Renowned Law Professor Bruce Ackerman here writes at Politico that if any U.S. Supreme Court Justice believes in originalism, that Justice must vote to remove Donald Trump from ballots. “Originalism” is the judicial theory that the Constitution should be interpreted in line with the framers’ thinking.”
Ackerman appears not to know that when the 14th amendment was written, no one could prevent any candidate from running. Ackerman would like to see the Supreme Court “prohibit his candidacy”. He says if the Court is faithful to originalism, “Trump won’t be running.”
The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment obviously did not intend section three to prevent anyone from running. They knew that government at that time had no means to prevent anyone from running, because there were no government-printed ballots. Ballots were private. Clearly, if the Justices use originalism, they will rule that Trump can run, but if he is elected, he can’t be sworn in.
Clearly, they’ll rule he can be sworn in. For one thing, he’s not an insurrectionist, and for another, it’s not up to them to decide, as congress is clearly the body to rule on that.
The entire fake news article is ridiculous, filled with erroneous presumptions from start to finish.
Biden is the insurrectionist.
Is the supreme court voting in Biden’s ballot access?
CRIMINAL CONVICTION OF I/R IN USA COURT
THEN THE 14-3 STUFF
—
SO MUCH FOR A *RENOWNED* PROF — WHO LIKELY HAS N-O-T DONE ANY RESEARCH IN 40 PLUS YEARS
JUSTICE WINGER WROTE –
Clearly, if the Justices use originalism, they will rule that Trump can run, but if he is elected, he can’t be sworn in.
—
SEE 236PM ABOVE
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/politics/gop-senators-angry-trump-immigration-deal/index.html
WHO NEEDS ANY CONGRESS FULL OF SPINELESS HACKS WHEN A TYRANT GIVES COMMAND ORDERS ???
SEE SO-CALLED LEGISLATIVE BODIES IN STALIN AND HITLER REGIMES
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
AZ IS SO IN LOVE WITH TRUMP AND MAD HE REJECTED HIM. IT IS SO OBVIOUS
JR
FIEJHE
MFTKD4KDE
ONLY BAN TROLL MORON FASCISTS HAVE AN 0.666 IQ LOVE FOR TYRANT TRUMP
— AND THE ENTIRE ROTTED EVIL/VICIOUS MINORITY RULE REGIME IN THE USA SINCE 1776
AZ JUST ADMITTED AGAIN IT IS THE ONLY BAN TROLL MORON FASCIST WITH 0.666 IQ.
Exactly. Voters should be able to choose as they want, but Congress must enforce the qualifications clause for a person to hold office.
I’m glad we agree.
WHEN WAS FIRST REPORTED CASE OF A COURT STOPPING AN UN-/ DIS- QUALIFIED CANDIDATE FROM BEING ON A GOVT BALLOT ???
ESP IN SCOTUS OR A STATE SUPREME COURT. ???
@RW,
In Texas before there were government printed ballots, the final canvassing authority could not certify an unqualified “winner”. In essence it was treated as if the leading candidate had died, the election was null and there was a vacancy.
Once there were government-printed (or party-printed in the case of primaries) it became possible to exclude unqualified candidates from appearing on a ballot and inadvertently receiving the most votes and nullifying the election.
@JR
Thanks, I can see how people would see the government ballot exclusion as a feature – it prevents vacancies.
But I don’t know if that applies to president. Someone else would be selected… the VP? 2nd place finisher? Sec. of State?
Biden should be treated as if he died.
Ackerman has exposed himself as a dolt He understand neither the Constitution, nor originalism.
The only other option is that he is willfully ignorant out of partisanship.
Which is worse?
AC posted:
“Thanks, I can see how people would see the government ballot exclusion as a feature – it prevents vacancies.
But I don’t know if that applies to president. Someone else would be selected… the VP? 2nd place finisher? Sec. of State?”
As it stands now, if a qualified Vice-President has been elected with a disqualified President, then the Vice-President becomes President. This is one of the reasons that the Vice-President is sworn in before the President on Inauguration Day.
@AC, WZ,
There are all kinds of problems applying the rule to presidential primaries and the general election since they are indirect elections.
In Texas, I suppose a case could be made that the faithless elector law compels electors to vote for the ballot candidate and that voters are actually voting for the presidential candidate.
In any event, people should pay close attention to whom each party nominates for Vice President. One way or another, there is a good chance either of them will become President.
@WZ,
In Texas, independent candidates for president personally apply for the general election ballot, supplying the VP candidate and elector candidates.
In contrast, party nominees are supplied by the parties.
After 2008, there was a bill to have party candidates apply directly for the general election ballot (they would include a party endorsement).
The intent was this would permit a challenge of Obama on grounds that he was not a natural born citizen.
Trump is the only one with any realistic chance to be elected, and he’s in extraordinary physical and mental shape for a man of any age, much less his, so there’s no real need to worry about succession. He’ll pick a much better VP this time. Trump Jr would be my top pick but Tucker Carlson is more likely and also excellent.
The Enforcement Act of 1870 cuts against this notion Section Three could only operate AFTER an election.
“[…]Any person who shall hereafter […] ATTEMPT TO HOLD […] any such office [from which he is disqualified by Section Three], shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor against the United States” (Bolding added)
Clearly, the chief motive behind running for election is “attempting to hold office.” Reconstruction Congress made that a misdemeanor in 1870, but nothing before hindered the relevant officials to oust OR prevent insurrectionists from office before .
While ballot access has certainly changed since 1868, it would be a strange warping of logic to conclude today’s state power to police its own presidential ballots is unconstitutional under originalist scruples. Self-described originalist Neil Gorsuch said this twelve years ago–in Colorado, no less: “A state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”
In other words, Ackerman was right. And Trump v. Anderson was a true legal disaster of an opinion, whatever your political views are and whatever your thoughts on its effect. A true mockery of principled originalism.
Biden is a traitor is 100% correct.
Also, take the claim “The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment obviously did not intend section three to prevent anyone from running.”
I believe this is an incorrect understanding of the situation at hand. Section Three itself is not preventing any candidate from running– it is Colorado state law that commands the relevant parties to exclude constitutionally disqualified candidates from the ballot. (The recent decision did not overrule this law). While Section Three’s plain text merely prevents insurrectionists from “holding office,” nothing in the amendment precludes states from using their article II powers and saying “we won’t allow constitutionally disqualified candidates on our ballot.” It can be different in every state. (All in theory now, since the Court holds otherwise for federal officials– I candidly disagree with them)
Amendments to my previous post:
Change “operate” to “be enforced” The disqualification is immediately operative upon participation in insurrection or rebellion, or giving aid and comfort to enemies– so of course it is operative before being elected again! The question at hand is enforcement of the provision, which I believe is entrusted to a miscellany of local, state, and federal authorities. Nothing stops them from taking necessary steps to enforce the disqualification before an official is elected. That was true in 1868, 1870, and is true today.
After “before” add “such disqualified official was to be sworn in.”
Untaxed and unvaxed, White Men Can Trump, Bill, Xander, Az loves Trump, QED, Gavin Gruesome, Biden is a traitor, and Alien invaders are poisoning the nation’s blood are all 100% correct.