Legal experts dust off Postal Act of 1792 signed into law by George Washington as historical proof Trump is 'wrong' that 'not one authority' shows president is 'officer of the United States' https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...t-is-officer-of-the-united-states/ar-AA1mtnXg
The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether Donald Trump is eligible for Colorado’s primary ballot. The court will hear the case in February. The case, which could alter the course of this year’s presidential election, will be argued on Feb. 8. The court will probably decide it quickly, as the primary season will soon be underway. Friday, January 5, 2024 5:17 PM ET https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/us/trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot.html
The Maine GOP is laughable. Maybe they need to find a candidate who is not an insurrectionist rather than trying to impeach officials who are properly upholding the law. Maine House votes down GOP effort to impeach election official who removed Trump from ballot https://www.boston.com/news/politic...ction-official-who-removed-trump-from-ballot/
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/10/politics/oregon-14th-amendment-trump/index.html Oregon Supreme Court could be next to rule on Trump’s eligibility for the ballot under the 14th Amendment
56 percent in new poll willing to see Trump disqualified from ballots in all or some states https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...qualified-from-ballots-in-all-or-some-states/ A majority of Americans in a new survey say they would support the Supreme Court either disqualifying former President Trump from presidential ballots across the country or letting states decide whether to include him on their ballots. Nearly one-third — 30 percent — of respondents in the ABC News/Ipsos survey said they think the justices should order that Trump be removed from ballots across the country, and 26 percent said they believed the matter should be left up to election officials in each state. Additionally, 39 percent of Americans surveyed said they think the Supreme Court should order Trump be kept on the ballot in all states. More than half of the survey’s respondents, 53 percent, said they believe the justices in the nation’s highest court will rule on the basis of law on the matter, while 43 percent said they think they will rule based on their political views on Trump. The Colorado Supreme Court and Maine’s secretary of state each ruled last month to bar Trump from appearing on their respective state ballots under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause,” citing his actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up whether the former president can be disqualified in Colorado, and a decision is expected shortly after arguments are heard Feb. 8. Trump has appealed the Maine secretary of state’s ruling, which will now head to the Kennebec County Superior Court. The case could also ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Dozens of other challenges to Trump’s eligibility to appear on ballots in the 2024 election under the 14th Amendment have been filed around the country, but many have been rejected by lower courts. Slightly more respondents in the new survey said they support the criminal charges Trump is facing over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election than they do the decisions kicking him off the primary ballot. Among the respondents, 56 percent said they support the criminal charges brought against the former president, while just less than half, at 49 percent, support the Colorado and Maine rulings. The survey was conducted Jan. 4-8 in English and Spanish among 2,228 adults and has a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points.
The 2024 election is getting even more fun with a former Republican governor of a very red state pointing out that Trump is definitely, unequivocally and totally disqualified from holding ANY office. There’s Nothing Debatable About the Constitutional Requirements for Becoming President by Daily Montanan | Jan 14, 2024 | Opinions & Commentary https://factkeepers.com/theres-noth...tutional-requirements-for-becoming-president/ The fact that the Disqualification Rule of the 14 Amendment has not been previously applied to a presidential candidate does not diminish the materiality or clarity of the constitutional mandate. Republished with permission from Daily Montanan, by Marc Racicot There are four qualifications set forth in the U.S. Constitution that must be met before any “Person” can be placed on the ballot and run for the Office of President: 1) you must be a “natural born Citizen;” 2) you must have “attained the age of thirty-five years;” 3) you must have been “fourteen Years a Resident within the United States;” and 4) you cannot have violated the Disqualification Rule of the 14th Amendment which entails having previously sworn an oath to support the Constitution and subsequently engaging in insurrection against it. There’s nothing mysterious or unusual about meeting these eligibility requirements. They’re mandatory and cannot be waived nor ignored. Throughout history, candidates, including presidential candidates, have been disqualified by elections officials because of their failure to meet pertinent qualifications allowing access to a primary election ballot. In reference to the 2024 presidential election, it has been argued by some political soothsayers that because the disqualification requirements of the 14th Amendment have rarely been applied, we should just move on, turn a blind eye to the Constitution, ignore the Disqualification Rule, and quietly leave the voters to address, by their votes, the presidential qualification issues in the coming election. The thing is: That’s simply not a constitutional or legal alternative; not unless the American people are prepared to defy and thereby abrogate the Constitution. The qualifications set forth in the Constitution are not options to be casually noted, arrogantly dismissed or discreetly avoided by self-serving strategists, sanctimonious candidates or timid election officials entrusted by the Montana Constitution to “insure the purity of elections and guard against abuses of the electoral process.” None of them have the license of the American people to spurn a constitutional imperative that’s plain on its face: If you’ve taken an oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” and you thereafter betray its provisions by engagement in insurrection or rebellion, the 14th Amendment Disqualification Rule forever bars you from seeking that office again. The fact that the Disqualification Rule has not been previously applied to a presidential candidate does not diminish the materiality or clarity of the constitutional mandate. If anything at all, the rarity of the application more profoundly reveals that the nation has, mercifully, had to suffer only one president who took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and then, as declared by three different tribunals, demonstratively engaged in insurrection against it. Nor does the limited application of the rule make it more complex than what it is on its face. The words in Section 3 unambiguously mean what they say, and they say what they mean. So, too, does the likely method of judicial analysis of the Constitution referred to as “originalism,” which, to paraphrase Justice Amy Coney Barrett, interprets “the Constitution as a law,” and “its text as text.” Originalism also makes clear that the text of the Constitution is interpreted “to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it.” In other words, the meaning of the words in the Constitution don’t “change over time,” nor is it the prerogative of a judge or justice, when interpreting the Constitution, “to update” the text or “infuse” his or her policy views into that text. The point of the rule and its application to the 2024 presidential election are unmistakable: It would be sheer lunacy to allow a presidential candidate who once knowingly and purposely betrayed the Constitution, his country and his office the opportunity to engage in the same treacherous conduct a second time around. So thought the framers of the 14th Amendment and the people of this country who approved it in 1868. Marc Racicot was the 21st governor of Montana, serving from 1993 through 2001. After that, he was the National Republican Party Chairman for two years, and was the head of the committee to re-elect President George W. Bush.