2y ago

Is Trump disqualified for the N.H. primary? The secretary of state is seeking legal advice

www.bostonglobe.com

Is Trump disqualified for the N.H. primary? The secretary of state is seeking legal advice. - The Boston Globe

“I will be asking the attorney general’s office for their input,” Secretary of State David Scanlan told the Globe. “And ultimately whatever is decided is probably going to require some judicial input.”

A debate among constitutional scholars over former president Donald Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 presidential race has reverberated through the public consciousness in recent weeks and reached the ears of New Hampshire’s top election official.

Secretary of State David Scanlan, who will oversee the first-in-the-nation presidential primary in just five months, said he’s received several letters lately that urge him to take action based on a legal theory that claims the Constitution empowers him to block Trump from the ballot.

Scanlan, a Republican, said he’s listening and will seek legal advice to ensure that his team thoroughly understands the arguments at play.

127 comments

14th Amendment to the US Constitution, Section 3:
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
This does not require judicial input. The language is clear. Trump is, along with many co-defendants, disqualified from holding any civil or military office.
- The judicial input is on whether Trump qualifies to be included in that described group which is disqualified. The problem with the self-executing clause here is that of course the described group of people are barred but who decides who qualifies?
  
  That is for state officials whose duty it is to ensure that only qualified persons are on the ballot to enforce. Indeed, if those state officials refuse or neglect to enforce the US Constitution, they could be held personally responsible.
- Not until proven guilty, legally speaking, surely?
  
  The language specifically does not require any conviction. A conviction would make 14A S3 undeniably apply, but a lack of conviction doesn't make it not apply.
  
  It doesn't say "convicted of...".
  
  I doubt they put every Confederate on trial. Still I imagine there must be some court ruling for this to be the case. IANAL but a state court may make this decision and bar him from running in their state.
- "But that was only an amendment and it was written so long ago!" - Somebody with the second amendment printed out and framed above their gun masturbatorium.
  
  The gun Masturbatorium is a sacred workshop of Cult Masturbatio of the Adeptus Mechanicus, they are in charge of "Jacking" the most ancient and revered ranged weapons. Youre thinking of the Techno-lustris run jointly by the Adeptus Mechanicus and the Dark Mechanicum.
- And his remedy is a two thirds vote qualifying him.
- Trump is, along with many co-defendants, disqualified from holding any civil or military office.
  Want to prove that? Last I checked he's not been found guilty of any crime?
  Would you support this if it was Biden or Hillary in the same legal situation? How about we respect the judicial proceeding and stop trying to jump the gun, before it's made into a political maneuver?
  
  The amendment does not require formal conviction of a crime, and after the Civil War it was used extensively without formal convictions.
  And obviously we’d support that if Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden tried to stage a coup. Would sort of insane bozo would still support a candidate after that?
  
  We should definitely respect the judicial process.
  ... But I'd absolutely support this if Biden or Hilary were in the same situation.
  
  They're telling you that it isn't written to require criminal guilt determined by a court.
  The entire south seceded. Those people were not tried, and in fact were given blanket pardons. But they still couldn't hold office again.
  This is a political process. It will be political, same as an impeachment.
  
  Trump was literally dancing during the insurrection and there is a video of it. Dude was gleefully happy about one of the darkest days in American history.
  It's not jumping the gun, you just have your head in the sand.
  
  It doesn't say found guilty. Read the Constitution. It's plain.
  
  If it is true that either of them "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," then yes.
- Most of the legal minds I've heard discuss this think it's pretty interesting philosophically, but not at all actionable. Former US attorneys Preet Bharara and Chuck Rosenberg mentioned it in a recent podcast that I found super insightful.
  
  Here's the tiny mention in there:
  Chuck Rosenberg:
  No, you’re referring to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It’s not self-executing. I’m not sure what the triggering mechanism would be, and I agree with you. It ain’t going to happen. Interesting intellectual exercise. It sounds a lot like my three years in law school. If you look at my transcript, you would see it didn’t go that well.
  Except that it very clearly is self-executing. I'll paste it in here again for easy reference:
  Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
  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.
  Breaking it down:
  What is the disqualification from office stated in the section title? "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 does this apply to? Anyone "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."
  What is the remediation for this disqualification? "Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
  As a comparison, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 reads:
  No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
  If a 23 year old Frenchman decided to run for US President, what would happen? Would there need to be some kind of trial or judicial review? No - state officials would disqualify Mr. Young French from appearing on the ballot. And then, if Mr. Young French wanted to protest that decision, he would initiate a court filing, after having been disqualified.
  14A S3 is self-executing. The reason Rosenberg in the podcast says he's "not sure what the triggering mechanism would be" is because there isn't one.
  
  The only reason it isn't actionable is because the SCOTUS's current concept of standing leaves entire provisions of the Constitution unenforceable. If no one has standing to sue for an unconstitutional act or omission, then it renders the provision meaningless. Which is absolute and utter bullshit. Every single election official that lets Trump on the ballot should be sued in federal court seeking a writ of mandamus forcing them to follow the requirements set upon them under the Constitution.
- This is an easy one for anyone capable of critical thinking and knows "innocent until proven guilty".
  He hasn't been convicted of anything, only accused.
  
  14A S3 does not require a conviction.
I'm in NH. We still have people out on the corner with Trump flags.
NH is the Florida of the north.
- If you deny these peoples ability to vote for trump, things could get real bad real fast
  
  So, don't do the right thing because assholes might become violent?
  That is letting the terrorists win.
  
  Either way it's bad. They won't accept another loss. They will be even more violent
  
  Trump supporters are idiots. If they get upset. Fuckem. Give zero fucks for there feelings.
  
  They aren't bad right now?
  
  The good news is that the Trumpists are all a bunch of out-of-shape morons. The bad news is that the regular people don’t want to fight and aren’t prepared.
  
  Things have been getting bad for a while now. While I'm the first to suggest compromise to achieve mutual goals... theres no point when only one side is willing to bend. Extremists are going to go to extremes no matter what we do, might as well rip the band-aid off and actually start making a difference.
  
  Oh well. Things got real bad fast already when Danny stepped in.
  
  They can write in whoever's name they want, assuming they're literate.
- I see them in Merrimack. So cringe. How are these full grown adults out here slinging trump flags still
I'm glad this is getting the attention it deserves right now, but this issue should have been front page news THE DAY Trump announced he was running.
"Donald Trump announces new bid for presidency, but may not qualify"
- The sheer number of charges against Trump now gives conservative jurists cover to make these statements. Democrats are probably happy to let the debate over qualification drag out as it hangs a cloud over the whole Republican primary process.
  
  I'm hoping some, but not all, states disqualify him.
- The question mark is in the middle.
  
  Yeah, this isn't a click bate headline that ends in a question mark. This is a story about the steps being done to answer that question before the first primary.
- It doesn’t end in a question mark. It ends in the answer to the question. It’s not clickbait.
- This law has been dead since at least 2019.
Parties are parties. The republican party could have a squid reach for ballons with candidates names on them to choose their nominee. The only thing that the consitution disqualifies him is running in the general.
Of course, if the Republicans had a rule saying only valid candidates for general can run in the primary, then there is trouble, as he won't get disqualified until after the trial, which is after the primary.
The NH AG, John Formella, seems like a party man. I would be surprised if he would agree with this argument, especially in the administration of Chris "I'm a Trump guy through and through" Sununu.
- Be especially wary of Republicans who are pushing this "ineligible even without judicial input" argument. Many of them would love to rid themselves of the Trump albatross, but even more, would LOOOOVE the idea of simply declaring people ineligible with no oversight.
  To most people, Trump's involvement in Jan 6 is obvious, but without a conviction, the door is wide open for people like DeSantis and his lackies to just start erasing names off the contender list with the thinnest of justifications. "Oh, Biden supports the Paris Climate Accords. He doesn't believe in American sovereignty, which is tantamount to treason, therefore he won't be on the Florida ballot in 2024."
  
  Republicans will do it now anyway. Their only regret at this point is that they hadn't thought of it before. The GOP has become so baldfaced uncouth, they don't care anymore if their dirty tricks are performed in broad daylight. Watch trump has taught them there is (so far) little to no repercussions for breaking "tradition" or "precedence".
Yeah... This would be one of the worst things possible.
The idea you could take someone to court to disqualify them means you're allowing the courts into politics.
But hey I already see people here celebrating this because "Fuck Trump" Right? Yet don't see they're creating a new loaded gun that can be turned against them in the next election...
And before someone says "Four cases"... any bar would be able to be met by a politically motivated group, but again you do you, just realize shit like this has long lasting repercussions.
- The courts have already been involved in politics. Like, all the fuckin time.
  The US Supreme Court literally decided the 2000 election that largely led us to where we are now.
- Politicians need to face repercussions for their actions.
- This wouldn't allow courts in politics; it would allow the constitution in politics.
- means you’re allowing the courts into politics
  Allow me to introduce you to my friend Chad. Hanging Chad.
- Meh. I don’t really care. With the bias in the senate and all the Gerrymandering on the state level, we might as well have the crazies disqualify candidates as random. Look at Georgia and kemp, they are already doing it. Let’s let them do it more so people wake up and realize this is not acceptable.
Im not American, but whats the point of disqualifying Trump? There are 3 others worse candidates always.
- Because he incited a coup and called for the heads of elected officials.
- All of whom don't have nearly the charisma or following that Trump does. DeSantis couldn't sell air to a drowning man.
  
  Wouldnt need to, he would just say its legal to force you to breath and have navy/marines strap you to a chair and force a tube down your throat to make it happen.

127 comments