States remove federal election candidates for eligibility reasons all the time. Trump is yet again getting special treatment.
[citation needed]
List one federal candidate a state successfully removed (that wasn't convicted in a federal court, or died before the election.)
Edit: I see the downvotes, but I don't see a name. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate, but it's as bad as r/politics where anything regarding the orange man is concerned.
Every state has a different number of candidates on their ballot, because every state has different requirements to be on their ballot. Is this ruling going to require every state to accept every candidate? Even those with no chance of winning? Who should decide when someone has no chance of winning? (Silly question, it's the state, of course.)
Is this ruling going to require every state to accept every candidate? Even those with no chance of winning?
Only those thrown off the ballot using section 3 of the 14th amendment. Ballot access requirements in general have been before the court many times before and upheld generally, while some have been struck down when excessive or discriminatory.
It's legal to say something like all candidates must get signatures equal to 3% of the number of voters for the office in the last election in order to be on the ballot. It's illegal to say something like black candidates must get signatures of 15% of voters.
Funny. Have you read the ruling? They absolutely do not stop at section 3 of the 14th. They are over turning 200 plus years of precedent in which states disqualified ineligible candidates.
They opine that there is no bar to campaigning, just holding office. And that any disqualification must therefore come after the election, via a federal law or congressional framework.
Which is fucking ridiculous.
Have you read the ruling? It actually states there was no precedent of its use as applied here, and was in violation of precedents such as prohibitions against congressional term limits.
Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Oh yes convenient for them to ignore the existence of reality.
States are generally free to decide their own candidates for State level elections.
Federal elections are subject to Federal law and the Federal Constitution. A State just deciding someone is disqualified based on their interpretation is both unconstitutional and incredibly stupid. It was always going to SCOTUS and it was always going to be decided this way.
Me, I don't want to live in a country where ANY level of government can just decide you are guilty of something without due process. And that's what these states tried to do. The mad downvoters lack critical thinking ability and are going off emotion.
This is all a moot point. Trump simply does not qualify.
It's just like he was 34.
He cannot hold that office. What the states do is irrelevant.
Trump got due process through the congressional investigation that found he engaged in insurrection with a bi partisan panel.
Nowhere does the Constitution even say due process is needed here.
This is not a punishment. Trump has no right to run for president.
He has to qualify.
He does not qualify.
This is all a moot point.
You're right, the Supreme Court ruled.
Trump simply does not qualify.
Nine Justices disagreed. Final Answer.
congressional investigation that found he engaged in insurrection with a bi partisan panel.
Meaningless. It has to go to the entire House. And BTW...where is the evidence from that bipartisan panel? O right, it was deleted before the other party took control of the House. Nothing to see here.
You didn't look at the link, did you? There's a map that shows the number of presidential candidates on the ballot in each state. If the federal government was in charge of presidential candidates, wouldn't all those numbers be the same?
Not if they didn't file the correct paperwork (on time), pay the necessary fees, and I believe, have enough qualified signatures is each state in which you want to appear on the ballot.
Making the argument that a state can otherwise disqualify because they believe you are guilty of insurrection is now moot. 9-0.
So states do have the right to set requirements to be on their ballot for a federal election in their state?
Yes, as long as the requirements are uniform in every state and don't discriminate against any particular candidate. SCOTUS affirmed that last part today.
They're not uniform. That's the whole point of my post.
You just won my argument for me. Those are all state rules limiting who can be on a ballot. The state used to make the rules, now it seems there are no limitations whatsoever.
deleted by creator
I'm neither a Constitutional scholar nor a lawyer. I'll go with Marbury v Madison as who gets to decide those finer points.
And they decided 9-0.
deleted by creator
their own ballots
Not federal ballots.
Except a state tried here and got slapped down 9-0. Seems to me it was deemed unconstitutional by the folks that decide that sort of thing.
deleted by creator
Lol. It's ok to disagree with the decision. It's ok to be mad at the decision. It's ok to internet argue the constitutionality of the decision. All of it makes this >< much difference. Trump will be on the ballot, will be the nominee, and will be absolutely crushed by the most popular president in history. I don't know why anyone is worried.
States have been doing this for 232 years. It is wild that it's suddenly now not Constitutional. Especially when the Constitution has this to say on the matter.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
So what law is there?
And why the fuck is SCOTUS inserting itself into the electoral process again? It's not mentioned anywhere in that section for a reason. If SCOTUS can influence elections then they can influence appointments and regulations about them, which makes the entire checks and balance system a dead letter.
They’re going off of the lack of due process and any hope that his crimes will be answered for.
Legally, it’s this but actually it’s that. The court can argue its points, if they survive. Meanwhile has anyone seen the unredacted Mueller report yet? No? No one? Hmm. HOW STRANGE. Legally, the courts are fine with that too, though.
Trump’s process is going to come due, and we’d all prefer it be on live tv.
unredacted Mueller report
I'm still waiting for the Epstein list.
They use procedural reasons all the time. It's why ballot access is a huge deal to third parties, and they still have to sue some state or another every election.
Abdul Hassan, Colorado, 2012.
And I'm not a genie. I don't wait here for your every request. The fact that I got back to this inside an hour is a miracle. So maybe less of the "woe is me!" Routine next time?
Abdul Hassan
Guyanese-born, so not a natural born citizen, therefore not otherwise eligible. He sued, citing discrimination, and lost. Try again, this time with a natural born citizen >35 years old.
And "the woe is me routine" is for all the down arrows on this subject that didn't or couldn't provide a name.
Buddy. That's why people get disqualified. They aren't eligible. You're asking for something beyond reality.
I'm asking for something that doesn't exist.
Most recently, it continues to not exist because States can't disqualify according to SCOTUS.
Except, as I've demonstrated, they have disqualified people in the past.
Think the point is the criteria for disqualification and if there is a determination and who must make it.
Under 35? Ok, a state can clearly see that they are under 35, it's not a judgement, it's just a boring fact.
Not a natural born citizen? Again, a sinple fact.
Failed to appropriately follow that state's procedures to get on the ballot? Again, local determination is easy.
But if the only disqualification proposed is 14th amendment, needs federal government (and evidently Congress specifically, which I didn't expect) to determine. The states cannot unilaterally declare a federal candidate to be an insurrectionest, no matter how obvious it may seem. If it is so obvious the federal government should have acted, buy if they don't, there isn't a judicial remedy.
In short, just vote against the dude. The three states were all symbolic only anyway, They weren't going to sway the primaries and especially not the general election. Use this energy to motivate folks to go vote against him, that is the only remedy.
If we can't disqualify someone without an act of Congress after they've become president-elect then section 3 is either a dead letter or a suicide pact. There's also the problem of why specifically enjoin congress to remove the disability but not to impose it? The reasoning they used to come to these conclusions is twisted and obviously a result of working backwards from a conclusion they already wanted.
Well I'll agree that I was surprised they said Congress specifically, but I at least do think it'd have to be a federal matter, rather than state's discretion.
Note this was unanimous. The liberal justices also agreed a state shouldn't do this. It would be a mess if you opened that up. The GOP would absolutely game that if it were allowed.
In a well functioning version of the US that would mean Congress refuses to certify their state election results. There's also the problem that this isn't going away. This kind of leadership crisis has to dealt with as early as possible and we're kicking the can down the road because we're afraid of the consequences. (The liberal judges inferred as much in their separate opinion)
But a look at history tells us that the further a crisis like this gets kicked down the road, the bloodier the resolution is when it happens, and the long term situation just gets worse too. The ultimate in can kicking was the French Revolution which saw mass murder of commoners in areas backing the king, and mob warfare in the Capitol.
So while we might weather some limited political violence and a lot of protests now, in the future that ratio flips
In a well functioning version of the US that would mean Congress refuses to certify their state election results.
So now we get into a world where the party in control of congress gets to pick and choose based on whether they agree with the results from that given state. So in this scenario, a likely outcome would have been congress rejecting the electors from Maine, Colorado, and Illinois for daring to ban Trump, and congress happily certifying electors from red states that banned Biden.
This most recent impeachment is strong evidence that fair administration of rules and procedures is the furthest thing from their minds, and it's all a power play. The last thing congress needs is more well recognized levers to manipulate. Unless of course that lever requires 2/3rds majority, which seems to be fairly hard to get unless everyone really agrees. However, in that case, they'd never pull it on someone like Trump, with half the congress compelled to 100% stand behind him no matter what.
So, it actually gets even more arcane than that. If enough elections are refused, Congress elects the president in a ballot by state caucuses. So, for example, all Representatives and Senators for Arizona would vote among themselves to see who Arizona votes for.
This is all contingent on actual representation. If we had continued the ratio of representation from the 1790's we'd have ~10,000 representatives. Even at half that we'd have far more independence from party discipline.
Everything that's happening now is the result of self inflicted wounds from the 1900's. In this specific case Congress limited the size of the House of Representatives in the period between the world wars. Their official reason was because it would be hard to fit more representatives in the Capitol building. Like there wasn't (and isn't) a way to cast votes without being in the same building...
Not an otherwise eligible candidate on a federal ballot.
Ohhh. So you think they have to be under 35, not a citizen by birth, and an insurrectionist who previously took an oath to the country?
The Green Party, 2020 election. State supreme Court removed them from the presidential election ballot for errors in paperwork that... Are honestly entirely bureaucratic nightmare to read.
Not the first or last time there have been state based hearings in court to remove candidates especially Green Party. States decide their own ballots all the time.
Heck apparently now is a great time to add your name to a federal election ballot since you can't be removed by the state.
We should make the ballot 12 pages long with every single vague or minor party enforcing they can't have their name removed running for any federal position.
Heck apparently now is a great time to add your name to a federal election
Nah, I'll just write it in. My wife still likes me, so maybe I can get two votes.
Hey I'm actually trying to have the conversation you apparently wanted. I get you are, I guess, done with that notion.
So I'm just gonna point out this waste of a comment. You'd be better off just ignoring the people who try to legitimately add rather than just adding a wasted joke and delegitimizing your position further.
It's literally moot at this point. Internet lawyers arguing constitutional law when SCOTUS has made a (unanimous decision) on the matter is just people blowing off steam.
If you agree with the decision (I do), trying to change someone's mind (who doesn't) is probably not going to happen.
You've been reasoned in your disagreement. I appreciate that.
States remove federal election candidates for eligibility reasons all the time. Trump is yet again getting special treatment.
[citation needed]
List one federal candidate a state successfully removed (that wasn't convicted in a federal court, or died before the election.)
Edit: I see the downvotes, but I don't see a name. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate, but it's as bad as r/politics where anything regarding the orange man is concerned.
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020
Every state has a different number of candidates on their ballot, because every state has different requirements to be on their ballot. Is this ruling going to require every state to accept every candidate? Even those with no chance of winning? Who should decide when someone has no chance of winning? (Silly question, it's the state, of course.)
Only those thrown off the ballot using section 3 of the 14th amendment. Ballot access requirements in general have been before the court many times before and upheld generally, while some have been struck down when excessive or discriminatory.
It's legal to say something like all candidates must get signatures equal to 3% of the number of voters for the office in the last election in order to be on the ballot. It's illegal to say something like black candidates must get signatures of 15% of voters.
Funny. Have you read the ruling? They absolutely do not stop at section 3 of the 14th. They are over turning 200 plus years of precedent in which states disqualified ineligible candidates.
They opine that there is no bar to campaigning, just holding office. And that any disqualification must therefore come after the election, via a federal law or congressional framework.
Which is fucking ridiculous.
Have you read the ruling? It actually states there was no precedent of its use as applied here, and was in violation of precedents such as prohibitions against congressional term limits. Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Oh yes convenient for them to ignore the existence of reality.
States are generally free to decide their own candidates for State level elections.
Federal elections are subject to Federal law and the Federal Constitution. A State just deciding someone is disqualified based on their interpretation is both unconstitutional and incredibly stupid. It was always going to SCOTUS and it was always going to be decided this way.
Me, I don't want to live in a country where ANY level of government can just decide you are guilty of something without due process. And that's what these states tried to do. The mad downvoters lack critical thinking ability and are going off emotion.
This is all a moot point. Trump simply does not qualify.
It's just like he was 34.
He cannot hold that office. What the states do is irrelevant.
Trump got due process through the congressional investigation that found he engaged in insurrection with a bi partisan panel.
Nowhere does the Constitution even say due process is needed here.
This is not a punishment. Trump has no right to run for president.
He has to qualify.
He does not qualify.
You're right, the Supreme Court ruled.
Nine Justices disagreed. Final Answer.
Meaningless. It has to go to the entire House. And BTW...where is the evidence from that bipartisan panel? O right, it was deleted before the other party took control of the House. Nothing to see here.
You didn't look at the link, did you? There's a map that shows the number of presidential candidates on the ballot in each state. If the federal government was in charge of presidential candidates, wouldn't all those numbers be the same?
Not if they didn't file the correct paperwork (on time), pay the necessary fees, and I believe, have enough qualified signatures is each state in which you want to appear on the ballot.
Making the argument that a state can otherwise disqualify because they believe you are guilty of insurrection is now moot. 9-0.
So states do have the right to set requirements to be on their ballot for a federal election in their state?
Yes, as long as the requirements are uniform in every state and don't discriminate against any particular candidate. SCOTUS affirmed that last part today.
They're not uniform. That's the whole point of my post.
You just won my argument for me. Those are all state rules limiting who can be on a ballot. The state used to make the rules, now it seems there are no limitations whatsoever.
deleted by creator
I'm neither a Constitutional scholar nor a lawyer. I'll go with Marbury v Madison as who gets to decide those finer points.
And they decided 9-0.
deleted by creator
Not federal ballots.
Except a state tried here and got slapped down 9-0. Seems to me it was deemed unconstitutional by the folks that decide that sort of thing.
deleted by creator
Lol. It's ok to disagree with the decision. It's ok to be mad at the decision. It's ok to internet argue the constitutionality of the decision. All of it makes this >< much difference. Trump will be on the ballot, will be the nominee, and will be absolutely crushed by the most popular president in history. I don't know why anyone is worried.
States have been doing this for 232 years. It is wild that it's suddenly now not Constitutional. Especially when the Constitution has this to say on the matter.
So what law is there?
And why the fuck is SCOTUS inserting itself into the electoral process again? It's not mentioned anywhere in that section for a reason. If SCOTUS can influence elections then they can influence appointments and regulations about them, which makes the entire checks and balance system a dead letter.
They’re going off of the lack of due process and any hope that his crimes will be answered for.
Legally, it’s this but actually it’s that. The court can argue its points, if they survive. Meanwhile has anyone seen the unredacted Mueller report yet? No? No one? Hmm. HOW STRANGE. Legally, the courts are fine with that too, though.
Trump’s process is going to come due, and we’d all prefer it be on live tv.
I'm still waiting for the Epstein list.
They use procedural reasons all the time. It's why ballot access is a huge deal to third parties, and they still have to sue some state or another every election.
Abdul Hassan, Colorado, 2012.
And I'm not a genie. I don't wait here for your every request. The fact that I got back to this inside an hour is a miracle. So maybe less of the "woe is me!" Routine next time?
Guyanese-born, so not a natural born citizen, therefore not otherwise eligible. He sued, citing discrimination, and lost. Try again, this time with a natural born citizen >35 years old.
And "the woe is me routine" is for all the down arrows on this subject that didn't or couldn't provide a name.
Buddy. That's why people get disqualified. They aren't eligible. You're asking for something beyond reality.
I'm asking for something that doesn't exist.
Most recently, it continues to not exist because States can't disqualify according to SCOTUS.
Except, as I've demonstrated, they have disqualified people in the past.
Think the point is the criteria for disqualification and if there is a determination and who must make it.
Under 35? Ok, a state can clearly see that they are under 35, it's not a judgement, it's just a boring fact.
Not a natural born citizen? Again, a sinple fact.
Failed to appropriately follow that state's procedures to get on the ballot? Again, local determination is easy.
But if the only disqualification proposed is 14th amendment, needs federal government (and evidently Congress specifically, which I didn't expect) to determine. The states cannot unilaterally declare a federal candidate to be an insurrectionest, no matter how obvious it may seem. If it is so obvious the federal government should have acted, buy if they don't, there isn't a judicial remedy.
In short, just vote against the dude. The three states were all symbolic only anyway, They weren't going to sway the primaries and especially not the general election. Use this energy to motivate folks to go vote against him, that is the only remedy.
If we can't disqualify someone without an act of Congress after they've become president-elect then section 3 is either a dead letter or a suicide pact. There's also the problem of why specifically enjoin congress to remove the disability but not to impose it? The reasoning they used to come to these conclusions is twisted and obviously a result of working backwards from a conclusion they already wanted.
Well I'll agree that I was surprised they said Congress specifically, but I at least do think it'd have to be a federal matter, rather than state's discretion.
Note this was unanimous. The liberal justices also agreed a state shouldn't do this. It would be a mess if you opened that up. The GOP would absolutely game that if it were allowed.
In a well functioning version of the US that would mean Congress refuses to certify their state election results. There's also the problem that this isn't going away. This kind of leadership crisis has to dealt with as early as possible and we're kicking the can down the road because we're afraid of the consequences. (The liberal judges inferred as much in their separate opinion)
But a look at history tells us that the further a crisis like this gets kicked down the road, the bloodier the resolution is when it happens, and the long term situation just gets worse too. The ultimate in can kicking was the French Revolution which saw mass murder of commoners in areas backing the king, and mob warfare in the Capitol.
So while we might weather some limited political violence and a lot of protests now, in the future that ratio flips
So now we get into a world where the party in control of congress gets to pick and choose based on whether they agree with the results from that given state. So in this scenario, a likely outcome would have been congress rejecting the electors from Maine, Colorado, and Illinois for daring to ban Trump, and congress happily certifying electors from red states that banned Biden.
This most recent impeachment is strong evidence that fair administration of rules and procedures is the furthest thing from their minds, and it's all a power play. The last thing congress needs is more well recognized levers to manipulate. Unless of course that lever requires 2/3rds majority, which seems to be fairly hard to get unless everyone really agrees. However, in that case, they'd never pull it on someone like Trump, with half the congress compelled to 100% stand behind him no matter what.
So, it actually gets even more arcane than that. If enough elections are refused, Congress elects the president in a ballot by state caucuses. So, for example, all Representatives and Senators for Arizona would vote among themselves to see who Arizona votes for.
This is all contingent on actual representation. If we had continued the ratio of representation from the 1790's we'd have ~10,000 representatives. Even at half that we'd have far more independence from party discipline.
Everything that's happening now is the result of self inflicted wounds from the 1900's. In this specific case Congress limited the size of the House of Representatives in the period between the world wars. Their official reason was because it would be hard to fit more representatives in the Capitol building. Like there wasn't (and isn't) a way to cast votes without being in the same building...
Not an otherwise eligible candidate on a federal ballot.
Ohhh. So you think they have to be under 35, not a citizen by birth, and an insurrectionist who previously took an oath to the country?
Yeah, you're wrong.
And you're hilarious.
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/clout/green-party-presidential-candidate-off-pennsylvania-ballot-20200917.html
The Green Party, 2020 election. State supreme Court removed them from the presidential election ballot for errors in paperwork that... Are honestly entirely bureaucratic nightmare to read.
Not the first or last time there have been state based hearings in court to remove candidates especially Green Party. States decide their own ballots all the time. Heck apparently now is a great time to add your name to a federal election ballot since you can't be removed by the state.
We should make the ballot 12 pages long with every single vague or minor party enforcing they can't have their name removed running for any federal position.
Nah, I'll just write it in. My wife still likes me, so maybe I can get two votes.
Hey I'm actually trying to have the conversation you apparently wanted. I get you are, I guess, done with that notion.
So I'm just gonna point out this waste of a comment. You'd be better off just ignoring the people who try to legitimately add rather than just adding a wasted joke and delegitimizing your position further.
It's literally moot at this point. Internet lawyers arguing constitutional law when SCOTUS has made a (unanimous decision) on the matter is just people blowing off steam.
If you agree with the decision (I do), trying to change someone's mind (who doesn't) is probably not going to happen.
You've been reasoned in your disagreement. I appreciate that.