Florida Federal Court Throws Out 14th Amendment Challenge to Trump Appearing On Ballot
Judge finds “no standing” to sue. Are the attempts to get judicial decisions keeping Trump off the ballot over? Of course not, but this is another sign that such attempts are likely to be unsuccessful. Hence the urging for state and local election officials to go rogue on their own, which of course then would be the subject of more lawsuits.
In addition to prosecutions, there are widely reported efforts to keep Donald Trump off the ballot on the argument that he is barred under the 14th Amendment (emphasis added):
Section 3.
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.
***
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
There are many legal problems with these maneuvers, particularly the theory being advance that state and local election officials on their own can implement such a bar. The Daily Caller covered the issue, in which I am quoted:
A Democratic-aligned group is seeking to bar former President Donald Trump from the ballot in key states through the 14th Amendment, according to a Wednesday press release.
Free Speech For People is arguing that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to alleged incitement of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and should be disqualified from running for a second term, according to a press release. The group has encouraged the secretaries of state in New Hampshire, New Mexico, Florida and Ohio, as well as election commission members in Wisconsin, to remove the former president from the ballot in 2024….
Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow for The Heritage Foundation, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the novel legal argument “is not a valid claim,” citing a paper he wrote last year.
“Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is no longer in effect because Congress passed two amnesty acts in 1872 and 1898 as it is allowed to do under that Section to remove the disabilities imposed by Section 3,” Spakovsky said. “Moreover, Donald Trump has never been convicted of ‘insurrection or rebellion’ by any court and not by Congress either in the impeachment proceedings that were attempted against him. These attempts to disqualify him from the ballot are unconstitutional.”
Trump isn’t charged with insurrection or inciting the riot on Jan. 6 in the two indictments that involve alleged interference in the 2020 election, in Washington, D.C. by Special Counsel Jack Smith and in Georgia by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, William A. Jacobson, Cornell Law School professor and founder of EqualProtect.org, told the DCNF.
“The Second Impeachment of Trump by the House of Representatives did charge him with inciting insurrection, but he was not found guilty by the Senate. Empowering state or local officials on their own to make a determination of what constitutes insurrection would wreak havoc on our constitutional presidential electoral system, amounting to the undermining of elections that gave rise to claims of ‘insurrection’ against Trump,” Jacobson said.
“What would stop local Republican officials from determining on their own that Joe Biden’s refusal to enforce our southern border amounts to an ‘insurrection’ against the United States? We would be faced with a free-for-all in which the constitutional system of presidential elections is undermined by local political power,” he added.
There’s a reason Democrats are so desperate to enable state and local election officials to act on their own – they face the same legal problem to challenging Trump appearing on the ballot that Trump faced in challenging the 2020 election results: Standing.
A lawsuit brought by Florida lawyer Lawrence Caplan and two others in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida tried to get the court to rule that Trump was disqualified under section 3 of the 14th Amendment and 18 USC 2383. From the First Amended Complaint:
Petitioner now comes before this honorable Court seeking declaratory relief on the specific issue of whether candidate Donald J. Trump is indeed constitutionally prohibited from seeking a second term as President of the United States. Encompassed within this request for declaratory relief is a further determination as to whether candidate Trump is indeed even eligible to participate in the upcoming Florida Republican Party Primary scheduled for next spring in 2024….
In carefully analyzing this language embedded in the Constitution, numerous legal scholars have wrangled with the preeminent issue of whether an actual conviction is necessary to trigger the prohibition of running for office. This so-called “disqualification clause” has been determined to operate completely independently of any pending criminal proceedings and also independent of any impeachment proceedings or congressional legislation. Former federal judge Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and noted legal scholar Laurence Tribe have both come to the inescapable conclusion that the “disqualification clause” was designed to operate directly and immediately upon this certain individuals who betray their oaths to the U.S. Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our federal government by attempting to overturn the results of a presidential election through a bloodless coup.
President Trump’s efforts both in Washington, as well as in Georgia and perhaps other states, as well as the consequential assault on the US Capitol, put Trump at the center of the disqualification clause, and as a result of which, make him ineligible to ever serve in federal office again. Now given that the facts seem to be crystal clear that Trump was involved to some extent in the insurrection that took place on January 6th, the sole remaining question is whether American jurists who swear an oath to uphold the US Constitution upon their entry to the bench, will choose to follow the letter of the Constitution in this case….
The bottom line here is that President Trump both engaged in an insurrection and also gave aid and comfort to other individuals, such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who were engaging in such actions, within the clear meaning of those terms as defined in Section Three of the 14th Amendment. Assuming that the public record to date is accurate, and we have no evidence to the contrary, Trump is no longer eligible to seek the office of the President of the United States, or the office of any other state of the Union. Trump has legally forfeited that right as a result of his specific actions which have led to his indictment on several charges after thorough investigation by the Special Counsel.
As such, this Court having the innate power to rule as to the tenets of the U.S. Constitution, is abjectly required to find that Donald J. Trump’s actions with respect to the January 6th uprising, and specifically the fact that he has been indicted for said acts, have effectively disqualified him from seeking the office of the President of the United States, and effectively barred him from participation in the Florida Republican primary for President next spring. While Petitioner fully understands that his seeking this declaratory judgment places great pressure on the jurists who will be tasked with hearing this case, we believe that the law is abundantly clear as to the issues at bar, is entirely self-executing in nature, and that if the jurists are ready to follow the specific language of the US Constitution in this regard, the decision should be a relative easy one to make.
This was not the most professional of pleadings. It was more like an op-ed. But it would not have mattered even if it were done more professionally.
The docket does not reveal a motion to dismiss having been filed, but it appears the Judge took it upon herself to throw out the complaint for lack of standing, which deprived the court of “subject matter jurisdiction.” Subject matter jurisdiction is non-waivable and prevents parties from going to federal court — even if they both want to — unless the constitutional and statutory grounds for invoking federal court jurisdiction are alleged. The federal courts can throw a case out at any time in the process, even at trial, if it turns out there is no federal jurisdiction, and judges are supposed to examine the case on their own to satisfy themselves that it belongs in federal court.
So the court here on it’s own entered an Order of Dismissal on August 31, 2023, dismissing the case for lack of standing:
…. The Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and dismisses the Complaint….
As explained below, the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of jurisdiction because Plaintiffs lack standing.
This Court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” … Inquiry into standing “is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.” … “A generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance does not suffice to confer standing on one such citizen.” … To have standing, a plaintiff must show he has a “personal stake” in the alleged dispute and that the injury is “particularized” to him.
Here, Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Defendant’s qualifications for seeking the Presidency, as the injuries alleged are not cognizable and not particular to them. Plaintiffs allege that they have standing because Plaintiff Caplan has actively participated in the last twelve Presidential elections, voted for both Republicans and Democrats, is a Florida resident and United States citizen, is an attorney and member of various courts, and has never been sanctioned. DE 1 at 2. Plaintiffs further allege that Plaintiff Butin is a Florida resident and United States citizen and Plaintiff Strianese is a Nevada resident and United States citizen. Id. Plaintiffs allege they will suffer injury if Defendant is allowed to run for President and prevail when he could be disqualified or removed from office. Id. at 2-3. However, an individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual is qualified to hold public office. See, e.g., Kerchner, 612 F.3d at 207; Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234, 239 (3d Cir. 2009).
Further, at least two courts have concluded that citizens attempting to disqualify individuals from participating in elections or from holding office based on the January 6, 2021 events at the United States Capitol lacked standing. See, e.g., Stencil v. Johnson, 605 F. Supp. 3d 1109 (E.D. Wis. 2022). In Stencil, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that three members of Wisconsin’s Congressional delegation were ineligible to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment because their participation in the January 6 attack constituted an insurrection against the United States. Id. at 1112-13. Among other things, the court determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing and explained that “[e]very citizen and voter could claim to have suffered the same injury as the plaintiffs here, which amounts to nothing more than engaging in political advocacy against candidates for office or issue advocacy against the views the candidates hold. The relief that the plaintiffs seek would no more directly and tangibly benefit them than it would the public at large.” Id. at 1117. See also Hill v. Mastriano, No. 22-2464, 2022 WL 16707073, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 4, 2022) (plaintiff seeking declaratory judgment disqualifying defendant from running for governor based on January 6, 2021 events lacked standing, rendering claim subject to dismissal). The Hill court also noted that “the appropriate process for testing title to public office” is a writ of quo warranto, which must be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and may only be filed by the sovereign or a representative thereof. See id. at *2; D.C. Code § 16-3503; Drake, 664 F.3d at 784-85.
Plaintiffs in this case similarly lack standing and, thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act, along with its obligation to examine its own jurisdiction, to dismiss this case.
Are the attempts to get judicial decisions keeping Trump off the ballot over? Of course not, but this is another sign that such attempts are likely to be unsuccessful. Hence the urging for state and local election officials to go rogue on their own, which of course then would be the subject of more lawsuits.
——–
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I wonder if a person in a state that does remove Trump from the ballot, or gets close, can sue the officials doing so for civil rights violations ie denying the person the right to vote for their person of choice.
I also wonder if such a violation is so egregious that it would pierce the veil of immunity and make such a person personally liable.
It won’t have to come to that. If some crazed leftwing state Secretary of State does in fact prohibit ballot access to Trump, both Trump and the Republican Party will have standing to sue…and will sue. At this point, I think the chances of that actually happening – Trump & the GOP having to sue to get access to the ballot – are increasing. It’s probably more likely than not.
Yeah but ity’s one thing to try and fail. I’t another to try, fail and have to pay big for it.
You do realize that hasn’t happened and you just read an article (assuming you read it and aren’t just spamming) by a law professor who just told you that they aren’t going to get Trump off the ballot right?
If a SoS acted against the ruling that would be “Subject to more lawsuits”.
Instead of creating a new stab in the back mythology to a defeat that hasn’t happened yet (although by trying to make Trump the nominee you are making it extremely likely) how about try to make the defeat not happen?
Yea I read it, including the part that said “Are the attempts to get judicial decisions keeping Trump off the ballot over? Of course not,”
Confirming you only acknowledge the part you liked, the part where he said they had no chance, they aren’t going to succeed, and if they do it by politician it will be subject to more lawsuits (in exactly the same courts that wouldn’t allow it in the first place)….
But whatever floats your boat go ahead keep writing a stab in the back mythology before the election even happened, it worked so well for Stacey Abrams or did she actually win in your world? I know on planet team Trump she is the true governor of Georgia.
Danny, first of all it wouldn’t be up to the SoS, but to each county board of elections. Second, the Florida SoS was never going to remove him — the purpose of the suit was to compel his removal; it failed for lack of standing, which means the counties are still free to do as they choose. Third, even if this court had decided that Trump must be on the ballot, that would not be binding in other states.
So yes, it could well happen that Trump (assuming he wins the nomination) will be removed from some ballots, and he will have to sue if he wants to get on them. But he might not bother, since such places are generally ones he can’t win anyway.
In such a situation a citizen would not have standing, but Trump and the GOP would.
And no, qualified immunity would not be lost, because the right they’d have allegedly violated is not clear and established.
These lefty 14th amendment theories are hot garbage. I’m all for folks shooting their shot b/c as Gretzky told us ‘you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take’ but this one had no chance from the beginning. All it did was predictably fail and reinforce the notion that the d/prog will use any means to hit Trump. Stupid political move IMO.
“You can’t miss your way to the target” We all remember that.
The issue with Trump isn’t ballot access, he will be on the ballot in all 50 states and every territory to.
The issue is the population of the country don’t like him. Majorities say they support prosecuting him in all of the cases he has been indicted for, and he polls against a weak old man perceived as too old in the low 40s while at 100% name recognition.
No judge could rule the public has to change it’s mind about Trump, any more than they have to be fair to a third party candidate.
Danny,
As you know I haven’t chosen a candidate in the primary and I have been consistently tough on calling out the rhetorical excesses and occasional hypocrisy of the MAGADONIANS. That said lots of voters like Trump. Heck, I like Trump and most of his antics.
I do share the concerns about Trump’s ability to win a general election contest based on his high negatives; roughly 46% ish of voters will not vote for Trump. It leaves him a thin group in the center to win over and achieve victory. It’s not impossible for Trump to win especially v Biden (who IMO is unlikely to be on the ballot) but it will not be easy to do it.
The bottom line is all the piling on of various criminal and civil litigation v Trump is creating a bit of a martyr effect for him. New media is creating compare and contrast examples v Biden not only on potential crimes but impact of policies on kitchen table issues. Absent a black swan event the ’24 election will be a referendum on the economy IMO and the middle of the road voter may very well choose Trump on that basis.
The theory that he’s ineligible is not garbage. It’s wrong, but it isn’t garbage. And this decision doesn’t change that, since it’s not on the merits.
Since the two amnesty acts passed by Congress are open ended or at least not exclusive to Civil War era actions it would seem to forestall this COA. In the sense that this particular issue hasn’t yet been run up the flagpole in CT then sure but IMO it’s kind of a dumb and dumber ‘so you’re saying there’s a chance’ situation.
Yes, I believe that is correct. But it’s not obviously correct. One can make a decent argument that the amnesty only applied to past insurrections, not to future ones. That is indeed the most obvious interpretation that first presents itself to mind; it’s just that if you start to think about it seriously I think it soon becomes clear that that may have been what congress meant but it isn’t what they said, and the text is what matters, not what was in their minds.
“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.”
Insurrection is a federal crime. You can only be given a constitutionally imposed penalty for a crime if you have been convicted of it. There are all sorts of laws that have disabilities imposed by virtue of breaking them even without respect to if you served your time (i.e. child rs get all sorts of disabilities regardless of their being in prison or not as a not punishment thing).
Trump is not charged with let alone convicted of insurrection.
This is coming from someone you are well aware thinks a Trump nomination means a second Biden term.
If by some miracle subject matter jurisdiction is breached (it won’t be) you have to explain how you could justify ignoring the Constitution’s explicit ban on acts of attainder and bill of pains, or the fact that such a ban has it’s origins dating to the Magna Carta which is explicitly the basis the founding fathers used to place it in the constitution. Reading the magna carta section leaves zero room to doubt the founding fathers intended on the only disabilities being imposed for committing a crime get imposed on those convicted alone and that such a conviction must be from a jury of their peers.
If the 14th amendment had been intended as an exception to the Bill of Pains/Act of Attainder ban (which are absolute) laid out in the Constitution it would be there, the reason I pasted the actual text is so you could see the exception just isn’t anywhere present in the text. Notably there is ambiguity about president and vice president which I find significant.
The ONLY kind of person guilty of a federal crime in our law and custom is somebody who has been convicted of it.
If a law stated that all murderers had to have a bright red star tattooed to their face to mark them as murderers it would not apply to O.J. Simpson because he was acquitted.
If by some miracle you managed to overcome that massive hurdle you get to then encounter the hurdle of congressional pardon which is a much easier one to overcome.
If you then overcome that hurdle you then get to try to overcome the fact that there has to be an insurrection to be guilty of that crime, and what happened on Jan 6th was clearly just a riot.
Once you get through that massive hurdle you then have to explain why you could impose your own laws on a candidates eligibility against what the federal government says (which is you are eligible unless convicted of that crime).
Then finally you have to overcome state constitutions promising everyone due process of law; of which a star chamber is an overt violation of in this country.
In this country we decide who has committed an insurrection by a jury of their peers not by star chambers.
The fact that they can’t even breech subject matter jurisdiction says everything you need to know about the case.
If Trump is the nominee I will bet you anything you wish he will be on the ballot in every single jurisdiction in the United States.
I believe that this judge tossed it on standing grounds because it would be too soon. If she ruled in favor of the plaintiffs now there would be too much time left before the ballots are mailed out and might even make SCOTUS who would likely rule against any such disqualification ending the charade. No what the left wants is for a court to rule Trump ineligible just before the ballots are printed so there would be minimal time to appeal it and then argue that there is no time to print new ballots with Trump’s name on them.
Name one legal authority that thinks Trump is disqualified from running by the 14th amendment.
What I find particularly interesting is the presidency isn’t included in lists of what the confederates couldn’t run for so hypothetically had Jefferson Davis wanted to he could have announced his run for the presidency unrepentant about the civil war and had ballot access.
What you saw was a frivolous lawsuit thrown out of court as it will 100% of the time if brought again by somebody else.
Furthermore I have found no evidence for any secretary of state doing any funny business about ballot access.
Well for what value their legal authority is: Glenn Kirschner and “LegalSmeagal”. Also I believe that Lawrence Tribe has chimed in.
Plus a lot of legal “authorities” who claimed and urged the Judge to try Michael Flynn after he was pardoned.
Wikipedia brief description
“American prosecutor and TV legal analyst”
Lawrence Tribe is also cheerleader #1 for packing the courts.
By legal authority I should have been more precise.
Legal authority who actually is willing to tell you the law instead of biased partisan talking points meant as propaganda they are aware have 0% chance in a court of law.
Do Democrats actually believe in legal authority beyond what helps Democrats? They want to use the 14th Amendment to give themselves an advantage not because they believe the interpretation that they claim but because they hate Trump and are willing to destroy the law of it destroys him. I could even see them saying that the 14th Amendment no longer applies in 2028 if the republicans try to use it against a Democratic candidate.
Luttig, for one. He’s not only a legal authority, but also an indisputable conservative; nobody can accuse him of leftism. Tribe is also a legal authority, though he seems to have lost his marbles. And they’re far from the only two.
They’re wrong, but they are authorities.
This is true, but only if you understand that the presidency isn’t an “office under the united states”. Many people, even experts on the constitution, don’t understand that; it’s not an obvious point.
the dims know their limitations when it comes the the cheat and they know that in 2024 the margin will lie outside of the abilities to steal the election like they did the last go around
therefore, all of these courtroom efforts to would Trump are to act as picadors for their weak Brandon the matador
Their limitations is that Trump is the only one they could beat in this election.
They JUST defeated the Trump surrogates in 2022.
Mitch McConnell and Ronna Romney or whatever her name is defeated Trump surrogates by funding their buddies that were thirty points down in the polls and not funding those Trump surrogates who were neck and neck.
PS: I would seem that Donna Brazille thinks he has a good chance.
Just a friendly tip
don’t feed the trolls
I also believe McConnell sent Lindsey Graham out to make his abortion ban proposal just to rile up the Democratic base and give them a talking point. Yes I believe McConnell actively worked against the Republicans from winning control of the Senate.
Here’s the problem. The democrat lawfare activists don’t really care about the validity of their arguments. The substantively meritless charges and, shall we say questionable procedures, in all of the Trump indictments demonstrate that. The left just wants President Trump tied up in proceedings. That an appellate court ultimately dismisses whatever initial victories this obscene lawfare produces doesn’t matter to these clowns. They want maximum electoral damage before Nov. 2024.
They are throwing everything at Trump and are getting increasingly unhinged because it hasn’t forced him out (like it would have any other R).
The irony is that Trump could actually shoot someone on 42nd street and gain in popularity.
In today’s NY, they probably deserved it.
It would depend upon who he shot. Shooting a pantifa/black lies punk would push his poll numbers into the stratosphere
“or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Can anyone explain why this is not true of Joe Biden sellout to the CCP and others?
Biden is a Democrat. Democrats are not expected to be loyal to America. They are loyal to a future USSA.
The idea that Trump can be kept off the ballot without a conviction on ‘insurrection or rebellion’ is so insane that any lawyer who proposes it should be hauled before the bar. What’s worse, these idiots are proposing that even the ‘accusation’ is sufficient to remove him from the ballot. If that were true, the RNC could sweep the entire country by simply filing disposable charges against every Dem House and Senate candidate right before the deadline. Sorry, you can’t run because Farquar Wilson has filed against you in state court. Try again in two years.
The problem is those people run the bar.
Amen brother , the Bar Association is like the media and DC denizens, 98% DemoLeft
It is not at all an insane idea. The plaintiffs are almost certainly correct that the disqualification clause is self-executing, and doesn’t require a conviction. If someone took an oath and then participated in an insurrection they were automatically disqualified. This works exactly like the clauses disqualifying those who are under 35 or were not born citizens, or who haven’t lived in the USA for 14 years.
Their theory is wrong for other reasons, but not that one.
You stated two absolute facts that can be established in court as disqualifiers (i.e. Age and US Citizenship). But the 14th Amendment states “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” That is not something that can be stated as an absolute fact unless the defendant is convicted of the crime or *claims* that position as fact. Far as I know, Trump has never stood up and proclaimed himself to be an insurrectionist out to destroy the US, or declared a rebellion against the US, so any accusation in this regard from a third party would have to be *proven* in court or it is so much hot air.
We are citizens in a nation of laws under the Constitution, innocent of any charge until proven guilty in court with due process at every step. Anybody who proposes a punishment like this without a fair trial is the Queen of Hearts. “Sentence first. Verdict afterwards.”
Boards of elections don’t need a court decision to decide whether someone is 35 years old, a natural born citizen, and has lived 14 years in the USA; they can do so on their own, and it’s then up to the disqualified candidate to sue them. The same applies to this qualification. It’s not a charge, and not a criminal or civil penalty, so no court decision is required. The onus is on a disqualified candidate to sue to be restored to the ballot.
“Boards of elections don’t need a court decision to decide whether someone is 35 years old, a natural born citizen, and has lived 14 years in the USA; they can do so on their own, ”
…..because there are legal documents attesting to all of these that are easily checked.
“The onus is on a disqualified candidate to sue to be restored to the ballot.”
I am unsure you understand that in the US, the onus is always on the complainant to prove the guilt of the accused.
Well, classicly so, but this is clown world so your idea that Trump must prove a negative to get back on the ballot might be the ‘law’ today.
Another idiot heard from. Whether someone participated in an insurrection is every bit as much an objective fact as whether he is a natural born citizen, or what his age is. It is in the first instance up to each board of elections to decide whether someone is eligible to be on the ballot. Only after they have disqualified someone can there be a case or controversy for a court to hear, and the onus is on the candidate or his party to sue the board of elections.
You’ve just shown how little you understand. First of all, where does “guilt” come in to it? Guilt is only relevant in a criminal case, which this is not. This would be a civil case, which can only happen after a board of elections has made a decision that the candidate doesn’t like. And the onus is indeed on the plaintiff — i.e. the aggrieved candidate — to make his case. The board of elections would be the defendant.
The problem with permitting state or local officials to determine what constitutes insurrection would, as von Spakovsky notes, undermine the electoral system and grant Republican (and Independent or rogue Democrat) officials the power to determine that Biden is guilty of insurrection and thus unfit to be listed on the ballot.
What happens when Democrat states only permit Democrat candidates to run for office, Republican states only permit Republican candidates to run for office, and neither side will recognise an insurrectionist sworn in to power?
Aren’t Federal elections just that! States can’t override or alter a Federal law and election.
No, elections for presidential electors are state elections, not federal. Congress has no power to make any legislation about them whatsoever. Which is why the Electoral Count Act is phrased not as a mandate but as a guarantee to the states that if they voluntarily follow the rules Congress made, Congress guarantees it will count the electors’ votes.
I believe von Spakovsky is wrong. Each county board of elections is responsible for deciding who should be on the ballot in that county. Remember that states are not even required to have presidential elections. A state’s legislature could decide that its electors will be chosen in some other manner, perhaps by drawing names at random, or by an athletic competition.
Suppose a county board of election, or a state’s Secretary of State, had decided 0bama was not a natural-born citizen; do you seriously think they would be ultra vires?! 0bama would obviously have challenged it, and probably won on the merits, but he could not simply say they acted outside their authority.
Or suppose a county board of elections decides a certain candidate is only 34 years old; who is supposed to decide that, if not them?
Actually you misattributed that argument; it’s not von Spakowsky who makes it, but our own Prof J.
Von Spakowsky’s argument is from the Amnesty Acts, and I agree with him. The disqualification clause is as good as gone from the constitution, because it’s been removed as to all people currently living.
It was Prof J who argued from the chaos that would result if it were up to each board of elections (or each state, but in my opinion that’s not a valid argument. The constitution doesn’t care how much chaos is caused
To say this was not the most professional of pleadings is a vast understatement. “As such, this Court having the innate power to rule as to the tenets of the U.S. Constitution, is abjectly required to find …” Pathetic.
Those federal judges are no dummies. Accepting the case would have meant accepting the premise that J6 was an insurrection, giving Trump a truck-size hole to depose the entire federal government in order to present a defense against it.
The court also did not want to get stuck in the mud with Section 5. Can the Congress pass legislation to deny the presidency to one who commits insurrection, and their failure to do so makes Section 3 unenforceable? That would effectively amend the Constitution by legislation, as the qualifications for president are enumerated elsewhere.
And to add one final headache: is the President an “Officer” of the United States? Officers are appointed by the power of the Article III executive, presidents are elected by state Electors.
No standing wraps the fish in newspaper and tosses it cleanly away.
No, the presidency is not an office under the united states. That’s a key point that Trump’s opponents are not aware of. It’s not an obvious point; it requires paying careful attention, so I don’t blame them for their ignorance, but it’s the truth.
Ballots are the alternative to bullets. If counties choose to disenfranchise voters, I expect bad things to happen.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said on Sunday that a legal argument to disqualify the former president is “valid,” and that the part of the amendment that bans those who have “engaged in insurrection” from holding elected office “fits Donald Trump to a T.”
Coming from the guy who broke his oath of office by being part of an insurrection endorsed by the Speaker of the House that walked all of the Constitution claiming to investigate Jan-6 while violating the enabling resolution and the 6th amendment for starters.