California Lt. Governor: ‘Explore Every Legal Option’ To Remove Trump From Ballot

return2ozma@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 624 points –
California Lt. Governor: ‘Explore Every Legal Option’ To Remove Trump From Ballot
forbes.com
164

You are viewing a single comment

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

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.

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

2 more...