Home→Uncategorized→George Mason Law Professor and Cato Scholar Ilya Somin Opines That Trump is Disqualified From The Ballot Based on the 14th Amendment
George Mason Law Professor and Cato Scholar Ilya Somin Opines That Trump is Disqualified From The Ballot Based on the 14th Amendment
ACHESON HOTELS, LLC v. LAUFER, 601 U. S. ____ (2023)
Only plaintiffs who allege a concrete injury have standing to sue in federal court.
—
1ST OP OF TERM
ONLY INJURIES FROM CONCRETE ???
14-3 CRIMINAL CONVICTION REQUIRED — THEN THE OTHER POSSIBLE STUFF
Professor Somin does mention the distinction between keeping Trump off the ballot, and refusing to swear him into office, in his paragraph just above “Pragmatic Considerations”. But he fails to deal with the point that Trump would not be “on the ballot” in November. Presidential candidates are not “on the ballot” in November in their role as candidates. Instead their names are markers for competing slates of presidential electors. Only presidential elector candidates are running in November. And the 14th amendment, section 3, does not give states the authority to forbid candidates from presidential elector for qualifying for the ballot even though they say if elected, they would vote for someone who doesn’t meet the qualifications. That was understood in the 18th and 19th centuries. That is why no state kept James B. Cranfill off its November ballot in 1892, when everyone knew he was under-age 35 (he bragged about it). He was the Prohibition Party’s vice-presidential nominee, and the Prohibition ticket appeared on the ballot in every state with government-printed ballots, except South Dakota, where the party was off for reasons that had nothing to do with Cranfill’s age.
RW posted:
“And the 14th amendment, section 3, does not give states the authority to forbid candidates from presidential elector for qualifying for the ballot even though they say if elected, they would vote for someone who doesn’t meet the qualifications. That was understood in the 18th and 19th centuries”
Exactly right.
A handy balled together mess of every bad argument from the proponents of the 14-3 desperation ploy against our legitimately elected and illegitimately thrown out of office President Trump.
How many 1892 ballots listed the names of the putative presidential candidate? As late as 1912 California split its electoral votes. This could not have happened unless the individual electors were listed separately on the ballot.
If insurrection is a crime then the 6th Amendment applies. Surely this would have import to legal scholars.
Dreck.
Wrong on an impressive number of things (all of them, basically) for such a short article.
Nonsense from start to finish, starting with the allegation that Trump had anything to do with the riot on J6.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-429_h315.pdf
ACHESON HOTELS, LLC v. LAUFER, 601 U. S. ____ (2023)
Only plaintiffs who allege a concrete injury have standing to sue in federal court.
—
1ST OP OF TERM
ONLY INJURIES FROM CONCRETE ???
14-3 CRIMINAL CONVICTION REQUIRED — THEN THE OTHER POSSIBLE STUFF
Professor Somin does mention the distinction between keeping Trump off the ballot, and refusing to swear him into office, in his paragraph just above “Pragmatic Considerations”. But he fails to deal with the point that Trump would not be “on the ballot” in November. Presidential candidates are not “on the ballot” in November in their role as candidates. Instead their names are markers for competing slates of presidential electors. Only presidential elector candidates are running in November. And the 14th amendment, section 3, does not give states the authority to forbid candidates from presidential elector for qualifying for the ballot even though they say if elected, they would vote for someone who doesn’t meet the qualifications. That was understood in the 18th and 19th centuries. That is why no state kept James B. Cranfill off its November ballot in 1892, when everyone knew he was under-age 35 (he bragged about it). He was the Prohibition Party’s vice-presidential nominee, and the Prohibition ticket appeared on the ballot in every state with government-printed ballots, except South Dakota, where the party was off for reasons that had nothing to do with Cranfill’s age.
RW posted:
“And the 14th amendment, section 3, does not give states the authority to forbid candidates from presidential elector for qualifying for the ballot even though they say if elected, they would vote for someone who doesn’t meet the qualifications. That was understood in the 18th and 19th centuries”
Exactly right.
A handy balled together mess of every bad argument from the proponents of the 14-3 desperation ploy against our legitimately elected and illegitimately thrown out of office President Trump.
How many 1892 ballots listed the names of the putative presidential candidate? As late as 1912 California split its electoral votes. This could not have happened unless the individual electors were listed separately on the ballot.
If insurrection is a crime then the 6th Amendment applies. Surely this would have import to legal scholars.
Dreck.
Wrong on an impressive number of things (all of them, basically) for such a short article.