This is such a thorough post. I really appreciate that you took the time to compile this.

Going to get down voted for this, but I honestly think Minnesota has the right of it. The GOP is a private entity and can run whoever they want in their primaries.

14A has nothing to say about how parties select their candidates, and if they want to select someone who isn’t qualified that’s their problem.

Also, if Trump fails to win the GOP nomination, someone really needs to seed the idea that they should all do write in votes for Trump instead of whoever the GOP would nominate instead. Show the GOP they shouldn’t back down and show the Dems they can’t stop the Trump Train. Also, you know, splitting the GOP vote to make an easier Dem win, but sshhh about that last part.

I mean, that is the job of the Secretary of State office. They determine who or what is qualified for the ballot.

In my state, they kicked off one of the candidates for Governor in 2022 because he didn’t meet residency requirements.

https://www.opb.org/article/2022/01/06/nicholas-nick-kristof-oregon-governor-candidate-qualification-ruling/

He sued, it went through the courts, surprise! He wasn’t qualified due to residency requirements.

FTA:

"Among her reasons for deciding Kristof did not meet residency requirements, Scroggin cited his decision to vote as a New York resident in 2020 and his possession of a New York driver’s license in 2020. Both factors, she wrote, indicated Kristof “viewed New York as the place where you intended to permanently return when you were away.”

“In order to satisfy the three-year residency requirement, you must have been a resident in Oregon for the entire three-year period beginning in November 2019,” Scroggin wrote. “But the objective facts, including your decision to vote in New York, convincingly suggest that you resided in New York at least from November 2019 to December 2020.”"

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. ✔️
• Must be born in the USA. ✔️
• Must not be an insurrectionist. ❌

If a 32 year old was frontrunner to become the candidate for either party, you wouldn’t expect a court proceeding to disqualify them. Same here.

going to give ammunition to all the partisans who claim the whole thing is political.

Republicans are going to piss and moan and riot no matter what. We must not delay or suspend justice because we’re afraid of what they might do.

Which makes it more important for the Supreme Court to rule one way or the other instead of stalling. He has legally been found to be an insurrectionist, so until the Supreme Court says otherwise, any state that doesn’t allow traitors on ballots has a duty to the voters of their state to remove him.

From the article:

Bellows, a Democrat, issued the decision Thursday after presiding over an administrative hearing earlier this month about Trump’s eligibility for office. A bipartisan group of former state lawmakers filed the challenge against Trump.

IANA political scientist, but I read that as a bipartisan challenge was made, a hearing was held, and the Sec of State sided with the challengers, deciding to remove Trump from the ballot. It doesn’t appear to have just come out of nowhere or been initiated by her. That won’t stop others from arguing against it in bad faith, but there was a process at least, and it seems it’s within her duties to have made that decision. When it’s challenged by Trump (and it will be), then it will be up to a judge or judges to uphold or overturn.

There is going to be oversight on this decision as well, they’re just following the process. The Trumpets have 5 days to appeal and I don’t see why they wouldn’t.

This can of worms is open - every angle needs to be litigated. I’m not looking forward to random secretaries of state declaring eating tacos on the fourth of july to be insurrection.

Well done. With ketchup.

Stake.

So the courts did find that he participated in an insurrection. But they also ruled that he had presidential immunity, and any prosecution would require an impeachment and trial in the senate. Basically, the courts said they didn’t have jurisdiction to prosecute him for it. They went “lol yeah he definitely did it, but we can’t punish him for it.” And the republicans haven’t actually challenged this. After all, why would they? They control congress, so they simply won’t try him for it in the senate.

But the 14th amendment doesn’t require a conviction. It only requires a sworn official to have violated their oath of office. Which includes participating in an insurrection. It doesn’t require a conviction or even prosecution; It only requires violating your oath of office.

The 14th amendment was written in the wake of the civil war, with the union looking to prevent confederates from holding office. The union feared that the confederates would attempt to seize power through the elections, even after the war was over. But they knew that taking every individual confederate to court would take way too long. It would also run counter to the reunification efforts, because no confederates would agree to rejoin the union if they knew it meant they’d be criminally prosecuted. So instead, the union circumvented the courts and simply barred anyone who violated an oath of office.

The ruling from the original court was that Trump engaged in an insurrection (but enjoys presidential immunity). The presidential immunity bit was then appealed to the Colorado supreme court, who overturned that. That is how we have arrived at (a) he was in an insurrection and (b) he does not qualify to be on the ballot. Trump and is team have never contested (a), so as far as this case goes there is no question about whether he engaged in the insurrection.

Yes to the first and no to the second, its complicated… And I am NOT a lawyer, so take this the way you would any response attempting to be helpful from the internet.

They are removing him due to section 3 of the 14th ammendment, which does not require one to be convicted of anything, just that you violated your oath of office and/or participated in an insurrection/rebellion. It does not really specify the legal mechanism for how this is supposed to works other than that they cant hold office anymore.

The wording is done this way due to southern states sending confederate politicians to washington during reconstruction. President Grant loosened the restriction in 1898 for the Spanish-American war, and since then its only been dusted off once in the 1920s.

Source: I went to the 14th ammendments Wikipedia page.

As for the second question, in theory it shoulden’t give the GOP any ammo to turn around and do this to Biden. This is the reason its playing out slowly in the courts, the state AGs (just Colorado and Maine at this point) are waiting to see if that is a proper application of the ammendment. If the GOP did try turning around and doing this to Biden it would only take one federal judge to stop it. The supreme court could step in and clear this up quickly, but they appear to not want to be seen as a political body. So we wait.

I’m just happy we can protect democracy by interfering with democracy.