Pro tip: It is not a state matter, it is federal subject matter jurisdiction to interpret an amendment to the federal Constitution.

My understanding is that Trump has already filed for removal to federal court over that CREW lawsuit.

What "insurrection" did he foment?

Are they talking about 1/6 LARPer convention? If so, they're tards.

"By any means necessary." The 14th amendment gambit is just the leftists' next desperate effort.

Remember that during his interview with former president Trump, Tucker Carlson said out loud: ""Are you worried that they're going to try and kill you? Why wouldn't they try and kill you?" It is an ugly, heinous act to contemplate, but the evidence is clear that there are no limits on the plan to neutralize Trump.

https://dailycaller.com/2023/08/23/tucker-asks-trump-if-he-fears-he-will-be-killed/

BigRobSA said:

---

What "insurrection" did he foment?

Are they talking about 1/6 LARPer convention? If so, they're tards.

---

they're liberals…that comes with the definition

This is all to ensure Trump is the nominee, which is probably going to hilariously backfire.

aggiehawg said:

---

It is not a state matter, it is federal subject matter jurisdiction to interpret an amendment to the federal Constitution.

My understanding is that Trump has already filed for removal to federal court over that CREW lawsuit.

---

The jurisdictional question is interesting.

In most cases, the plaintiffs will be seeking injunctive relief, directing the SoS to perform a STATE statutory duty to exclude unqualified candidates from the ballots. So far, a state matter.

But the NATURE of the disqualification is under the US Constitution (Amendment 14, Section 3).. I've not researched the matter, but my first thought is that this SHOULD give rise to federal subject matter jurisdiction.

I don't blame the plaintiffs for FILING in state court (e.g. Colorado case), but I don't blame Trump for seeking removal, either.

Manhattan said:

---

This is all to ensure Trump is the nominee, which is probably going to hilariously backfire.

---

The Great Bug Zapper about to strike again.

Quote:

---

But the NATURE of the disqualification is under the US Constitution (Amendment 14, Section 3).. I've not researched the matter, but my first thought is that this SHOULD give rise to federal subject matter jurisdiction.

I don't blame the plaintiffs for FILING in state court (e.g. Colorado case), but I don't blame Trump for seeking removal, either.

---

I sure as hell do blame them. Filing in state court makes the appellate process longer and it is for dilatory purposes. This is a case of monkey see, monkey do for Dem Secs of State to interfere and make their own biased determinations to once again overwhelm Trump's legal team fighting this BS claim in multiple courts.

There used to be a term for that, "barratry," and it was sanctionable.

BigRobSA said:

---

What "insurrection" did he foment?

Are they talking about 1/6 LARPer convention? If so, they're tards.

---

I could only do about half that interview, but did she actually answer any questions?

It was like, he'd ask "what is x?" And she would say, "that's a good question, we should see what the court says x is." And they would both be satisfied with that.

Yikes ! Trump may have to sell his great golf course in Turnberry to the Saudies for 1.5 billion dollars to pay all these legal fees !

Manhattan said:

---

This is all to ensure Trump is the nominee, which is probably going to hilariously backfire.

---

Sounds an awful lot like election interference to me. Which is actually insurrection, isn't it? I can't keep up with all the bull*****

We have to protect democracy be ensuring people can't vote for the candidate of their choice

Manhattan said:

---

This is all to ensure Trump is the nominee, which is probably going to hilariously backfire.

---

I wish that was the case it would backfire, but their plan seems to be going perfectly so far.

Trump has not been charged with insurrection or any charge analogous to that, let alone has he been tried and convicted of such. He therefore cannot be subject to legal constraints that have insurrection as a predicate.

It's a stupid leftist lawfare idea to use public dollars and resources make him waste time and money to defend. It is public corruption.

Insurrection in Speaker McCarthy's office?

BREAKING: Activists are occupying @SpeakerMcCarthy’s office demanding a full 5 year reauthorization of PEPFAR, which some Rs are opposing. Background: https://t.co/nQVnCxPDE0 pic.twitter.com/wCZx4Z6wzu

— Alice Miranda Ollstein (@AliceOllstein) September 11, 2023

More donations to the GOP will now have to be spent to deal with these numerous court cases.

great use of our money!

instead of going to ballot harvesting and GOTV efforts- yet another colossal waste of resources defending Donald Trump.

LMCane said:

---

More donations to the GOP will now have to be spent to deal with these numerous court cases.

great use of our money!

instead of going to ballot harvesting and GOTV efforts- yet another colossal waste of resources defending Donald Trump.

---

Ballot harvesting doesn't work against ballot manufacturing.

aggiehawg said:

---

Pro tip: It is not a state matter, it is federal subject matter jurisdiction to interpret an amendment to the federal Constitution.

My understanding is that Trump has already filed for removal to federal court over that CREW lawsuit.

---

It's hilarious to see the leftist trash at MSNBC spin the intro to the CO SoS as being simply being a duty bound advocate of enforcing election law.........

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Trump has not been charged with insurrection or any charge analogous to that, let alone has he been tried and convicted of such. He therefore cannot be subject to legal constraints that have insurrection as a predicate.

It's a stupid leftist lawfare idea to use public dollars and resources make him waste time and money to defend. It is public corruption.

---

You are correct, and it's interesting that under the 14th amendment as worded, there is no way for anyone to enforce this!

The amendment says the Congress " shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.". Guess what? They didn't!

They could have written a law that the adjudication of what type of action falls underneath the section of the 14th amendment is something that has decided at the congressional trial to impeachment. So in theory, it would not necessarily have to be a judicial trial.

But they never did that. And any argument that this can be the side it, without some sort of tribunal in which Trump gets to defend himself against the accusations would be a clear violation of due process.

So long story short, this is all a waste of time. I'm sure some Sucker Democrats will donate to the cause though! It seems that's all that matters these days. Donations.

Quote:

---

These Dem Secretaries of State are nuts about that 14th Amendment argument.

---

An yet the Dems want to suspend to 1st and 2nd amendment. You can do lean on the constitution and reject it at the same time.

doubledog said:

---

Quote:

---

These Dem Secretaries of State are nuts about that 14th Amendment argument.

---

A yet the Dems want to suspend to 1st and 2nd amendment. You can do lean on the constitution and reject it at the same time.

---

"Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," Trump wrote in a post on the social network
Oh, like this???
And this is the yahoo that repugnantcans want to be elected again… geez.

Hang the Vice President?? Poster confirms delusion.

Now suits have been filed in Minnesota and Oklahoma.

Quote:

---

New lawsuits in Minnesota and Oklahoma mark a growing yet long-shot effort to keep former President Donald Trump off the ballot during next year's presidential elections under the 14th Amendment's "insurrection clause."

The suits come in the wake of a legal challenge filed in Colorado by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington last week, the first significant effort in court to block Trump from the ballot box following the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Trump filed a motion in response to move the case from Colorado to federal court.

---

Quote:

---

"Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution known as the Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause, 'No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,'" said the lawsuit, filed by the Free Speech For People in Minnesota on Tuesday.

---

To be clear, the Sec of State is being sued by a partisan outfit.

Quote:

---

The liberal group filed the suit on behalf of eight bipartisan voters and is aiming to file more lawsuits to block Trump ahead of the primary nominating season that begins with next year's Iowa caucuses on Jan. 15.

Before the lawsuit was filed, Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon told MPR News he doesn't have the authority to remove Trump from the ballot. "The problem is that the Office of Secretary of State in Minnesota is not the eligibility police," Simon said. "A lot of people are surprised to know that, but we are not in a position legally, we don't have the authority legally to make eligibility determinations of any kind, whether that's residents, whether that's age, or something else like this."

Long-shot Republican presidential candidate and Texas Republican John Anthony Castro asked an Oklahoma federal judge to disqualify Trump in a lawsuit based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment last week. He's also filed lawsuits in at least 11 states to disqualify Trump.

---

LINK

If they don't like him, then they shouldn't vote for him. That's how it works.

TexAgs91 said:

---

If they don't like him, then they shouldn't vote for him. That's how it works.

---

If a 25-year-old is running for President, should the SoS in each state not exclude him from the ballot to enforce the provision indicating that POTUS must be ag 35 or older? What about a foreigner?

Antoninus said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

If they don't like him, then they shouldn't vote for him. That's how it works.

---

If a 25-year-old is running for President, should the SoS in each state not exclude him from the ballot to enforce the provision indicating that POTUS must be ag 35 or older? What about a foreigner?

---

Those are requirements within the Constitution itself as qualifications to be elected President.

Not the same as the statements within the 14th amendment, which also can be voted on and overruled by Congress.

aggiehawg said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

If they don't like him, then they shouldn't vote for him. That's how it works.

---

If a 25-year-old is running for President, should the SoS in each state not exclude him from the ballot to enforce the provision indicating that POTUS must be ag 35 or older? What about a foreigner?

---

Those are requirements within the Constitution itself as qualifications to be elected President.

Not the same as the statements within the 14th amendment, which also can be voted on and overruled by Congress.

---

What? Are you trying to say that statements within the 14th amendment are not part of the Constitution?

No, that's not what she's trying to say. Try again.

Watermelon Man said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

If they don't like him, then they shouldn't vote for him. That's how it works.

---

If a 25-year-old is running for President, should the SoS in each state not exclude him from the ballot to enforce the provision indicating that POTUS must be ag 35 or older? What about a foreigner?

---

Those are requirements within the Constitution itself as qualifications to be elected President.

Not the same as the statements within the 14th amendment, which also can be voted on and overruled by Congress.

---

What? Are you trying to say that statements within the 14th amendment are not part of the Constitution?

---

No. I did not. Qualifications stated within the Constitution to hold office are just that. Qualifications.

The 14th is a potential disqualifier but with no method of enforcement since Congress never implemented one. Nothing in the 14th is an automatic disqualifier.

But what is not in the Constitution is a prohibition for a convicted felon from being sworn in as President.

aggiehawg said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

If they don't like him, then they shouldn't vote for him. That's how it works.

---

If a 25-year-old is running for President, should the SoS in each state not exclude him from the ballot to enforce the provision indicating that POTUS must be ag 35 or older? What about a foreigner?

---

Those are requirements within the Constitution itself as qualifications to be elected President.

Not the same as the statements within the 14th amendment, which also can be voted on and overruled by Congress.

---

What? Are you trying to say that statements within the 14th amendment are not part of the Constitution?

---

No. I did not. Qualifications stated within the Constitution to hold office are just that. Qualifications.

The 14th is a potential disqualifier but with no method of enforcement since Congress never implemented one. Nothing in the 14th is an automatic disqualifier.

But what is not in the Constitution is a prohibition for a convicted felon from being sworn in as President.

---

Well,

Quote:

---

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, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

---

It's not just a potential disqualifier, but an entirely sufficient disqualifier. Embodied by the US Constitution. True, a two-thirds vote from each house can remove the disability, but without that vote, it is sufficient by itself.

And you're right, Congress has not implemented an enforcement. If I understand the 10th amendment correctly, this leaves enforcement to the individual States.

Quote:

---

And you're right, Congress has not implemented an enforcement. If I understand the 10th amendment correctly, this leaves enforcement to the individual States.

---

AND, the rest of the 14th Amendment demands that the states afford substantive and procedutal due process.

Check mate.

Apparently my old con law professor is doing a reddit ama on this tomorrow. Considering how anti-Trump he is that should be great. Also considering that he never actually practiced law I never really put much weight on his legal opinions either.

Antoninus said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

If they don't like him, then they shouldn't vote for him. That's how it works.

---

If a 25-year-old is running for President, should the SoS in each state not exclude him from the ballot to enforce the provision indicating that POTUS must be ag 35 or older? What about a foreigner?

---

Are you really completely unaware that Trump hasn't been convicted of anything? Turn off CNN.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

And you're right, Congress has not implemented an enforcement. If I understand the 10th amendment correctly, this leaves enforcement to the individual States.

---

AND, the rest of the 14th Amendment demands that the states afford substantive and procedutal due process.

Check mate.

---

Isn't that exactly what they are doing by bringing this up before the state courts?