Is Trump legally qualified to be a presidential candidate?

[Ken]

If I were the party bosses, I would wait as long as possible and then nominate a sacrificial lamb instead of P. Trump, count off 2024 as a loss and make a stand on principle, hoping for momentum in 2026 midterms to carry into 2028. I like Scott as the non-super rich guy who is least tainted by Trumpness.

It doesn't work like that.

The time for the party bosses (Senators, governors, etc.) to step in was November 2020 when they all could have congratulated Biden and told Trump and the public it was time to move on. Very few of them did so. As I recall, it was just Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, and a few other centrists and known anti-Trumpers like Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney. Trump had the rest of them running scared.

The second time for the party to step in would have been during Trump's second impeachment for 1/6. They could have disqualified him from future elections by convicting him at that point. They chose not to.

Now it is far too late for the party bosses to do anything except watch. The primary schedule is set and the nomination process was decided in the last Republican convention. According to their own bylaws they have no ability or authority to change it now.

[Josh]

“Democrats not happy with Republicans.”

[Ken]

The real question is why being anti-Trump seems to have become the highest moral good according to some people.

The answer to that question is that some people on BOTH the left AND right view him as a unique threat to American democracy. A threat not posed by other candidates on the right or left.

Are they correct in that assessment? I don't know. But Trump himself by his words and deeds has certainly given them plenty of reason to believe so.

[ohio jones]

Do the Secretaries of State actually determine if a candidate is eligible to hold office, or only that they meet the qualifications under state law to be on the ballot? For federal office, that would presumably be outside their jurisdiction. Did any of them have doubts about Obama's birth records and try to keep him off the ballot for that?

Yes, in fact the issue of Obama's qualifications to be president were endlessly litigated in both Federal and State court. Wikipedia has a very long list of all the various lawsuits and legal challenges to his place on the ballot in various states. But since the whole "birther" controversy was actually nothing more than lies ginned up by Trump and others, none of them went anywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Ob ... litigation

Certainly there were a variety of challenges from citizens and legal opportunists. But none of them appear to have been initiated or supported by a Secretary of State or other state election officials, which is what I was asking about.

The relevant question seems to have been addressed in New Jersey:

Responding to the Petitioner's allegations that Barack Obama had not proven his eligibility, Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin stated: "There appears to be no affirmative requirement that a person indorsed in a nominating petition for the Presidency present to the Secretary of State any certification or other proof that he is qualified for the Office."

[Ken]

Do the Secretaries of State actually determine if a candidate is eligible to hold office, or only that they meet the qualifications under state law to be on the ballot? For federal office, that would presumably be outside their jurisdiction. Did any of them have doubts about Obama's birth records and try to keep him off the ballot for that?

Yes, in fact the issue of Obama's qualifications to be president were endlessly litigated in both Federal and State court. Wikipedia has a very long list of all the various lawsuits and legal challenges to his place on the ballot in various states. But since the whole "birther" controversy was actually nothing more than lies ginned up by Trump and others, none of them went anywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Ob ... litigation

Certainly there were a variety of challenges from citizens and legal opportunists. But none of them appear to have been initiated or supported by a Secretary of State or other state election officials, which is what I was asking about.

The relevant question seems to have been addressed in New Jersey:

Responding to the Petitioner's allegations that Barack Obama had not proven his eligibility, Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin stated: "There appears to be no affirmative requirement that a person indorsed in a nominating petition for the Presidency present to the Secretary of State any certification or other proof that he is qualified for the Office."

Like I said, I think this will be fought out in the courts. But it is certainly appropriate for various secretaries of state, both Republican and Democratic, to ask what the meaning of the 14th Amendment actually is, and what role if any they have in following it. Which is actually what is happening today.

The claim that Barak Obama was not born in the US was a very easily disproven lie.

The claim that Donald Trump violated his oath to defend the Constitution by participating in an insurrection against the US and/or gave aid aid and comfort to those who did so is not so easily discarded. We all watched it happen. And there have literally been mountains of evidence collected to that effect since then by the various investigations into the 2020 election and events of 1/6.

[Robert]

violated his oath to defend the Constitution by participating in an insurrection against the US

I think words like this are just political jargon that does little to discuss. I do not agree that J6 was an insurrection. It is being labeled as such solely for the purpose of disqualifying Trump. J6 was at most a riot. Using terms like insurrection are just parroting Democratic talking points. You are welcome to do so, but it does not sway me or others by doing so.

[Ken]

violated his oath to defend the Constitution by participating in an insurrection against the US

I think words like this are just political jargon that does little to discuss. I do not agree that J6 was an insurrection. It is being labeled as such solely for the purpose of disqualifying Trump. J6 was at most a riot. Using terms like insurrection are just parroting Democratic talking points. You are welcome to do so, but it does not sway me or others by doing so.

The actual 1/6 riot was just one front in a much larger organized conspiracy (of which Trump was at the center) to subvert the Constitution and overthrow the results of the 2020 election.

There are mountains of evidence demonstrating this point and it will all come out in the various courts of law. As it should.

Without Trump, none of it would have happened. None of it.

[barnhart]

If I were the party bosses, I would wait as long as possible and then nominate a sacrificial lamb instead of P. Trump, count off 2024 as a loss and make a stand on principle, hoping for momentum in 2026 midterms to carry into 2028. I like Scott as the non-super rich guy who is least tainted by Trumpness.

It doesn't work like that.

The time for the party bosses (Senators, governors, etc.) to step in was November 2020 when they all could have congratulated Biden and told Trump and the public it was time to move on. Very few of them did so. As I recall, it was just Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, and a few other centrists and known anti-Trumpers like Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney. Trump had the rest of them running scared.

The second time for the party to step in would have been during Trump's second impeachment for 1/6. They could have disqualified him from future elections by convicting him at that point. They chose not to.

Now it is far too late for the party bosses to do anything except watch. The primary schedule is set and the nomination process was decided in the last Republican convention. According to their own bylaws they have no ability or authority to change it now.

I have no idea how private institutions like political parties are organized but if they were inclined, they could press the issue in some way, like proposing a bylaw that felons cannot be nominated, organize all the opposition possible and stand on principle.

[temporal1]

I think words like this are just political jargon that does little to discuss. I do not agree that J6 was an insurrection.

It is being labeled as such solely for the purpose of disqualifying Trump. J6 was at most a riot. Using terms like insurrection are just parroting Democratic talking points. You are welcome to do so, but it does not sway me or others by doing so.

In the U.S., legal language is touchy, ‘cause, from the start, governments were suspect, the emphasis was on rights of free citizens.
If not for insurrectionists, there would be no U.S. (??)

It’s confusing because governments are not perfect, they aren’t God, neither are citizens.

It really goes back to Jesus’ poignant instructions, “let he without sin cast the first stone.”
None involved is without sin. Would anyone disagree?

It becomes a farce:

CLOWN COURTROOM / Wayne Howell


Matthew 7:5
https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-5.htm

4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while there is still a beam in your own eye?

5You hypocrite!
First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

6Do not give dogs what is holy; do not throw your pearls before swine.
If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.…

Observers are wise not to be overly invested in .. (dogs).

[temporal1]

An everyman opinion:

ABL /Anthony Brian Logan / Trump Georgia RICO Case Will Be TELEVISED & Live Streamed! / -14min