the disqualification clause

thethe said:
I just think that Asians and white should team up and bring class action lawsuits to every corporation that has engaged in some form of affirmative action.
Click to expand...
You're not the first to think of this. Such lawsuits already exist.

Fearless Fund vs Edward Blum

Alliance for Fair Recruitment vs Nasdaq

I suspect such lawsuits will proliferate.
 
nsacpi said:
You're not the first to think of this. Such lawsuits already exist.

Fearless Fund vs Edward Blum

Alliance for Fair Recruitment vs Nasdaq

I suspect such lawsuits will proliferate.
Click to expand...

And they shouldn’t pass because the 14th amendment was specifically tailored to address the wrongs done to black people. Just like the “disqualification” clause was intended for those that fought for the south.

Of course you know all of this but you all need to get trump any way you can because his tent has grown since 2020.
 
thethe said:
And they shouldn’t pass because the 14th amendment was specifically tailored to address the wrongs done to black people. Just like the “disqualification” clause was intended for those that fought for the south.

Of course you know all of this but you all need to get trump any way you can because his tent has grown since 2020.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what I think. This sort of constitutional question will likely end up before the Supreme Court.
 
thethe said:
Quick delete there eh BL?
Click to expand...

I deleted because my response would take us further away from the topic of this thread. If you want to continue that part of the discussion under race or affirmative action I'd be glad to.
 
nsacpi said:
Doesn't matter what I think. This sort of constitutional question will likely end up before the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

And they’ll laugh it out of court 6-3 may even get Kagan shows some common sense and it’s 7-2.
 
nsacpi said:
I deleted because my response would take us further away from the topic of this thread. If you want to continue that part of the discussion under race or affirmative action I'd be glad to.
Click to expand...

No but it’s essential to discuss that point because you can’t pretend the disqualification clause meant anything other than preventing southern generals/politicians from tuning for office after the civil war without another logical argument to show the 14th amendment was specific to the civil war times and not to be extrapolated for future arguments. Unless of course another hit civil war occurs.
 
thethe said:
No but it’s essential to discuss that point because you can’t pretend the disqualification clause meant anything other than preventing southern generals/politicians from tuning for office after the civil war without another logical argument to show the 14th amendment was specific to the civil war times and not to be extrapolated for future arguments. Unless of course another hit civil war occurs.
Click to expand...

It is one of the Civil War amendments. But like the rest of the constitution it is written in a way that allows its application to future events. I suspect this issue will work its way to the Supreme Court fairly quickly.

There is some irony in the fact that the authors of the article I linked to in my opening post are conservative constitutional law professors (members of the Federalist Society) who analyze the matter from an originalist perspective. It is ironic but not surprising. In general conservative judges (some appointed by very poorly chosen one) have been steadfast in their application of constitutional principles in response to litigation that has arisen from the events surrounding the 2020 elections. The appeals court panel that ruled in the Cawthorn case was unanimous and included a trump-appointed judge.
 
Last edited:
If Trump is disqualified, interest in his trials is going to fall through the floor. That won't be good for him.
 
I dont think Trump will get DQ'd from running but its still hilarious to watch after he said Biden shouldnt be allowed to run. Karma is a bitch.
 
Rarely do legal scholars compel government officials to embark on an unprecedented and hugely consequential course of action, but that is precisely what William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, authors of a law review article regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and the intellectual powerhouse duo of former judge J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe have done.

In a remarkably short time, they have driven home the implications of Section 3: that all officials with a role in the presidential election process must consider disqualifying former president Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot if they find he “either ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion’ against the Constitution or gave ‘aid and comfort to the enemies’ of that Constitution.”

Secretaries of state certainly have heard them loud and clear. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D), appearing on MSNBC (where I am a contributor), “emphasized her plan to consider the issue exclusively based on applicable law, without partisan considerations, expressing concern that this issue could become weaponized in future elections,” as legal scholar Edward B. Foley noted. Benson also indicated she would be conferring with secretaries of state in Georgia, Nevada and Pennsylvania. But she smartly recognized that whatever she and other secretaries decide, the issue will undoubtedly travel to the Supreme Court for a final determination.

Likewise, New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan (R) said recently, “When somebody makes a reasoned argument about what those provisions mean, I feel an obligation to at least listen to them.” He added, “A decision of that magnitude that’s a decision of deciding that somebody is not qualified to run, a person, is extraordinary. And it really has to be treated with that degree of importance.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/29/trump-ballot-disqualification-constitution/

I expect different jurisdictions to come to different conclusions on this, which will create a situation that will require expedited review by the Supreme Court. The secretary of state of New Hampshire will probably have to make the first consequential decision on this matter, and no matter what his decision there will be a legal filing against it.
 
Last edited:
Looks like the Supreme Court will decide if they will hear this case in the next two weeks. Not expecting a W on this but it would virtually guarantee Bidens re-election since Trump would just run as a write-in candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top