Maine barred Donald Trump from the primary ballot Thursday, making it the second state in the country to block the former president from running again under a part of the Constitution that prevents insurrectionists from holding office.

The decision by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) is sure to be appealed. The Colorado Supreme Court last week found Trump could not appear on the ballot in that state, and the Colorado Republican Party has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The nation’s high court could resolve for all states whether Trump can run again.

Archive

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    1082·
    11 months ago

    Royal also argued that Trump violated Section 3, while Gordon’s challenge took a different tack, arguing that Trump is not eligible to be on the ballot because he claims to have won the 2020 election, which would have been his second term. The 22nd Amendment states that no person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice.

    The other arguments are Colorado redux

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      831·
      11 months ago

      arguing that Trump is not eligible to be on the ballot because he claims to have won the 2020 election, which would have been his second term. The 22nd Amendment states that no person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice.

      Oh thats clever!

      “The 14th Amendment Constitution says you, an insurrectionist, cannot be on the ballot”

      Trump: “I’m not an insurrectionist! I was defending my election to office in 2020!”

      "Ah, okay then so you’re admitting that you’re trying to run for a 3rd term in violation of the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution

      • frezik@midwest.social
        412·
        11 months ago

        Clever, but no. He didn’t get a second term, and his whining in a corner doesn’t change that.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        2·
        11 months ago

        Oh that’s clever!

        It’s obviously childish as fuck to be playing such twisted logic games with something as important as the Presidency. Clever is not a word I want applied to American jurisprudence

    • TallonMetroid@lemmy.worldEnglish
      201·
      11 months ago

      Obviously they’re not operating in good faith, so they’ll come up with some nonsense justification as to why president loser deserves a 3rd term or something anyway. But that’s still a novel approach.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        2·
        11 months ago

        Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that someone deciding to bar Trump based on this “third term” argument is acting in good faith?

        • TallonMetroid@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          11 months ago

          Why wouldn’t they be? Just because a premise is farcical doesn’t mean you can’t accept it for the sake of argument.

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      2·
      11 months ago

      arguing that Trump is not eligible to be on the ballot because he claims to have won the 2020 election

      mondo big LOLs there. It’s not likely to hold water in court, imo, and I’m guessing that the argument will be that he never took the oath for the second term. Buuut it might mean Trump is either going to have to admit to the court that he didn’t win or he’s going to be told by the SCOTUS that he didn’t. Get dunked on, idiot.