Is Trump legally qualified to be a presidential candidate?

[RZehr]

The Supreme Court didn't settle the question. They said only Congress could settle the question, not state courts or individual state secretaries of state.

The Supreme Court also didn’t rule that you or I are legally qualified or not. It also didn’t rule that Joe Biden or any of the previous 20 Presidents were legally qualified.That doesn’t mean that none of them were not legally qualified. We are in fact, both legally qualified. And so is Trump at this point.

A lack of Supreme Court ruling is immaterial to anyone’s legal qualifications. That is not the qualifying system we have in the US.

I think you are misstating things.

Under the Constitution there are various qualification criteria for president.

You must be a natural born US citizen
You must be at least 35 years old
You must have not already served 2 terms
And you must not have engaged in insurrection against the US after previously having sworn allegiance to the US Constitution...etc. (14th Amendment)

What the Supreme Court said is that the ambiguities contained in that 14th Amendment clause are properly the purview of Congress (and only Congress) to determine. And that to the extent that their needs to be clarification it is up to Congress to do so through statute.

Basically they punted. Which they didn't have to do. The Supreme Court is perfectly happy to step in and determine the meanings of different constitutional provisions without the help of Congress. They have done so many times (for example the 2nd Amendment).

And note: None of this actually goes to eligibility to be a CANDIDATE for president. The Constitutional provisions are actually on holding the office of the president. So theoretically someone could get elected president and then Congress or the courts determine that they are ineligible to serve.

And where does the presumption of innocent fit into your legal qualification matrix?

[Ken]

And where does the presumption of innocent fit into your legal qualification matrix?

Presumption of innocence has nothing to do with any of it. This isn't a criminal issue. And being ineligible for the presidency is not a criminal sanction. Every naturalized citizen is also ineligible even though they are presumed innocent. Barak Obama and George W Bush are also ineligible to run, even though they are presumed innocent of any wrong doing as well.

[RZehr]

And where does the presumption of innocent fit into your legal qualification matrix?

Presumption of innocence has nothing to do with any of it. This isn't a criminal issue. And being ineligible for the presidency is not a criminal sanction. Every naturalized citizen is also ineligible even though they are presumed innocent. Barak Obama and George W Bush are also ineligible to run, even though they are presumed innocent of any wrong doing as well.

Of course there is. If there is no presumption of innocence - specifically with relation to insurrection, which is really the thing at issue here, isn’t it - then why exactly is there even any question as to Trumps legality? He, along with every other recent candidate, has been presumed to be an insurrectionist. And until determined otherwise, Trump will in fact be legally qualified to be president.

Just for grins, let’s say that Trump did lead an insurrection. He would still need someone, somewhere, with authority to official make that determination.

I think at this point no one is seriously even trying to say that he isn’t legally qualified. At most, they are saying it is undetermined, which functionally means he is until determined otherwise.

[Ken]

And where does the presumption of innocent fit into your legal qualification matrix?

Presumption of innocence has nothing to do with any of it. This isn't a criminal issue. And being ineligible for the presidency is not a criminal sanction. Every naturalized citizen is also ineligible even though they are presumed innocent. Barak Obama and George W Bush are also ineligible to run, even though they are presumed innocent of any wrong doing as well.

If there is no presumption of innocence - specifically with relation to insurrection, which is really the thing at issue here, isn’t it - then why exactly is there even any question as to Trumps legality? He, along with every other recent candidate, has been presumed to be an insurrectionist. And until determined otherwise, Trump will in fact be legally qualified to be president.

Just for grin, let’s say that Trump did lead an insurrection. He would still need someone, somewhere, with authority to official make that determination.

Presumption of innocence is an issue in a criminal proceeding. Such as Trump's upcoming trial related to his actions on 1/6. But it is not an issue for the administrative action of ballot qualification, or qualification for serving in office.

Going to prison for 10 years due to insurrection is a criminal penalty. Being ineligible to serve in federal office is not.

As the Supreme Court pointed out. If you want more definitive standards for judging whether someone is ineligible for federal office based on the 14th amendment then Congress needs to act.

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.

[Bootstrap]

Ken, I think you are mostly saying:

1. You disagree with the Supreme Court decision, and
2. You wish Congress would act to disqualify Trump

Is that right? And you are mostly giving reasons you wish that would happen?

[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.

[Ken]

Ken, I think you are mostly saying:

1. You disagree with the Supreme Court decision, and
2. You wish Congress would act to disqualify Trump

Is that right? And you are mostly giving reasons you wish that would happen?

I disagree with the Supreme Court punting on this issue. I think that was a partisan decision on their part not to rule on the substance of the 14th Amendment. Their decision was not driven by the constitutional inquiry that they are actually supposed to be doing and are unafraid of doing on any other subject. Had the Supreme Court actually done their job I'd be happy to accept whatever their ruling was provided that it was well reasoned and legitimate. The Supreme Court choosing not to actually rule on the substance was a partisan act that I disagree with.

As for Congress? I disagree with the Court's assumption that this is a subject for Congress to determine. They don't do that with any other amendment to the Constitution. When have you ever heard the Supreme Court say that they aren't going to bother determining the meaning of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, that is for Congress to decide. Or when have you heard them say they aren't going to rule on some topic of free speech or religious freedom and defer to Congress on those topics? They never do.

In effect, by not ruling on the substance and deferring to Congress they knew exactly what was going to happen, which is that a divided Congress was going to do nothing.

[Ken]

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.

[Bootstrap]

Ken, I think you are mostly saying:

1. You disagree with the Supreme Court decision, and
2. You wish Congress would act to disqualify Trump

Is that right? And you are mostly giving reasons you wish that would happen?

I disagree with the Supreme Court punting on this issue. I think that was a partisan decision on their part not to rule on the substance of the 14th Amendment.

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

Their decision was not driven by the constitutional inquiry that they are actually supposed to be doing and are unafraid of doing on any other subject. Had the Supreme Court actually done their job I'd be happy to accept whatever their ruling was provided that it was well reasoned and legitimate. The Supreme Court choosing not to actually rule on the substance was a partisan act that I disagree with.

What's the difference between "happily accept" and not happily accepting, other than how you feel about it?

To me, this kind of like accepting the result of an election. I know few people who liked the result of the election in both 2016 and 2020, but each time, a president was chosen. Whether or not I like what the Supreme Court decided, this is now the way it works.

[Bootstrap]

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

The Court's primary role is to interpret the Constitution, including clarifying the extent and limits of the powers and duties assigned to different branches of government, including Congress.

That's what they did here. They said that presidential eligibility is determined by Congress, not by individual states. I think they were very concerned about the mess that would happen if, say, Trump demanded that all Republican-led states invalidate Biden from the ballot. And in today's tit-for-tat extremist politics, I imagine some state might actually try it.

Did you hear the oral arguments?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argum ... 023/23-719