Is Trump legally qualified to be a presidential candidate?

[RZehr]

I would also point out that state courts have already ruled some 1/6 participants ineligible to serve in various state offices based simply on findings of the court. Exactly like Colorado did with respect to Trump. The Supreme Court did not nullify any of that. They only nullified it for the national office of presidency. The 14th Amendment applies to all federal offices, not just the presidency.

So court rulings don’t matter? Unless they ruled on the 1/6 enthusiasts?
You are citing quite a bit of court stuff for saying that court stuff doesn’t matter at all. Will courts matter if the SC rules Trump ineligible?
I’m the one saying that courts matter here. Get back on your side of the argument.

1. I think courts are the proper forum to determine the meaning of constitutional provisions and not Congress.

2. I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision to punt on this issue and not examine the substance of either the 14th Amendment or Trump's actions. Their reasons for not doing so are specious because it hasn't stopped other courts from doing so for candidates for other state and federal offices. And it hasn't stopped them from ruling on any other constitutional provision.

3. Regardless of whether or not courts are involved, this is NOT a criminal issue. It is an administrative issue. And therefore, criminal issues such as presumption of innocence are not relevant. Courts, especially the higher courts examine many constitutional issues that are not related to criminal law.

I think insurrection is illegal. And only after being found in violation of this, can one be deemed legally prohibited from holding public federal office. Merely being called an insurrectionist by many, is insufficient to legally disqualify someone.

[Ken]

It was a unanimous ruling. That doesn't sound very partisan to me. I was surprised by it, but every single justice agreed.

Here is the summary on Wikipedia.

In an unsigned per curiam opinion issued March 4, 2024, the court ruled that, as set forth in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has the exclusive power to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment; as such, the Courts (federal or otherwise) cannot declare a candidate ineligible for office under the said Section 3 unless an Act of Congress explicitly grants them that power. Further, the opinion stated that "states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency".[79] The opinion also expressed concern that if this power was left to the states, it would create chaos ahead and after the election and may disenfranchise voters.[79]

While all nine justices agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment grants this power to the federal government, and not to the individual states, two separate opinions were issued. Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in the Court's decision that states cannot enforce Section 3 against federal officials, but wrote that the court should not have addressed "the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced."[79] Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in an opinion co-signed by all three Justices, concurred in the judgment, but said that the court went beyond what was needed for the case and should not have declared that Congress has the exclusive power to decide Section 3 eligibility questions, stating that the Court's opinion had decided "novel constitutional questions to insulate this court and petitioner [Trump] from future controversy.

You will find that there was unanimous opinion that the issue should be decided at the federal level and not the states. But the 3 liberal justices disagreed with the 6 conservative justices decision to declare that Congress is the sole arbiter of this issue and pointed out that the point of doing so was to insulate Trump and the court from controversy. In other words, Kagan, Brown, and Sotomayor were accusing the court of playing politics (covering both their and Trump's butts). I agree with them. Also, Barrett wrote a separate opinion disagreeing with the Court's decision to put the mess solely in the hands of Congress.

So basically the court was 9-0 on whether this was a federal or state issue, which was the main issue in front of them. But the court split 5-4 on whether it is solely an area for Congress to decide (as opposed to the courts).

And in the end, they made no actual ruling on Trump's qualification to be president.

[Bootstrap]

So basically the court was 9-0 on whether this was a federal or state issue, which was the main issue in front of them. But the court split 5-4 on whether it is solely an area for Congress to decide (as opposed to the courts).

And in the end, they made no actual ruling on Trump's qualification to be president.

Yes, I agree with all of that. But they also said that they are not the ones to rule on his qualification, Congress is.

I rather like Barrett's text:

I join Parts I and II–B of the Court’s opinion. I agree that
States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presiden-
tial candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this
case, and I would decide no more than that. This suit was
brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court.
It does not require us to address the complicated question
whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through
which Section 3 can be enforced.

The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the re-
maining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my
judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with
stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue
in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particu-
larly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should
turn the national temperature down, not up. For present
purposes, our differences are far less important than our
unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this
case. That is the message Americans should take home.

[temporal1]

Could you please clarify what the topic is

Is Trump legally qualified to be a presidential candidate?

From the subject line and OP, this topic is essentially another wish-list for ongoing TDS sufferers to dwell on their particular hopes+dreams. i’m wondering if we aren’t now doomed to living in unending political campaigning, no let-up just because of any given election.

In olden times, the elected could enjoy a space of time to work in between election cycles.
i’m not sure that will be the case going forward.

At least not until The People refuse to allow it. The profiteers will drag it out as long as it pays.

To repeat, presidential terms are confined to 4 years, 2 terms max.
Would it have really been so horrific to respect DJT’s election, even with a second term?

i have to doubt the state of the union if it were truly that fragile. [i’m not buying it.]
But i understand how lobbyists, activists, profiteers could be wildly impatient. Should they be in control?