politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
While listening to the hearing this morning, I was taken by the overall consensus and impartiality of ALL the justices (though Barrett does sound like a child who's in way over her head). I was surprised most by Jackson's line of questioning which seemed more opposed to the ballot removal than anyone else.
This isn't about conservatives - conservatives are the one's suing to keep him off the ballot. It's about the Constitution and state rights.
If you're interested in the actual legality of it all, rather than the "politics", I would encourage you to keep away from biased media opinions, click/rage-bait headlines, and (it should go without saying) social media. It's actually an extremely interesting case and this article you are commenting on without reading is a great place to start.
A lot of it appeared super obvious to me over the past few months but the justices and lawyers are bringing up some interesting perspectives I would never have thought of.
You and I and the internet can argue all we want about whether he should be permitted on every sate ballot (I presume we're in agreement of the preferred outcome) but, I'll assume, neither of us are lawyers, state counsels, or constitutional scholars. And it seems that there's a discussion about 'being on a ballot' and 'being inaugurated as president' are the same or not. Perhaps he's on the ballot and wins the election only to find the electors can't vote for him. Yeah - it's weird AF.
Kagans reasoning is so fucking stupid. No one has the right to run for president and kicking one person off doesn't "decide who is president" it means they're not qualified. If I was 34 and tried to run they would say I'm not qualified...not that the state was deciding I couldn't be president.
Exactly. Saying that one state doesn't have the right to make the call is basically saying they can't enforce constitutionally based rules. If that is the case then everything would have to go to federal court, and the states would have a lot less control over their own electoral process.
Sounds like a win for a conservative stacked judiciary
Well I’d note that technically speaking what they’re saying is NOT that states may not decide who can be elected president but rather that they cannot decide who runs.
One of trumps arguments is that he can run and be elected and appear on the ballot EVEN IF he is not eligible for president. Isn’t that great?
The constitution is very clear about who is eligible to be president.
Constitutionally, aside from those who don’t qualify, yes everyone does have the right to run for president.
There are a couple arguments regarding “the office” and “an official” and “participated in an insurrection” that may or may not disqualify someone from being federally permitted to “be” president or permitted to be on a state election ballot. States already have different rules to make it onto a ballot. Just in the past couple weeks, Biden wasn’t on the NH primary ballot (he won as a write in).
If all the red states decided they didn’t want Biden on the ballot, they could decide who would be president before the election even took place. To prevent that from happening, it needs to be determined what the rules are and the legal precedent needs to be established for state courts to decide the legal battles.
We all know what happened on January 6th. But there’s a lot of people who want to misrepresent that history. I can’t believe this is the case but it is now reasonable to assume that a state could make up new history and say Biden was a participant in insurrection or guilty of treason and disqualify him from being on the ballot.
If a state wanted, it could just decide to let the state legislature pick the electors and not hold a popular vote at all. The US Constitution just says that each state appoints electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." It's only state laws and state constitutions that create requirements to let the people vote, so a state could repeal those for itself unilaterally.
For example, here's the relevant section of law in Georgia (OCGA § 21-2-10):
("Electors of this state" means the voting public, while "presidential electors" means the people getting nominated to the Electoral College.)
All GA would have to do is repeal that paragraph and then the General Assembly could pick whatever presidential electors they wanted, public preference be damned (at least until the legislators themselves were up for re-election).
I was surprised this wasn't raised as a counterargument by the Colorado attorney when the "one state could determine who's elected" argument was made. (If it was, I missed it.) The justices are worried that states (let's just say it: "red states") could make up some frivolous reason to keep someone off the ballot and disqualify them, but the brutal reality is that they could do it already by screwing with the electors. (Hell, Trump and his co-conspirators tried sending fake electors from some states.) Setting a precedent allowing states to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment just give states another way to accomplish this. "Oh, Biden tripped walking up to a podium? That's insurrection!"
What's really sad/outrageous is that Trump and the GOP have so terribly warped and perverted the political norms in this country that we have to even consider the possibility of states fabricating frivolous reasons to keep someone off the ballot. We can't keep a 91 felon count indicted insurrectionist, fraudster, and rapist from getting elected and destroying democracy because his friends may avenge him by abusing and misapplying the law in the future. This really sucks.
This is a very interesting point.
Congrats on reading part of the applicable sections of the Constitution. Now read the one that actually applies here.
The part about insurrection. It is already clear based on congressional oversight of the executive branch that he is an insurrectionist. That's what the bi partisan j6 commission determined. There is no need for the courts here at all as nowhere does it say he needs to be convicted.
In fact former uses of this law didn't require a conviction. There's already case law supporting that fact.
I understand all that. I believe the issue is how this is handled. Is it up to the states? Is it up to congress? Is it up to the presidential electors? Is it up to the DNC / RNC? Who's the entity that determines who is and is not on the ballot?
As I think I understand it, the issue at hand is if a state has the authority to unilaterally bar a 'presidential candidate' from a 'general election ballot' for this reason.
Does the state get to determine on their own that the candidate is illegible? What is it in the state's constitution that says so? Shouldn't such a fact be established on a federal level to prevent the candidate from appearing on all ballots? These things aren't clear in the constitution.
The word you're looking for is ineligible.
Noticed this in your other comment and thought it was a typo but now you've forced my hand lol. Illegible means not legible, as in scrawled handwriting or bad print that is too sloppy to read.
This would require the state courts to all agree and then the Supreme Court to concur. Colorado isn't getting the final word on who can be president, they're dutifully interpreting the Constitution, making a ruling, and then letting the highest court in the land review it. It's like the Maine case writ large, it needs to start somewhere, but just because that case started with a single person making a decision doesn't mean that's the whole process or that the process itself is illegitimate. There's nothing unilateral about this, but the Supreme Court sounds like it wants to dodge responsibility for deciding whether Colorado is right or not by questioning whether they should have even been able to start the process.
Saying "Congress could just do the thing the plaintiff wants" is their tried and true dodge for things they know quite well can't or won't be done by Congress. They're quite happy to implement law without Congress's help when it's something they want and quite happy to pretend they're just deferring responsibility when it's something they don't.
I'm reiterating the argument(s) laid out in the hearing. I believe it was Justice Jackson who presented this hypothetical.
Hey, just chiming because we might both get downvoted to hell for this. After reading your comments i have altered my mindset on this somewhat and i agree that this is a presedent you dont want to go over easily. Its a knife that cuts both ways an can be used to cut you, once both parties see its possible. It would also be a funny moment when people vote for a canidate in their state, only for their spokesperson to not be able to vote for said canidate, making him, or her, not the president.
Whatever happens, the power hungry of all sides need to follow the rules, and just like everything about trump is a fucking presedent that we need to analyse and handle very carefully...
Agreed on the careful handling. With how partisan so many issues have been in the past few years, I can see this opening the door to more significant incidents in the future. Not to go "tin-foil-hat-civil-war," but I can see an example of Massachusetts, New York, and California doing XYZ while Texas, Georgia, and Florida have done ZYX that'll just add fuel to the fire.
Look at the diversity of states' positions after the overturn of Roe v Wade. It has eerily similar vibes as free and slave states did 160+ years ago. Ugh, at this point, it's time for me to meditate and read a book or something to relax.
Bingo.
Not arguing anything other than that the aftermath of him being on the ballot, winning, and then being told he can’t take office would shatter this country
Having laws not matter would do the same thing.
I fully agree, but if the implementation of the penalties to breaking a law are structured in such a way that the damage caused by not enforcing them is equal to or less than enforcing them then we’ve already lost. Even if it weren’t Trump if a candidate is allowed on the ballot and can’t legally win what is the recourse after the election? Was there any choice at all? Do we do a flash election?
I’m seriously asking because if that’s the case I don’t see anything resembling a decent future for anyone under any of the remaining options besides democrat and Biden landslide precident changing election
Imagine the uncertainty the Biden campaign could spread (they won't because they are bad at their jobs). The American public would be so frustrated with any ruling that did not address how the ammendment should be applied.
There should be a ruling on what constitutes an insurrection, but this trial is not about that.
And I think that a ruling on that is a long way off.
Well, one argument is that the clause is self serving and Trump does not need to be found guilty of a crime to be disqualified. Another (ridiculous, imo) argument is if the person holding the office of the presidency is an official.
We don't need that. We have federal definitions for insurrection, and participants on Jan 6 have been convicted of seditious conspiracy. It was a violent act to interfere with the constitutional transfer of power after a legitimate election. That's insurrection, and Trump supported them. None of those facts are in dispute.
A single state didn't decide who gets to be President. A single state decided who qualifies to appear on their ballots under state law, as all states are entitled to do.
Bad faith slippery slope argument. Colorado passed a law and took the case to court where the State Supreme Court made a ruling. If there's another state where the State Supreme Court has both the authority and the audacity to disqualify a candidate for partisan reasons, those justices should be charged with treason against America.
Then should a small federal subcommittee screen all candidates on the state's behalf before they're placed on the ballot?
I think finding ourselves in the position where a candidate won the popular vote but the electors are unable to vote for him, that would be a blunder as a country at best, cause an uprising among all the disenfranchised voters at worst.
Also one of their arguments that you left out is whether or not the POTUS is an officer of the United States... Which I think is an obvious YES! He is the commanding officer of the military, and as a veteran, I was trained that the POTUS was an officer.