[Puffer Fish]

Right now two states in the U.S. are attempting to remove Trump's name from the ballot, so people in those states cannot vote for him, in the election for U.S. President.

This raises some complicated legal and Constitutional issues, which the U.S. Supreme Court is considering right now.

If I was on the Supreme Court, here is what I would do.

If I was the judge, I would rule that the state has to hold TWO elections, one with Trump on the ballot and one without. Or they could just hold one election with Trump on the ballot, of course. Either that or the state would have to actually pass a law specifically banning Trump from the ballot. (Something that has not happened, so far it has only been a ruling from the state's Supreme Court)

Then the state would have to pass another law specifically saying the names of the electors it has decided to send to the Electoral College, otherwise its votes would not count. (Something that normally does not happen)
(Though in the event the same candidate ended up winning in both parallel elections, then that candidate would be recognized, of course)

This would still theoretically allow the state to take Trump off the ballot, but would create a higher burden.



When it comes to holding elections for state officials, it is possible for it to be Constitutionally appropriate for federal courts to become involved. This is because of Article IV, Section 4 in the U.S. Constitution:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

But this would not apply to election for U.S. President, since that is not part of the state government.

The election held for U.S. President within each state is not a federal (U.S.) function. This may sound paradoxical but it is due to the way the selection of President is set up in the Constitution.

A traditionalist Constitutional Conservative would believe, correctly, that a state should be able to cast whatever electoral vote for president that individual state wishes.
This idea that the public has a right to vote for President is not actually in the U.S. Constitution.

If the state of Colorado wants to ban Trump on the ballot simply because they do not like him, that is the state's right under the U.S. Constitution.

Now, is it legal and does it violate the people's rights under the Colorado state Constitution and law? That is a separate question. But one which the U.S. Supreme Court should not get involved in, because they do not have proper jurisdiction over that area.

The state Supreme Court in Colorado is trying to use the U.S. Constitution to justify their decision, but they are wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court could give their opinion about that.

The one holdout is that the U.S. Supreme Court could perhaps block the state Supreme Court's decision, but if the state were actually able to pass a law banning Trump from the ballot, then that should be the end of the matter, as far as the federal government is concerned.
The U.S. Constitution says the state decides the electors, but we could argue over what exactly is "the state"?

Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court could refuse to allow any electors to be recognized unless the state is able to pass a law specifically recognizing the choice of those electors.
Right now, the state has laws in place that delegate those decision-making powers to certain state officials.

It could be possible the U.S. Supreme Court might interpret that "the state" has not actually decided electors, because those electors were not actually correctly chosen according to the state's own law.

The Constitution says the states choose electors. And there's very good reason things are set up that way, under the Constitution, in my opinion. It greatly helps mitigate the problem of election fraud and disputed national elections. In a winner-take-all system with each state running their own elections, there is no incentive for the majority to suppress the votes of the minority. And the Presidential election, so far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, is nearly impossible to dispute, even though it could be disputed within each state.

[Rancid]

I thought conservatives were all for states rights, fucking bullshit lying pieces of shit.

Trump should be in prison.

[Rich]

The Democrat party has a history of not being very democratic. So the Democrat southern states didn't allow Lincoln on the ballot. Since then there has been a Civil War and a number of amendments. However fascistic liberal hypocrites now want to revive the right of states to exclude people form the ballot. Some Liberals were even engaging in pathetic fantasies that the Conservative Supreme Court justices would support them banning Trump. This shows what a bunch of losers they are. They maybe in for a rude awakening. Its far from certain that they'll even receive the support of the liberal Supreme Court justices, precisely because this is an attempt to roll back to pre civil war behaviour.

[Puffer Fish]

I thought conservatives were all for states rights, fucking bullshit lying pieces of shit.

I thought my opinion did support state's rights.
(If you disagree or can't see that, let's talk about it)

If Democrats were in the same place, we all know they'd be even far less likely to support the principle of state's rights if it cost them a short-term victory.

[Puffer Fish]

Some Liberals were even engaging in pathetic fantasies that the Conservative Supreme Court justices would support them banning Trump. This shows what a bunch of losers they are. They maybe in for a rude awakening. Its far from certain that they'll even receive the support of the liberal Supreme Court justices, precisely because this is an attempt to roll back to pre civil war behaviour.

In my opinion the Supreme Court likely will vote against allowing the state to take Trump off the ballot, but because of stupidity and inability to understand Constitutional principles and the Constitution.

The "correct" view, in my opinion, is what I have outlined in the first post. That might be too complicated for many in this thread to understand, too complicated for someone giving it a passive reading to immediately understand and agree with, and too complicated for the Supreme Court judges to think of and put together by themselves.

Perhaps that sounds a bit arrogant but that is my opinion.

Problems like this can be very difficult for most people to be able to fully logically think about and figure out.


Whatever preference I may have for Trump, if the Supreme Court does this I fear the terrible long-term future precedent it could set and the damage it will do to the Constitution. (Especially being a state's rights conservative, and supporting the principle of federalism with its division of jurisdiction and separation and balance of powers. The irony being I know most of the Left doesn't really give a crap about those principles)

[Rancid]

I fear the terrible long-term future precedent it could set and the damage it will do to the Constitution.

All of sudden you care about the constitution?