing, from what we know of his doctrine, he probably wouldn't pay much attention to Congress's opinion of his eligibility Also a big fan of unilateral executive action
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 21:24
|
|
|
President Goku would be impeached for sending aid to enemy nations to have a better fight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 21:35
|
|
|
I just really like the image of him taking off his weighted flag-pin to show that he hasn't even been taking this executive order seriously until now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 21:39
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I’m pretty intrigued by President Goku tbh. 2028 electoral process to be replaced with a world martial arts tournament. Losers can be cabinet members. Pray that nobody suggests to use the dragonballs to replace Putin with Frieza.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 21:40
|
|
|
Every year, he goes and does a State of the Nation address where he asks every American to raise their hands and contribute their Chi to his Spirit Bomb, so he can try and destroy the National Debt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 21:41
|
|
|
Just a shame all his advisors die every time a new threat comes up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 21:43
|
|
|
He's the president, can't he just have the Fed print some more dragon balls and wish the debt back to zero whenever it gets too high?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 21:44
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Just a shame all his advisors die every time a new threat comes up. Secretary Yamcha was killed earlier today. Again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 21:45
|
|
|
Guest2553 posted:He's the president, can't he just have the Fed print some more dragon balls and wish the debt back to zero whenever it gets too high? Psh, everyone knows you can only bring the economy back from the dead once with Earth's dragon balls.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 21:46
|
|
|
I wish Goku was president because he'd unilaterally legalize weed, dude
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 21:50
|
|
|
 e; damnit, beaten by moments
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 21:53
|
|
|
The current president is literally going through the steps to legalize weed, dude.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 21:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:States don't bar 34-year-olds or foreign citizens from running. The federal government bars them from running, and thus no even remotely serious party bothers to nominate them in the first place, so they never get to the point of states needing to disqualify them in the first place. Routine Disqualification: Every State Has Kept Ineligible Candidates off the Ballot, and Trump Could Be Next posted:Case Study 3: Colorado DTurtle fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Feb 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 22:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:States don't bar 34-year-olds or foreign citizens from running. The federal government bars them from running, and thus no even remotely serious party bothers to nominate them in the first place, so they never get to the point of states needing to disqualify them in the first place. It must be super loving nice to live in your world where everyone acts in good faith the system works as intended. Meanwhile, here in hellworld, neither the electoral college nor Congress will block an inelligable candidate. Literally just this week Congress blew up its own (very right leaning) border deal because daddy trump told them he didn't want them to do it for political reasons. And these are the people who are expected to hold him to account by a 2/3rds margin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 22:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The current president is literally going through the steps to legalize weed, dude. In the most ineffective way possible. He only wants it's moved to a schedule 3 drug which still means it's illegal on the federal level which means it will still be very illegal in many (red) states.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 23:33
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Ahem. Both cases you mentioned have happened with courts affirming the individual state's right to bar ineligible presidential candidates. In case study 3, Hasan acknowledged that he was not a natural-born citizen, so that wasn't at issue in the case. Rather, he sued to claim that the natural-born citizen requirement itself was unconstitutional and that non-natural-born citizens like himself should be federally eligible to be president. Moreover, he did get a determination from the federal government that he was ineligible: he applied to the FEC for presidential election matching funds, they ruled him ineligible and turned him down, and he sued them to have it overturned in Hassan v. FEC and Hassan v. US. The dude loved lawsuits almost as much as he loved incoherent legal filings about how the FEC is exactly like the KKK. Case study 6 never went to court, let alone federal court. It went no farther than asking the state attorney general for their advisory opinion. Again, the violation (the fact that both of them were from New Jersey) was admitted by the candidates themselves, and thus there was no real question of fact to decide. Also, importantly, this was not a national disqualification. He was disqualified in New Jersey only, though that was the only place he was running. Given that he'd gotten roughly 4,000 votes in the previous presidential election, despite the boost he'd gotten from letting his prized piglet pee on the filing documents at the courthouse, I suspect he wasn't much missed. In any case, he managed to get a whopping 1,800 votes in the election where he'd supposedly been disqualified. As for case study 7, once again, the candidate's counsel openly admitted that she was underage. Hence there was no need for federal authorities to determine that - as the court put it, her being underage was an "admitted fact", by which it meant that she had admitted it herself. The case McInnish v Bennett covers this in some more detail, including a specific reference to study #7: quote:Chief Justice Moore has cited cases in which federal district courts have upheld decisions of state officials, including secretaries of state, who had refused to qualify proposed candidates who were less than 35 years old. See Socialist Workers Party of Illinois v. Ogilvie, 357 F.Supp. 109 (N.D.Ill.1972), and Peace & Freedom Party v. Bowen, 912 F.Supp.2d 905 (E.D.Cal.2012). However, in each of those cases there was no real dispute as to the candidates' qualifications, because both candidates conceded they did not satisfy the age requirement of Art. II, § 1, U.S. Const. Therefore, there was no need for the secretary of state to affirmatively investigate the matter of the candidates' qualifications. And while the Alabama judges in that particular case seemed to think that it was at least constitutionally possible for state officials to make determinations of federal eligibility, they also pointed out that many other courts have disagreed with them on that. For example, they cited Keyes v Bowen, which is openly disdainful of the idea that states would be able to individually disqualify: quote:Plaintiffs' contentions lack merit. Among other things, we conclude that the Secretary of State does not have a duty to investigate and determine whether a presidential candidate meets eligibility requirements of the United States Constitution. As we will explain, the presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states' election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results. Were the courts of 50 states at liberty to issue injunctions restricting certification of duly elected presidential electors, the result could be conflicting rulings and delayed transition of power in derogation of statutory and constitutional deadlines. Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check or risk that its nominee's election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections following the submission of the electoral votes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 23:50
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:In the most ineffective way possible. He only wants it's moved to a schedule 3 drug which still means it's illegal on the federal level which means it will still be very illegal in many (red) states. Schedule 3 drugs can be prescribed as medicine. For example, Adderall is schedule 2. It would allow legal medical, just not recreational. It's stupid, but not "still illegal on the federal level." In no circumstances was Biden, Bernie, or whoever else going to make it illegal for a state to ban weed. It's going to be illegal in some red states regardless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 23:58
|
|
Charliegrs posted:In the most ineffective way possible. He only wants it's moved to a schedule 3 drug which still means it's illegal on the federal level which means it will still be very illegal in many (red) states. He doesn't set the recommendation. The thing he actually did, referring it in that way, is the way it actually happens.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 00:14
|
|
|
Nervous posted:2028 electoral process to be replaced with a world martial arts tournament. Losers can be cabinet members. Pray that nobody suggests to use the dragonballs to replace Putin with Frieza. Do you want the King of Iron Fist Tournament and the Mishima Zaibatsu? Because this is how you get Heihachi and Kazuya killing billions in between throwing each other off cliffs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 00:21
|
|
|
Nash posted:Listening (not a lawyer) and it sounds like justices are a bit leery about a state making decisions on a federal election. What federal election? Like the electoral college? Surely states rights covers who they send to the electoral college.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 00:46
|
|
|
Based on the questions I heard asked, I'd be very surprised if the court didn't rule in Trump's favor or punt it to Congress. Either way, he'll win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 01:07
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:Do you want the King of Iron Fist Tournament and the Mishima Zaibatsu? Because this is how you get Heihachi and Kazuya killing billions in between throwing each other off cliffs. Hey if a guy can turn into a big demon with laser eyes I'm fine with him being President Actually they should hold a King of Iron Fist Tournament every 4 years to determine the next President. The only qualification is that you gotta be some kind of weird guy with a crazy outfit or hair or something, we're not just replacing Old White Suits with Young MMA People
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 01:08
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:In case study 3, Hasan acknowledged that he was not a natural-born citizen, so that wasn't at issue in the case. Rather, he sued to claim that the natural-born citizen requirement itself was unconstitutional and that non-natural-born citizens like himself should be federally eligible to be president. Moreover, he did get a determination from the federal government that he was ineligible: he applied to the FEC for presidential election matching funds, they ruled him ineligible and turned him down, and he sued them to have it overturned in Hassan v. FEC and Hassan v. US. The dude loved lawsuits almost as much as he loved incoherent legal filings about how the FEC is exactly like the KKK. The decision by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth District explicitly says the following: quote:Even if Article II properly holds him ineligible to assume the office of president, Mr. Hassan claims it was still an unlawful act of discrimination for the state to deny him a place on the ballot. But, as the magistrate judge's opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office. A state barred a presidential candidate from running in their state. Main Paineframe posted:Case study 6 never went to court, let alone federal court. It went no farther than asking the state attorney general for their advisory opinion. Again, the violation (the fact that both of them were from New Jersey) was admitted by the candidates themselves, and thus there was no real question of fact to decide. Also, importantly, this was not a national disqualification. He was disqualified in New Jersey only, though that was the only place he was running. Given that he'd gotten roughly 4,000 votes in the previous presidential election, despite the boost he'd gotten from letting his prized piglet pee on the filing documents at the courthouse, I suspect he wasn't much missed. In any case, he managed to get a whopping 1,800 votes in the election where he'd supposedly been disqualified. Main Paineframe posted:As for case study 7, once again, the candidate's counsel openly admitted that she was underage. Hence there was no need for federal authorities to determine that - as the court put it, her being underage was an "admitted fact", by which it meant that she had admitted it herself. The decision says: quote:The action of Defendants [the state] in denying certification to Plaintiffs based upon the admitted fact that Linda Jenness' age is 31 years, whereas Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution sets the age of 35 years as a requirement for eligibility for the office of President of the United States violates no federal right of Plaintiffs warranting preliminary injunctive relief Main Paineframe posted:The case McInnish v Bennett covers this in some more detail, including a specific reference to study #7: Main Paineframe posted:And while the Alabama judges in that particular case seemed to think that it was at least constitutionally possible for state officials to make determinations of federal eligibility, they also pointed out that many other courts have disagreed with them on that. For example, they cited Keyes v Bowen, which is openly disdainful of the idea that states would be able to individually disqualify: I don't think that the Supreme Court will decide to block Citizen Trump. But I am interested in seeing how they thread the needle. Or as Vox put it: Can Colorado disqualify Trump from its ballot? 4 ways the Supreme Court might rule. posted:Outcome 4: Trump loses!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 01:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If enough people write in Goku for president that he wins a state, then either the electors will go faithless and pick someone else, or Congress will reject Goku's electoral votes. Although for the purposes of this hypothetical we should include Goku's party having full control of that state and the House of Representatives, at least, currently also being controlled by that party. (edit: oh, and SCOTUS, obv.) Sarcastro fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Feb 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:41 |
|
|
6-3 it would be a grave injustice to disenfranchise the millions of voters who voted for goku
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 01:52
|
|
