Justice Clarence Thomas asked why there weren’t more examples of states disqualifying candidates under the 14th Amendment after the Civil War. There have been and I am confident Clarence knows this. Rather than face the issue of who can disqualify trump, Clarence chose a moment when he can shine by asking a question and then insisting it be answered. Indeed, he is probably the weakest justice on the SCOTUS bench. Last line, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says, “But, Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” This would apply to the president. Project on Government Oversight has an article concerning the 14th Amendment and disqualification of candidates. In particular, the state of Colorado has
Topics:
Angry Bear considers the following as important: delete, Journalism, law, politics
This could be interesting, too:
Bill Haskell writes Healthcare Insurance in the United States
Joel Eissenberg writes Seafood says global warming is not a hoax
Bill Haskell writes The Opioid Epidemic from 1980 Onward in My Words
Angry Bear writes Questionable Use of Health Risk Assessments Drives Costs
Justice Clarence Thomas asked why there weren’t more examples of states disqualifying candidates under the 14th Amendment after the Civil War.
There have been and I am confident Clarence knows this. Rather than face the issue of who can disqualify trump, Clarence chose a moment when he can shine by asking a question and then insisting it be answered. Indeed, he is probably the weakest justice on the SCOTUS bench.
Last line, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says, “But, Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
This would apply to the president.
Project on Government Oversight has an article concerning the 14th Amendment and disqualification of candidates. In particular, the state of Colorado has disqualified a candidate for the presidency for lesser reasons and by using the 14th Amendment.
The disqualification remedy appears to be in Congress. A remedy which will probably not happen. To my knowledge there has not been an effort to remove a former president running for a 2nd term. Such an effort would require a two-thirds vote which would not happen.
One example of a person being barred from being on the presidential ballot in Colorado is in the Project on Government Oversight article. It also cites nine other instances of such occurring. And there are more. This does answer Thomas’s question.
In Colorado, the secretary of state excluded Abdul Hassan from the ballot for president because he was not a natural-born citizen. Under Colorado law, any individual seeking access to the presidential ballot must affirm on their filing paperwork that they meet the constitutional qualifications for the office, including that they are a natural-born citizen of the United States. Hassan, a native of Guyana and a naturalized American citizen, announced his intention to run in the 2012 presidential election; in light of his status as a naturalized American citizen, Hassan sought a determination from the Colorado secretary of state regarding his eligibility for inclusion on the presidential ballot. The Colorado secretary of state informed Hassan that he did not meet all of the state and federal qualifications for president and therefore would be excluded from the presidential ballot.
Hassan appealed this decision to the federal district court, which rejected his argument that the Constitution’s natural-born-citizen requirement, and its enforcement through state law barring his access to the ballot, violated the privileges or immunities clause and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Hassan appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. A panel of the 10th Circuit, including then-Judge Neil Gorsuch, affirmed the lower court’s determination that Hassan should be excluded from the ballot because he lacks the constitutional qualifications to be president. In so doing, the court “expressly reaffirm[ed]” the decision of the Colorado secretary of state, concluding “a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”
Routine Disqualification: Every State Has Kept Ineligible Candidates off the ballot . . . pogo org, Staff Author.
Is SCOTUS going to take this up? Probably not. Will Congress take up the issue of disqualification? Probably not. The reasons would eventually point back at many of the members of Congress who actively promoted the January 6th insurrection. Some are stating it was not an insurrection, it was a rebellion. Ok .
What is the difference between a rebellion and an insurrection?
An insurrection is an armed rebellion. A revolt is a rebellion with an aim to replace a government, authority figure, law, or policy. If a government does not recognize rebels as belligerents then they are insurgents and the revolt is an insurgency.
18 U.S.C. 2383 says, “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be . . . ”
trump will probably not be disqualified from running for President. SCOTUS will not do it and they will disallow states from doing it. Enough said.