https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/california-secretary-of-state-declines-remove-donald-trump-from-presidential-primary-ballot/
Dr. Shirley Weber made her decision despite a call for her to take that step from California's lieutenant governor.
What a coward! Nobody who's not part of the cult has any doubt about the fact that he's a traitor and if the "justice" system wasn't thoroughly broken, he'd be in a cell already.
The SoS just doesn't have the guts to do what's right and then deal with the consequences.
just wait another cycle and red states will be removing a democrat for some complete bullshit reason
True, but that doesn't mean that blue states shouldn't do it now for completely legit reasons.
If you don't do anything you fear the fascists might twist for their own nefarious ends, you can't ever do anything.
Hell, you can't even invent something stylish without it being co-opted by fascists. Hitler ruined the toothbrush mustache.
They already tried to cheat the last election then overturn it with violence, it's too late for protecting the rights feels to keep them from acting in bad faith.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Dr. Shirley Weber's office did not immediately issue a comment on her decision to include Trump after releasing the list of certified candidates on Thursday night.
She did not indicate if she would fulfill Kounalakis's request and said her decision would be guided by her office's "commitment to and respect for the rule of law."
"Removing a candidate from the ballot under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not something my office takes lightly and is not as simple as the requirement that a person be at least 35 years old to be president," Weber wrote.
The calls to strike the former president from the state's ballot came after Colorado's Supreme Court did the same thing, saying he violated the "insurrection clause," a Civil War-era provision of the U.S. Constitution.
"The U.S. Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government, and Section 336 requires me to act in response," Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, wrote in her decision.
"Given the compressed timeframe, the novel constitutional questions involved, the importance of this case, and impending ballot preparation deadlines, I will suspend the effect of my decision until the Superior Court rules on any appeal, or the time to appeal …has expired," Bellows added.
The original article contains 282 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 27%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Decent job by the bot but what’s missing is Bellows is Maine’s SoS who decided to remove Trump from that state’s primary ballot, pending a decision by the Maine Superior Court.
It's truly disappointing when the good guys want to "fight fair" against quite literally the 1 situation where the founders put a backup plan in case of massive corruption of the system.
Substantively, it matters little as it's not as though Trump was ever going to win CA. Symbolically, it means quite a bit. Though there are genuine points to made, notably that Trump hasn't been convicted of the charges yet.
Ultimately the safest thing to do is to let the people decide because opening the precedent to deny people access to ballots because of lower court decisions or pending indictments could be abused by fascists down the road.
A) under section 3 he doesn't need to be convicted of anything.
B) fascists don't need an excuse to abuse their power, which is why the can't be allowed to achieve a position of power.
A) what are you suggesting? That the mere accusation is sufficient?
Regarding B) , I'm sorry but it's because of those systems of checks & balances that our democracy buckled but did not break. If you open said door to denying anyone the capacity to run for office under such grounds, it's a very easy, weak link of the chain, to abuse. It's a high bar to convince me that this is a good idea. After conviction of conspiracy to defraud the US and rights of citizens at the federal level in Smith's case, I'd be far more convinced..
No. I'm suggesting that suits are filed, a hearing is held and a judge hands down a verdict based on the evidence.
This past November a Colorado district judge ruled that Trump absolutely engaged in an insurrection against the US government. She declined to remove him from the ballot because of some chickenshit reasoning that the office of President is not specifically mentioned in Article 3. So she kicked it up to the CO Supreme Court which actually followed through on the ruling that being an insurrectionist makes one ineligible for office.
So no, it wasn't just an accusation.
I'm suggesting that suits are filed, a hearing is held and a judge hands down a verdict based on the evidence.
So a conviction. 👌
IANAL. Also... I'm not a lawyer, so please feel free to correct me... But I don't know if the CO case resulted in a "conviction".
In the case of Maine, that didn't happen. For what it's worth I think the CO process is more robust but still somewhat susceptible to exploitation. Particularly odd to me is that a state court is determining what a person did at the Federal level and not within their state and not without a precedent at the Federal court level (yet). Despite this particular instance so happening to fall in line with reality, that seems... pretty abusable to me.
My understanding is that Maine was able to do what it did BECAUSE of the ruling in CO. A CO judge determined that Trump is an insurrectionist, so he's an insurrectionist everywhere. Just like how a trial in NY determined Trump is a rapist. He's a rapist in every state, not just NY.
It's also important to note that in the CO trial, Trumps team didn't deny that he engaged in the behavior he was accused of, they simply said he was exercising his First Ammendment rights. The judge determined that his actions weren't protected by the First. Hence, he's an insurrectionist.
So a couple things here.
This was a state ruling, not a Federal ruling. As such, what happens in one state legally has no bearing on what occurs in another state. Hence why it's so important the rulings of Federal trials from Smith go through and set a precedent with a legitimate jury no less. Don't get me wrong, it's my personal opinion that Trump and the broader GOP is largely guilty and complicit in this act of insurrection, treason, etc.
But until a higher bar is met, this low bar could easily be exploited by the next Trump fascist who needs only get some 2-bit State judge from some red state to conclude of their own volition that the next liberal is treasonous / insurrectionist and there ya go — precedent for every red or worse purple state in the Union. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if Trump can't primary let alone be on a general election ballot. But ultimately, I'd feel much better about it if these cases were decided by a Jury based on Federal evidence; and finally, if Americans cannot reject such a person at the ballot... Then there probably is no hope for this country anyway.
As for the rapist argument, that doesn't seem to apply here. For one, that was a Federal, and second, that was a civil suit — not a criminal one, whose consequences are lesser and the bar lower. Doesn't help that the Jury explicitly rejected the rape claim.
But until a higher bar is met, this low bar could easily be exploited by the next Trump fascist who needs only get some 2-bit State judge from some red state to conclude of their own volition that the next liberal is treasonous / insurrectionist and there ya go —
We absolutely need to stop using the "if we hold these criminals accountable for legitimate reasons, they might use it against us for illegitimate reasons" BS.
These people are thoroughly unscrupulous, and they will use whatever means they want to further their agenda.
The very fact that you're scared of them using legitimate laws in illegitimate ways is EXACTLY why they should be stopped.
Humoring your argument for just a second, the "safest" thing to do is to stop the delay tactics and let the court case play out then, wouldn't you agree?
I would agree. And yeah I'm as anxious to get the trials started sooner than later as everyone else. For all intents I agree Trump and the Republican Party is a threat to the nation and that he's guilty, personally. Nevertheless the accused have these rights afforded to them for a reason. Some may use them to delay; others may use them to ensure they have a fair trial.
This is the primary ballot. Denying him a spot on the primary ballot would make it harder to win the nomination.
Well it's begun, and it's hard to imagine how SCOTUS will word their eventual ruling.
If CO, ME, CA can stick with removing GOP candidates, then Republican states will be removing Biden from ballots using the exact same 14th, Section 3, under "aiding enemies".
The 90% of the electoral college will be known by mid summer, and it will be up to ten states elections with all national monies being flooded into them.
See also as evidence of the GOP plan.
https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hres1532/BILLS-117hres1532ih.pdf
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/dec/26/gop-could-bounce-biden-from-ballots-too/
And what crimes exactly has Biden committed that would disqualify him under the 14th? What "enemies" has he been aiding?
That didn't stop then from opening impeachment investigation against Biden.
You are naively assuming that Republicans are honorable and play by the rules.
Other than Carter, they've attempted to impeach every democratic president since Nixon.
Which is precisely why their response should be wholly meaningless when trying to decide what to do. Trump participated in an insurrection. He's not eligible to run for president. That's about all the analysis needed.
impeachment investigation
Means nothing but how they chose to waste their base's political capital. It's not like they're passing any legislation.
I didn't read either link the person you replied to posted, and I have no opinion on the issue itself (whether it's actually likely or just a conspiracy theory) - but I think the implication here is that they'll be able to do it whether a real crime happened or not, if Trump's removal stands. While Trump's crime is undoubtedly real, he hasn't been convicted for it - and that's what sets the precedent they could use here against Biden. I have my doubts those attempts would survive in most courts. Additionally, I doubt "enemies" is a term that's defined in any federal statute, which leaves the phrase "...or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" extremely open to interpretation.
While Trump's crime is undoubtedly real, he hasn't been convicted for it
There is no protection of life, liberty, or property that hinges on "conviction". The right is to "due process".
OJ was deprived of "life, liberty, or property" not through conviction in a criminal court, but by order of a civil court. He was never convicted. He was found liable.
Trump was afforded all of the rights of the accused in Colorado, which ruled against him in a civil hearing. He wasn't convicted of the criminal act of insurrection, but he was found to be liable for having committed insurrection. He was afforded due process.
This all assumes that "running for president" is a "liberty" afforded to individuals. The constitution does not declare such a right. Quite the contrary, the constitution empowers state legislatures to enact the rules for their own elections, including determining who should appear on ballots.
So taking your last paragraph at face value, you're of the opinion that states could legally (in theory) remove Biden from their ballots for pretty much any arbitrary reason, as long as that reason was enshrined in state law by the state legislature or state constitution?
Where in my arguments does the "arbitrary" criterion arise?
The "reason" for Trump's removal didn't arise from state law, state legislature, or state constitution. The "reason" arose from the 14th Amendment. State law provided the means and method, by dictating who is charged with making the executive decision and the process of judicial review of that decision.
Generally speaking, yes, the secretary of state who is charged with determining who will and will not appear on the ballot can determine that Biden does or does not qualify for ballot access. Their determination is subject to judicial review: the candidate and/or the voters and/or any other party with "standing" can sue to reverse that decision.
It came from "the constitution empowers state legislatures to enact the rules for their own elections, including determining who should appear on ballots", with the implicit assumption that the states could then determine this in undemocratic ways if they so wanted.
Your second point makes me think that you think we're arguing or something. I really don't think we are.
The third point touches on what I was asking about. When that determination is subjected to judicial review - which laws is it subject to? If Texas were to simply amend their constitution to say Democrats can't appear on presidential ballots, would there actually be a federal law that would prevent them from enforcing that?
with the implicit assumption that the states could then determine this in undemocratic ways if they so wanted.
I don't think that implicit assumption arises from my argument.
For example, I don't think it is undemocratic for the state to require candidates to circulate a petition and gather at least 5000 signatures from registered voters within the state before being allowed to appear on the ballot. The constitution doesn't provide for such a requirement, but the state is (arguably) free to enact such a requirement if they do choose. It is not unreasonable for them to limit access to candidates that people would actually vote for.
Put a different way: I can't reasonably demand ballot access solely on the basis that I am a 40-year-old person who was born in the US, has lived in the US my entire life, and has never committed insurrection. With that minimum criteria alone, millions of people could appear on a ballot. The complexity of such a ballot would violate the rights of the voters asked to cast a vote in that election.
The state is empowered to create the rules for its own elections; it is not empowered to use those rules to violate civil rights. But it is not a "right" to appear on a ballot.
Which is fair. Trump has indeed not been convicted of the crime. The court of public opinion would disagree but until a legal decision is handed down we should presume innocent until proven guilty.
As for the links I found the first to be about a House resolution for impeachment based around Biden's handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan and some comments he had as Vice president related to it. The second is an opinion piece conflating the withdrawal with giving aid to an enemy. As the withdrawal provided the Taliban an opportunity to return to power. Nevermind that Trump started it in the first place. It seems the GOP "plan" is to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.
There are plenty of things to dislike Biden for but this certainly ain't one of them
The people who this amendment was directly intended to bar were not convicted of underlying crimes to make them viable subjects. The courts will review these actions, but there's nothing in the amendment that either directly or indirectly requires insurrectionists be convicted of a crime.
Doesn't matter, it's just up to state Republicans do declare it and they can make many arguments, usually involving Hunter and Ukraine, maybe even illegal immigration.
It would then be up to courts to rule if 14th applies to Biden. And that could be challenged to SCOTUS, and they will decide the winner just like Bush v Gore
Apparently letting criminals to come from the southern border.
Edit: I don't agree with it neither do I think currently gop has any sense of what is right or what is wrong. I merely stated what i read Ron DeSantis was saying in retaliation to Trump being removed.
Fun fact: immigrants both documented and undocumented are statistically much less likely to commit crimes than native born citizens.
If they have as much evidence of Biden aiding enemies as they did of the last election being stolen, the GOP is honestly better off forming up outside Ft. Sumpter for the next J6. It'll go about as well as it did in the 1860s.
This is how we end up with a second civil war.
Biden gets removed in republican states. Trump gets removed in democratic states. Trump gets elected in Republican states. Biden gets elected in democratic states. Suddenly the nation is split.
The US is already fractured and much closer to a civil uprising and maybe a civil war than most people want to admit. Mass shootings that are often politically motivated happen nearly daily, as close to a non functioning Congress as you could get, and apparently anyone can say anything and claim they are correct regardless of facts.
Extremism has been ramping up for years, there's nothing sudden about it. Welcome to 'Who's Country Is It Anyway?' where everything's made up and the points don't matter.
Y'all are overdue anyway. You can't start a country on the backs of generations of slaves and expect to fix it in a couple years of civil war. Good luck.
The losers want to have Trump run their country? That sounds like justice actually. After that failed state implodes the Union will once again scoop up the losers and make the place livable again.
Losers always lose.
It only matters who controls DC and since Biden is already moved in he would control the majority of the military.
Because his argument is bollocks.
Yes, some insane Republicans might try to remove Biden, just as they are trying to impeach him. But a lot of other Republicans and independents are still faithful to the constitution.
This isn't kindergarten where everyone gets an apple or no one gets an apple.
There needs to be legal grounds, and the case against Trump is quite a strong case. SCOTUS will decide, and they will need to provide a legal argument for their decision.
Btw I'm not making the argument. I am stating the GOP is planning to use 14th to remove Biden from ballots in states controlled by (R) Secretary of States and legislators and likely state supreme courts. One example of this is Ohio.
It's the current game plan depending on what SCOTUS rules.
There is no definition of aiding the enemy and it's likely 2024 general election will have Trump or Biden missing from many states.
Where are you from?
E: You don't get 'bollocks' from Americans all that much is all... rhetorically at least
Because doomposting about how any attempt to improve our country is doomed to fail and you should definitely just not bother voting, or attempting to make anything better, and just sit back and take it, is a traditional GOP disenfranchisement method.
And it has no place here.