Is Trump legally qualified to be a presidential candidate?

[Ken]

And it was a novel and silly legal theory after all:

In a unanimous decision on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that states do not have the power to remove presidential candidates from the ballot on the grounds that they may have engaged in insurrection or rebellion, holding that only Congress has such authority. Former President Donald Trump will therefore remain on the ballot in Colorado and other states that attempted to remove him on the grounds that he violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment with his involvement in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The ruling did not touch the questions of whether Trump “engaged in insurrection” on January 6 or if the president is considered an “officer of the United States.” Though the ruling was backed by all nine justices, four—the three liberals on the bench as well as Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump appointed—argued that the majority opinion was too broad. However, Barrett also criticized her liberal colleagues for writing their own concurring opinion, insisting that the justices agreed on the essential question. “In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” she wrote. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”

- The Dispatch

The Supreme court ruling won't stop some Democrats from interfering with an election and denying the voters to decide who gets on the Republican ticket.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/jamie ... amendment/

Raskin is doing EXACTLY what the Republican Supreme Court says is supposed to happen. Namely that it is Congress who is supposed to make these determinations not state courts. Of course none of it will matter since Raskin is in the minority. So it is just for show, exactly like the fake impeachment inquiry into Biden

[temporal1]

A LOT of legal noise is generated by well-informed professionals who know beforehand they will NOT prevail.
It’s common. Congress runs on it. Wasting taxpayer time+money, accomplishing ZIP.

It’s pot-stirring, attention-grabbing, etc., “no publicity is bad publicity.”

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

DJT is unique in his ability to REBOUND.
i suppose it’s partly his nature, combined with decades of dealing with career politicians. He knows their games.
He knows where skeletons are buried.

Thus, he’s a threat.
Never a threat before he ran for POTUS. He was openly courted. It’s the inside info and skeletons.
Nervous as cats.

[HondurasKeiser]

Yes, they actually did. They went so far as to rule that Colorado couldn’t disqualify Trump from being on the ballot in the primary today.

No, actually they didn't. Read the opinion. They punted on whether he is disqualified to serve under the 14th Amendment. They simply ruled that it wasn't the role of the individual states to make that determination.

Which was the novel and silly legal theory.

[temporal1]

Yes, they actually did. They went so far as to rule that Colorado couldn’t disqualify Trump from being on the ballot in the primary today.

No, actually they didn't. Read the opinion. They punted on whether he is disqualified to serve under the 14th Amendment. They simply ruled that it wasn't the role of the individual states to make that determination.

Which was the novel and silly legal theory.

That they knew from the get-go. Political theater.

[HondurasKeiser]

No, actually they didn't. Read the opinion. They punted on whether he is disqualified to serve under the 14th Amendment. They simply ruled that it wasn't the role of the individual states to make that determination.

Except that wasn't the novel legal theory was it? Let's consult the Ken from page 8 of this thread and see if he remembers what the silliness involving the 14th amendment was all about.

Secretaries of state are, indeed, charged with determining who can and cannot be on the ballot. At least that is the case in most states. Secretaries of State are generally the highest election official in each state and it is their constitutional duty to interpret and apply election laws and administer statewide elections. For example, Trump does not automatically get to be on the ballot here in Washington State. He has to meet all the requirements which includes signature requirements for primary elections, and party endorsements for general elections. The secretary of state is in charge of all of that.

There it is. The idea that individual secretaries of state can, using language from the 14th amendment and without clear federal law advising them to do so, choose to keep a candidate off of their state ballot.

That was the idea that the Supreme Court unanimously declared silly.

[barnhart]

I have very little knowledge of legality, but I am certain taking President Trump off the ballot is a foolish thing to do. No one reacts well to the loss of their heroes or gods.

[Ken]

No, actually they didn't. Read the opinion. They punted on whether he is disqualified to serve under the 14th Amendment. They simply ruled that it wasn't the role of the individual states to make that determination.

Except that wasn't the novel legal theory was it? Let's consult the Ken from page 8 of this thread and see if he remembers what the silliness involving the 14th amendment was all about.

Secretaries of state are, indeed, charged with determining who can and cannot be on the ballot. At least that is the case in most states. Secretaries of State are generally the highest election official in each state and it is their constitutional duty to interpret and apply election laws and administer statewide elections. For example, Trump does not automatically get to be on the ballot here in Washington State. He has to meet all the requirements which includes signature requirements for primary elections, and party endorsements for general elections. The secretary of state is in charge of all of that.

There it is. The idea that individual secretaries of state can, using language from the 14th amendment and without clear federal law advising them to do so, choose to keep a candidate off of their state ballot.

That was the idea that the Supreme Court unanimously declared silly.

The Supreme Court didn't declare it silly.

They said it would produce too much chaos to have different states making their own determinations, which is a different argument. Their ruling in this case is actually inconsistent with their earlier rulings on Federal control over elections. In Shelby County they ruled that the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to administer control over state-administered elections under the Voting Rights Act to uphold the 14th Amendment. Here they are making the opposite argument.

[HondurasKeiser]

No, actually they didn't. Read the opinion. They punted on whether he is disqualified to serve under the 14th Amendment. They simply ruled that it wasn't the role of the individual states to make that determination.

Except that wasn't the novel legal theory was it? Let's consult the Ken from page 8 of this thread and see if he remembers what the silliness involving the 14th amendment was all about.

Secretaries of state are, indeed, charged with determining who can and cannot be on the ballot. At least that is the case in most states. Secretaries of State are generally the highest election official in each state and it is their constitutional duty to interpret and apply election laws and administer statewide elections. For example, Trump does not automatically get to be on the ballot here in Washington State. He has to meet all the requirements which includes signature requirements for primary elections, and party endorsements for general elections. The secretary of state is in charge of all of that.

There it is. The idea that individual secretaries of state can, using language from the 14th amendment and without clear federal law advising them to do so, choose to keep a candidate off of their state ballot.

That was the idea that the Supreme Court unanimously declared silly.

The Supreme Court didn't declare it silly.

They said it would produce too much chaos to have different states making their own determinations, which is a different argument. Their ruling in this case is actually inconsistent with their earlier rulings on Federal control over elections. In Shelby County they ruled that the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to administer control over state-administered elections under the Voting Rights Act to uphold the 14th Amendment. Here they are making the opposite argument.

Not exactly. Their ruling in Shelby (a ruling I doubt you like) was a striking down of some sections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that were unconstitutional as they violated a plan understanding federalism and "equal sovereignty of the states".

Their ruling here again based in plain reading of the constitutional text and stated:

The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made. The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass “appropriate legislation” to “enforce” the Fourteenth Amendment.

For further explanation:

This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude
that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting
to hold state office. But States have no power under the
Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.
“In our federal system, the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain
the remainder.” Bond v. United States, 572 U. S. 844, 854
(2014). Among those retained powers is the power of a
State to “order the processes of its own governance.” Alden
v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 752 (1999). In particular, the
States enjoy sovereign “power to prescribe the qualifications of their own officers” and “the manner of their election
. . . free from external interference, except so far as plainly
provided by the Constitution of the United States.” Taylor
v. Beckham, 178 U. S. 548, 570–571 (1900). Although the
Fourteenth Amendment restricts state power, nothing in it
plainly withdraws from the States this traditional authority. And after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment,
States used this authority to disqualify state officers in accordance with state statutes. See, e.g., Worthy v. Barrett,
63 N. C. 199, 200, 204 (1869) (elected county sheriff ); State
ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631, 631–633 (1869)
(state judge).
Such power over governance, however, does not extend to
federal officeholders and candidates. Because federal officers “‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice
of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,’” powers over
their election and qualifications must be specifically “delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States.”

[HondurasKeiser]

It should be noted. Chaos might be a concern. But the main rationale for the ruling is not the consequences but derived powers. Federal offices are not subject to the whim of state officials. Only Congress can determine qualifications.

[Grace]

I have very little knowledge of legality, but I am certain taking President Trump off the ballot is a foolish thing to do. No one reacts well to the loss of their heroes or gods.

Is that why Democrats want Trump off the ballot? He is strong competition to "their heroes and gods". He is a threat to their god, which is a culture of death. He is a threat to the work of sex traffickers, human smuggling, drug smugglers at the border. He is a threat to those who believe women should have the right to have their unborn babies killed up to the time of birth. He is threat to their god of warmongering and death. Just saying.

Personally, I can hardly stand Trump, his braggadocio and arrogance. But in compassion to the sheer, satanic evil the current administration promotes, he is the lesser of the two evils.