Maine barred Donald Trump from the primary ballot Thursday, making it the second state in the country to block the former president from running again under a part of the Constitution that prevents insurrectionists from holding office.

The decision by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) is sure to be appealed. The Colorado Supreme Court last week found Trump could not appear on the ballot in that state, and the Colorado Republican Party has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The nation’s high court could resolve for all states whether Trump can run again.

Archive

  • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    The Constitution doesn’t give the deciding power to the SCOTUS, it requires a 3/4 vote of Congress to resolve this.

    It’s completely unconstitutional for the SCOTUS to be making the final decision. They should be the ones penalizing any state that doesn’t remove him from the ballot for violating the Constitution.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      scotus decides what the constitution means, though. and they’ll decide it doesn’t mean this, because they’re openly corrupt, bought and paid for with receipts.

    • Zengen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      11 months ago

      That would only hold true if Donald trump was officially convicted of the crime of insurrection. A crime which so far he hasn’t even been charged with. Until he is charged tried and convicted of insurrection the 14th amendment isnt applicable here and I’d bet my money that’s exactly what the surpreme court is going to rule on.

      If they are serious about wanting to remove him from the vallt then they should start there. By trying him for insurrection.

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        53
        ·
        11 months ago

        The 14th doesn’t require a conviction. It was written in the wake of the civil war, to prevent confederates from holding office without needing to convict them.

        The union didn’t want to have to drag every confederate to court just to keep them out of office, because the union knew it would be impossible for the courts to handle and would run counter to reunification efforts. But they were afraid that the confederates would attempt to seize power via the elections once it became clear that the insurrection had failed. So they wanted a way to preemptively bar any former confederate from running for office.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        constitution says absolutely zero about conviction, and 14th has been invoked in the past against people without convictions. but you’re right, scotus will ignore both the constitution and precedent because they’ve been hand selected to grant the presidency to the traitor.

      • Rusticus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Let us know where the wording of the 14th requires a conviction. He’s being judged in COURTS by the state supreme courts. You are creating hurdles that simply aren’t present.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      So it’s liberals for “states’ rights”, like in “Firefly” and SW Prequels?

      (Not American, so you may consider this joke dumb.)