Is Trump legally qualified to be a presidential candidate?

[JimFoxvog]

It’s not a good at all for a civil court to start making decisions about criminal acts to deprive citizens of their liberties. If Trump is so guilty of insurrection (after being found “not guilty” already), then have a criminal trial.

Obama is irrelevant. That has nothing to do with criminal acts.

Were the Confederates who were banned from office by this part of the 14th Amendment all found guilty of criminal acts?

Are you calling the Senate impeachment trial being found "not guilty"? That's different from not being found guilty. The analogy to a criminal trial would be a hung jury. The majority thought he should be convicted. Others who didn't vote to convict stated they thought him guilty but it should be a criminal trial and Trump had already lost the election.

[Robert]

The office of president was intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment clause. That person is voted into office by the whole nation, unlike senators or congessmen that are voted in by one state.

I suspect the SCOTUS will rule on this or vacate the Inssurection verdict of the Colorado SC. They convicted without due process. Trump never got to present his side or have his day in court to defend himself.

Both of these may be sited, but only one is needed to overturn the Colorado decision.

Jim, careful to not let your hate for the man blind you to the need of fair due process. If they take it from him, they will take it away fromt he rest of us.

[RZehr]

6. The defendant hasn’t been convicted of insurrection.

The Colorado trial determined he was part of an insurrection, so this is a legally determined fact. There is nothing in the law or Constitution that calls for a conviction. This part of the 14th Amendment was used to keep those who had been US officers and then part of the Confederate rebellion from holding office. I do not think any convictions were needed but correct me if I am wrong.

I think it is poor politic and worse policy, to have a State Supreme making decisions for people not in that state.
Seems like it would take a circuit court or some federal court to make this decision.

I mean, fine. He can be kept off the ballot in Colorado, if that’s what they decide. And the Texas Supreme Court can decide to keep him on their ballot then. Is that the best way forward? Seems not to me, but again, I don’t really care one way or another. It just seems strange.

[RZehr]

The office of president was intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment clause.

I disagree. I have not gone down any rabbit holes on the issue, but a plain reading does say any office. Which the presidency is.

[Josh]

6. The defendant hasn’t been convicted of insurrection.

The Colorado trial determined he was part of an insurrection, so this is a legally determined fact. There is nothing in the law or Constitution that calls for a conviction. This part of the 14th Amendment was used to keep those who had been US officers and then part of the Confederate rebellion from holding office. I do not think any convictions were needed but correct me if I am wrong.

I think it is poor politic and worse policy, to have a State Supreme making decisions for people not in that state.
Seems like it would take a circuit court or some federal court to make this decision.

I mean, fine. He can be kept off the ballot in Colorado, if that’s what they decide. And the Texas Supreme Court can decide to keep him on their ballot then. Is that the best way forward? Seems not to me, but again, I don’t really care one way or another. It just seems strange.

At issue here was that the state court was ruling in a federal matter (the U.S. Constitution).

[joshuabgood]

The Colorado trial determined he was part of an insurrection, so this is a legally determined fact. There is nothing in the law or Constitution that calls for a conviction. This part of the 14th Amendment was used to keep those who had been US officers and then part of the Confederate rebellion from holding office. I do not think any convictions were needed but correct me if I am wrong.

I think it is poor politic and worse policy, to have a State Supreme making decisions for people not in that state.
Seems like it would take a circuit court or some federal court to make this decision.

I mean, fine. He can be kept off the ballot in Colorado, if that’s what they decide. And the Texas Supreme Court can decide to keep him on their ballot then. Is that the best way forward? Seems not to me, but again, I don’t really care one way or another. It just seems strange.

At issue here was that the state court was ruling in a federal matter (the U.S. Constitution).

State's are Constitutionally charged with federal elections though...so it makes sense the states would decide (as they already do) who qualifies to be on the ballot.

[temporal1]

State's are Constitutionally charged with federal elections though...so it makes sense the states would decide (as they already do) who qualifies to be on the [state] ballot.

JFV seems to think the Colorado insurrection ruling settles for all and forever. Final Judgment. i’m not sure that’s even done in the U.S. legal system anymore. Not even on the SCOTUS level. It takes decades for death penalty rulings to be acted out, if ever.

i think Colorado sent their ballot question to SCOTUS, i’m not sure if they’ll hear it.

If DJT is denied being on ballots, i expect significant write-ins. Maybe even in blue states.

[barnhart]

It has been my experience that a great deal of the things very rich and powerful people want to do turn out to be legal eventually.

[wesleyb]

It has been my experience that a great deal of the things very rich and powerful people want to do turn out to be legal eventually.

Wise words!

[temporal1]

It has been my experience that a great deal of the things very rich and powerful people want to do turn out to be legal eventually.

Wise words!

including for-profit corporate abortion, given a wave by lots of Christians.

these things are not just legal, they are legally protected, promoted, funded with taxpayer funds.
they become package deals. “legal” is just the start of it.