shyams, on 2023-December-20, 07:20, said:
I believe that the disqualification is (
at least for now) limited to the GOP Primaries in Colorado. If so, I find it interesting that ...
- The US courts had ruled (some years ago) that the DNC is a private corporation & that courts do not have a right to intervene in how DNC decides on its nominee (incl. how it runs its primaries).
- The courts now seem to have ruled that it does have the right to intervene in how the RNC decides on its nominee by interfering in the GOP primaries.
Often I am stunned by how much you and other contributors from outside the US know about our politics. This is in no way a complaint, I welcome your comments. It just seems sometimes that you not only know more about US politics than I know about UK politics but also more than I know about US politics. In this case. I was unaware of the ruling about the DNC that you mentioned.
As to the court's ruling, I doubt it will stand. As to whether it should:
I think I can agree that some people should not be allowed to be on the ballot. I think such a restriction should involve a specific crime that the person has been convicted of.
Axios cites the 14th amendment:
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that no one should hold office in the U.S. if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [U.S.], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Ok, if Trump is convicted of insurrection or rebellion or of giving aid or comfort to those who do then this prohibits him from holding office and it is at least reasonable to say that if he cannot hold office then he cannot be on the ballot. A 30-year-old is not allowed to be president, so I can imagine that a 30-year-old should not be on the ballot. But we can find legal documentation that the person is not yet 35 when that ruling is made.
I think Trump should be convicted of quite a large number of things. I think he is an awful person, I think he is a menace. But I also think that if he, or anyone, is to be kept off the ballot for engaging in insurrection then this should be because he has been convicted of engaging in insurrection. An indictment is not enough. The guy is a rat, even my conservative friends agree with that. He is scum. But keeping a guy off the ballot needs to be based on being found guilty of something.