The Colorado Department of State warned that it would be “a matter for the Courts” if the state’s Republican party withdrew from or ignored the results of the primary.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    256 months ago

    Well, they can do their caucus thing as they like. As long as Trump will not appear on the ballot, I’m fine with it.

    The courts decision is a bit wonky, though. I don’t consider “being the candidate for party X” an “office, civil or military, of the United States”, so banning him from the primaries is (IMHO) unwarranted. On the other hand, the court admits that Trumps actions are valid reasons to invoke A14, so removing him from the ballot papers for November would be justified. And that is the only place that counts.

    • @lingh0e
      link
      496 months ago

      Luckily for you, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch already ruled on that precise topic when he was a Colorado judge. A foreign born man who had become a US citizen, a person who is ineligible by default, still insisted he should have the right to run for president even if he can’t take office.

      Gorsuch ruled that the state had a responsibility to prevent anyone who is ineligible for office from even being allowed on the ballot.

      His decision was even cited in Trumps ruling.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        116 months ago

        And that makes sense. If a person can’t legally hold the office, it’s letting people waste their votes by allowing that person to remain on the ballot.

        You might argue that people should know all about who they’re voting for, but we all know that’s not the case.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        36 months ago

        He didn’t actually rule on this. There was no question of eligibility in that case, it was just whether being ineligible for the position gave the state the right to block him from the ballot. This one will hinge on whether or not the amendment applies to trump. And based on the wording of the amendment, unfortunately, they have multiple ways to reasonably argue it does not, and we all know the conservative majority will rule he is eligible.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          16 months ago

          No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States

          Can’t hold any office. Pretty plain.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      216 months ago

      If by the 14th he is not eligible for the presidency outside of 2/3rds of Congress voting to waive that, then why the fuck should he be on the ballot? It’s pointless.

      That’s like saying I’m banned from a venue but keeping me from getting in line to enter is unfair and unwarranted.

      Do you hear yourself? I guess you think you know better than the high courts lmao

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        36 months ago

        If there’s one good thing to have come from Trump, it is that he has exposed how terrible at making laws, the politicians have been

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          26 months ago

          that’s the part that irks me the most about modern American politics.

          30% of the current House and 51% of current Senators have law degrees. these are supposed “experts”; you’d think they would be able to write better laws…

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            36 months ago

            The relevant laws were written hundreds of years ago, by people who probably thought the meaning was obvious.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -36 months ago

        why the fuck should he be on the ballot?

        Because the Republicans should be able to do whatever they want in their candidate selection process, all the way up to and including running a disqualified candidate. It’s their club and they can run it however they like.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          76 months ago

          They should be allowed to choose the candidate but the state shouldn’t be forced to put him there. He’s disqualified. It should be equivalent to the party dropping out of the race if they pick him…

          • @lingh0e
            link
            66 months ago

            That’s exactly what should happen.

            You want to nominate a dog to run for president? You want to nominate a fictional character to run for president? You want to nominate a dead person to run for president?

            Go ahead.

            The state is not obligated to put that nominee on the ballot because that nominee is 100% ineligible to hold the office of president.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              16 months ago

              Although thinking about it, it WOULD be hilarious if he was on the ballot while being absolutely for-sure barred from office. At least unless he somehow won, then the evil Republicans would whip up the moronic conservatives and we’d have ourselves an actual civil war…

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Yeah, it’s more than just a social club electing a leader, though. It’s quite literally our nation sorting out our presidential elections. I think some legal boundaries outside the norm are in order for these two particular “clubs.”

          You go ahead and make Trump the leader of your rotary club, though.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          46 months ago

          I reluctantly agree with this. If they want to nominate or even elect a candidate that cannot serve, so be it. When the time comes to take office, the person with the most votes that is qualified to serve should take the office.