Time to violently storm the Supreme Court, then. After all, they approve.
This is a shit take. This ruling is not saying “Trump did nothing wrong”, this is specifically saying “States cannot unilaterally decide to remove federal election candidates from ballots”, which I completely agree with. As others have noted, it would open the doors to so much bullshit if this were allowed.
The SC could come out tomorrow and say “We’re disqualifying Trump”, this doesn’t preclude 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.)
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.
A State just deciding someone is disqualified based on their interpretation is both unconstitutional
Tell me you’ve completely forgotten what the Constitution very briefly says about presidential elections without telling me you’ve completely forgotten what it says.
Here’s a refresher: look over Article II, Clauses 2 through 5 of the US Constitution. And as you do this, remember the Tenth Amendment, and that what the Constitution does not specifically reserve to the federal government automatically remains the jurisdiction of the states, barring later changes via judicial review.
The only other mention in the original Constitution of how elections are generally to be held is in Article 1, Section 4, which goes over electing legislators.
As you can see with your own eyes, there’s not a lot there. It really is up to the states, and that’s how the Constitution was written, because the framers wanted to AVOID the centralization of power inherent in monarchies and instead have a federation of states with just enough centralized power to make it hold together.
If you want to continue to insist that an individual state’s disqualification of candidates is itself unconstitutional, then show the rest of us the article, section, or amendment of the Constitution that supports your claim. Thanks.
EDITED to add links and reformat
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.
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
Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Right, and per the opinion, Amendment 14 sections 3 and 5 specifically take rights away from the States to delegate for the federal government.
For those of us who want to read the relevant portions of the 14th Amendment:
Amendment 14, Section 3: Disqualification from Holding Office
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.Amendment 14, Section 5: Enforcement
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.From https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/#14_S3
EDITED for formatting
