Maineās top election official has removed former President Donald Trump from the stateās 2024 ballot, in a surprise decision based on the 14th Amendmentās āinsurrectionist ban.ā
Presumably there is a way to challenge this decision in court. And tbh I like this way of handling it better. Trump does not meet the basic requirements of being a president, which are:
Must be over 35. āļø
Must be born in the USA. āļø
Must not be an insurrectionist. ā
If a 32 year old was frontrunner to become the candidate for either party, you wouldnāt expect a court proceeding to disqualify them. Same here.
Thatās what I thought was funny about the dissent one of the judges wrote in the Colorado case. They said something like, determining if someone is over 35 is easy, but determining if someone engaged in insurrection is not so easy. Which was weird to me, because the insurrection was broadcast live on TV and seemed pretty easy to determine to me. But I guess thatās why Iām not a judge.
Well ultimately, someoneās age is (generally) a pretty easily verifiable fact with little room for argument. Whether or not someoneās actions constitute an insurrection is not something you can read off a birth certificate - it relies on a subjective standard of what constitutes an insurrection. And given how many different forms that could take, I feel the 14th has to be as vague as a it is about what constitutes an insurrection. Jan 6 very obviously qualifies imo, but making a bulletproof legal argument to that effect is a whole other matter, especially considering how much scrutiny this decision will be under. Remember how wrapped in dog whistles this whole thing was - getting up on stage and vaguely suggesting to an angry mob to take their country back then going home and quietly muttering ānooo donāt break the law or hurt anyone pls go home noooooā gives a very annoying level of rhetorical wiggle room to those responsible. Itās an intentional strategy to make this exact kind of argument as difficult as possible.
That on its own is no reason to not pursue invoking the 14th, because imo this is the exact situation in which it should be used, and it specifically does not require the same level of proof as in a criminal trial. But it is a significant complication we will be dealing with at all stages of this process and it remains to be seen how many are willing to stake their political careers on it.
Presumably there is a way to challenge this decision in court. And tbh I like this way of handling it better. Trump does not meet the basic requirements of being a president, which are:
If a 32 year old was frontrunner to become the candidate for either party, you wouldnāt expect a court proceeding to disqualify them. Same here.
Thatās what I thought was funny about the dissent one of the judges wrote in the Colorado case. They said something like, determining if someone is over 35 is easy, but determining if someone engaged in insurrection is not so easy. Which was weird to me, because the insurrection was broadcast live on TV and seemed pretty easy to determine to me. But I guess thatās why Iām not a judge.
Well ultimately, someoneās age is (generally) a pretty easily verifiable fact with little room for argument. Whether or not someoneās actions constitute an insurrection is not something you can read off a birth certificate - it relies on a subjective standard of what constitutes an insurrection. And given how many different forms that could take, I feel the 14th has to be as vague as a it is about what constitutes an insurrection. Jan 6 very obviously qualifies imo, but making a bulletproof legal argument to that effect is a whole other matter, especially considering how much scrutiny this decision will be under. Remember how wrapped in dog whistles this whole thing was - getting up on stage and vaguely suggesting to an angry mob to take their country back then going home and quietly muttering ānooo donāt break the law or hurt anyone pls go home noooooā gives a very annoying level of rhetorical wiggle room to those responsible. Itās an intentional strategy to make this exact kind of argument as difficult as possible.
That on its own is no reason to not pursue invoking the 14th, because imo this is the exact situation in which it should be used, and it specifically does not require the same level of proof as in a criminal trial. But it is a significant complication we will be dealing with at all stages of this process and it remains to be seen how many are willing to stake their political careers on it.
Insurrection or rebellion. Insurrection might be vague, but he definitely rebelled.
Well, what is insurrection? What role did he play?
Itās like pornography, generally you know it when your see it, but the borders are very vague
Iād certainly classify what Trump did as an insurrection, but itās not that simple. Where do you draw the line? Itās a complicated question
The entire legal fight over this is going to be about who decides if that condition and what standard they have to follow to do so.