Maine's Secretary of State removes Trump from primary ballot

[Occam's Banana]

I think you have to keep in mind the differences between impeached and removed. You can be impeached, but remain in office.

Impeachment is not a separate thing from removal. It is the first step in the process of removal (which, as you noted, might not succeed).

The whole point and motive of impeachment (whether the attempt is successful or not) is to remove someone from office because that person is ostensibly unfit to remain in office. (Otherwise, "impeachment" is just a fancy synonym for "censure".)

If you say "I believe there are adequate grounds to impeach Smith", then you are necessarily implying "I believe there are adequate grounds to remove Smith from office" - because that is what "impeachment" means.

If one thinks there are grounds sufficient to remove Smith from office (i.e., if one thinks there are grounds sufficient to impeach him), then how can one think there are not also grounds sufficient to exclude him from ballots (or vice versa)?

 

[acptulsa]

Impeachment is not a separate thing from removal. It is the first step in the process of removal (which, as you noted, might not succeed).

The concept grounds for impeachment is foundationally identical to grounds for indictment. The only difference is the position of the person at the center of it, and what the subsequent trial could lead to (removal from office v. from society at large).

Maybe that'll help people get in the groove.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

It will present a dilema to the half of scotus that claim to be constructionist and originalist. Section 3 of the 14th was very clearly intended to keep people like Trump out of office. If a conviction was required to keep them out of office, that would have been the wording.

But you're allowing that decision to effectively be made by fiat - which unleashes a whole series of electoral events that ends very quickly in the end of the republican form of government and for the life of me I cannot understand why you and a few others don't comprehend this... There has to be some process by which duly elected representatives can thru due processes legitimately determine that a person and/or persons have engaged in "insurrection" and are thus prohibited from holding public office. Otherwise it is expressly a free-for-all.

If this goes thru - and the fact that it has even been proposed is dangerous in and of itself - the electoral process in this republic is effectively at an end.

 

[69360]

But you're allowing that decision to effectively be made by fiat - which unleashes a whole series of electoral events that ends very quickly in the end of the republican form of government and for the life of me I cannot understand why you and a few others don't comprehend this... There has to be some process by which duly elected representatives can thru due processes legitimately determine that a person and/or persons have engaged in "insurrection" and are thus prohibited from holding public office. Otherwise it is expressly a free-for-all.

If this goes thru - and the fact that it has even been proposed is dangerous in and of itself - the electoral process in this republic is effectively at an end.

I think that is impossible with an ammendment.

Look at what the original purpouse of section 3 of the 14th was. It was intended to keep the rebels from going back to their previous government positions or running for office after the civil war. It was known that none of them had trials or convictions.

If the justices who consider themselves strict constutional originalists hear this case they are going to have to find Trump ineligable to hold office or risk their reputations. That's what is going to be interesting to see. I wonder if they may just decline to take it up?

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1741239499915493389

//

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, Einstein. To create separation anxiety. Absence certainly has made your heart grow fonder.

In fact, it turned you into this:

Now that's funny, considering I taught you the word, you've used it a lot since, and you've rarely if ever used it accurately.

Your theories get ever more contrived like the astronomical models that were created to keep the earth as the center of the solar system.
And your facts get ever more fantastical.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It's amazing how a diseased/warped mind can distort their own reality.

You should seek treatment for that.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It will present a dilema to the half of scotus that claim to be constructionist and originalist. Section 3 of the 14th was very clearly intended to keep people like Trump out of office. If a conviction was required to keep them out of office, that would have been the wording.

No, it does not, there was no insurrection and if there was Trump did not participate and you know it.
You can't gaslight us.
The wording of the Constitution already specifies people are not to be punished without due process.
You are exposing yourself completely.

 

[acptulsa]

And your facts get ever more fantastical.

Ain't it the truth. You wouldn't mind so much if they weren't, in fact, facts, and Donnie Orange wasn't, in fact, making them come true.

You can't gaslight us.

Us? First TheCount, and now you with the Royal We. Or do you have a mouse in your pocket?

I know I can't gaslight you. Somebody beat me to it. We only have one Savior, brother. Time to figure out which one He is.

 

[Occam's Banana]

"The best thing for America would be Trump removed from every Democrat controlled State’s primary ballot as soon as possible—it would force a real national confrontation and provide much needed clarity." -- Ib @Indian_Bronson (https://twitter.com/Indian_Bronson/status/1740721533629386816)

Unironcially this. ↑↑↑

The sooner the notions that America is (small-"d") democratic and (small-"r") republican are exposed as illusions and delusions, the better.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

It will present a dilema to the half of scotus that claim to be constructionist and originalist. Section 3 of the 14th was very clearly intended to keep people like Trump out of office. If a conviction was required to keep them out of office, that would have been the wording.

LOL. Who you trying to fool? That is the most partisan, biased take possible.

 

[69360]

LOL. Who you trying to fool? That is the most partisan, biased take possible.

As written the intent of section 3 of the 14th was to keep those who went against the US government out of office without a conviction. This describes Trump.

It's going to be interesting to see what scotus does with this.

 

[Swordsmyth]

As written the intent of section 3 of the 14th was to keep those who went against the US government out of office without a conviction. This describes Trump.

It's going to be interesting to see what scotus does with this.

Opposing the government is not an insurrection, Tyrant.

 

[Occam's Banana]

[...] those who went against the US government [...] without a conviction. This describes Trump.

I aspire for it to describe me.

Guess I can't be POTUS now.

Damn.

 

[Occam's Banana]

If the justices who consider themselves strict constutional originalists hear this case they are going to have to find Trump ineligable to hold office or risk their reputations.

They are not going to have to do any such thing. They might (though I doubt it) - but they don't have to.

"Originalism" does not consist in judges finding out what was originally promulgated (whatever that might have been).

"Originalism" consists in judges finding out what they think was originally promulgated.

And "what they think was originally promulgated" will always and necessarily be run through the presuppositional filter of "what they think" in general.

That's a small difference, perhaps - but it's one that can make all the difference.

 

[Anti Federalist]

https://twitter.com/BWLH_/status/1741248814810341485

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1747751604969673190
[article: https://thepostmillennial.com/break...rump-back-on-the-ballot-pending-scotus-ruling]