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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    139
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      102
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        60
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

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

          • hdnsmbt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            6 months ago

            They don’t care if he admits it or if it’s true. They only care about what he instructs them to care about. Please, we must all start to understand this otherwise it’s us living in an illusion.

            • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              26
              ·
              6 months ago

              “They” are human beings. “They” are our family and neighbors. “They” are people who are being exploited for political gain. You’d do well to keep that in mind.

              • JonEFive@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                14
                ·
                6 months ago

                I don’t think the idea was to dehumanize, but rather to be more aware of the shared psychosis so many people are living in.

                “They” claim that Trump won the election without any regard to facts and evidence. Imagining that “they” will suddenly change their mind if they get just one more piece of factual information is foolish considering everything we’ve seen so far. We must find another way to get through to “them”.

              • hdnsmbt@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                6 months ago

                Just because I’m using a plural pronoun I’m not dehumanising anyone. Please read what is actually written and keep your desire to scold people at home.

              • 100_kg_90_de_belin @feddit.it
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                6 months ago

                They have been behaving like members of a cult and have alienated family members, relatives and friends with their MAGA-narrative filled of hate and xenophobia.

              • Iamdanno@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                “They” are also objectively stupid. And they are willing, enthusiastic, participants in their “exploitation”.

              • Hobbes@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                They most certainly are not. They have no compassion, no intelligence, no critical thinking, no love, and no respect for human life.

                They are mammals. Even primates. I’ll give you that. But they are sub-human.

                They have caused unimaginable pain and suffering and they enjoy it all and run on hatred.

                • hdnsmbt@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  All of the things you listed are attributes humans have. There is no such thing as sub-humans, you’re thinking of regular humans.

                  Trump supporters are easily fooled idiots but they are fellow humans nonetheless. Thinking of a group of people as “sub-humans” oppens the door to treating that group as inferior and not worthy of respect which leads to fascist tendencies. Please be aware of what your words mean.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 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.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 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.

  • Clbull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    108
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    If this picks up steam, we could very well see another Republican candidate (most likely DeSantis) win the nomination and become Joe Biden’s opponent.

    On the other hand, the SCOTUS is Republican controlled. They already got Roe V Wade overturned and could very well rule in Trump’s favour.

    Part of me truly worries that America will be the first to fall to a new wave of Fascism, and that this will spur further swings in Europe. (AfD are performing alarmingly well in East Germany, whilst Le Pen has been closer than ever before to winning the French presidency.)

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      If this picks up steam, we could very well see another Republican candidate (most likely DeSantis) win the nomination and become Joe Biden’s opponent.

      That’s the entire point, isn’t it? To prevent the insurrectionist from being on the ballot, not “prevent the republicans from being on the ballot.”

      • shasta@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        More than that, some people will still vote for Trump as a write in, which will split the Republican vote and force them to lose

      • Metz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Yes. The former DDR part is commonly still called that. It still differs noticeably from the West in terms of culture and level of development. Unfortunately, the entire region has moved significantly to the right politically. So much even that an openly right-wing extremist party has a majority in multiple parts of it.

          • limelight79@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            We have a group at work that uses the abbreviation “DDRC”. I often think of them as the Dance Dance Revolution Committee. Their actual purpose is much, much less fun.

            (I also often say “Time has no meaning there” about them, referencing Star Trek Generations. Because they literally do not care how long they delay projects. It’s not their problem, and they refuse to even acknowledge there is a concern. I really hate dealing with them, if you haven’t guessed.)

    • Neil@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      I hate to say it, but the world is overdue for a new world war. Fascism seems to rise when the previous generation that experienced Fascism dies off. Nobody who went through it wants that to happen again, but like toddlers, we need to touch the stove to learn it’s hot.

      • seejur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Correction: the rich want another world war and are pushing for it. The brainwashing that has been going on for years wasn’t paid by your average joe.

        And as usual, it will be paid with the blood of the poor

      • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Instead of a world war we need liberals and pacifist nitwits to arm up and counter the goddamn rednecked white soxed blue ribbon beer shitheads that are hellbent on turning America into a christofascist gulag

      • JonEFive@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        I always hate the “moving to Canada” thing. American hubris leads them to believe that they can just emigrate to whatever country they like without barriers. That’s not how it works.

        Just like the USA, Canada isn’t going to grant citizenship to every rando who approaches their borders.

        I will say this though, depending on where they’re coming from in the US, and what they’ve experienced in terms of threats and persecution, I could see there being a case for requests for asylum for LGBT+ people trying to escape to Canada. And that’s sad as hell for all of us.

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Uh… What do you mean “if they win”? The LGBTQIA community here in Canada has dramatically expanded with Americans looking to apply for citizenship. LGBTQIA protections and civil rights are crumbling in the States even without the GOP strictly in power. The Exodus is already underway.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          There are more queers in America than there are people in Canada.

          You ain’t seen nothing yet.

          Going to be some absolutely amazing looking refugee tents at some point tho

          • WhiteRabbit_33@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I thought this couldn’t possibly be right, and it isn’t quite, but the numbers are way closer than I realized.

            Canada only has around 37 million people. I always thought there were far more just because of how big Canada is. Guess I’ve been a standard uneducated American. US population is around 333 million. Latest estimate I can find is 7.2% queer which is roughly 24 million people.

            Not all of those will need to flee, and those who do may not be financially able to flee. Others won’t want to for the reasons most people don’t want to leave their home. Many straight passing people will be “fine”. Most trans people will want to for medical care at least, and most I know (myself included) are currently migrating to more progressive states if not to Canada yet. Trans numbers in the US are hard to nail down, but highest estimate is 1% which is only 3 million.

      • Powerpoint@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        We have a bigot/ fascist lover here in Canada called Pierre Poilievre who’s in the lead in the polls. If something doesn’t change between now and 2025 Canada may fall to the far right as well.

        • WhiteRabbit_33@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Trump was unpredictable in 2016. He talked a big game, but we had no idea what laws he’d pass, what his policies would be, etc. Sadly many voted for him because he was seen as an “outsider” since people were tired of standard politicians.

          Now we have a good idea what he’ll do, January 6th happened, and Trump has been vocal about trans genocide specifically.

  • Stern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    6 months ago

    Maine is one of two states (Nebraska is the other) that doesn’t give all their electoral votes to the popular vote winner in their state. Trump got one electoral vote there in both 2016 and 2020.

    • expr@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      This true, though Republicans have gerrymandered the districts so bad that it almost always ends up as all Republican anyway. Look at how crazy this looks: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska's_congressional_districts#/media/File%3ANebraska_Congressional_Districts%2C_118th_Congress.tif.

      For some fucking reason, Lincoln (a liberal city that’s the second largest in Nebraska) is in the same district as a bunch of rural towns that I would have to drive for hours to get to. Sarpy county, which most consider to be a part of Omaha (and again, is about an hour-ish drive from Lincoln, was recently switched to our district because they are largely conservative, and they redrew it just before we were supposed to be electing our new congressperson (which, by the way, was a special election because the previous Republican congressman was convicted of felonies relating to lying about foreign campaign contributions, go figure). A democrat swept Lincoln, but lost because they piled on enough rural counties in the fucked up map. Republicans have no respect for democracy.

  • PedroMaldonado@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Seriously. We ALL SAW it on Jan 6! Dude wrecked our countries record of peaceful transition all because he threw a bitch ass tantrum. Thanks, jerk.

    • KnowledgeableNip@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      If anyone’s arguing the other way… Where was the national guard? An angry mob attacked our highest ranking politicians at the nations capital and it was less defended than your average Walmart on Black Friday. In the end Pence had to call them in despite Trump watching the entire thing unfold on live TV.

      It was an orchestrated attempted coup, full stop.

    • Yokozuna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I really wish that he wasn’t stopped from attending it like he wanted too, this would be such an open and shut thing if otherwise. Now the courts are all hung up on if he participated or not. He obviously fucking caused it but you know, due process and all.

      • TimmyDeanSausage @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’m thankful he didn’t attend. His sycophants would likely have gone much further with their GodKing present, egging them on.

        • Yokozuna@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yea, honestly, in the overall picture of things I am too, because who knows what would have actually happened if things had been taken further with him there like you said. But just for this scenario where it went as far as it did - the court is now hung up on technicalities, it would be a different conversation if he had.

  • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    When Republican states start doing this to democratic candidates for basically no reason, then democracy is completely over.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      we can’t ignore the law just because they will. we can’t fail to act in good faith just because they will act in bad faith. we can’t negotiate with domestic terrorists.

      • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Thank you! I am really sick of hearing people defend evil as a means of self-defense. It’s literally cowering and submitting.

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          they act as though as long as we give in to their demands the republicans will be reasonable and keep their promises. they won’t. they’re gonna press their political advantage by any means they can find, be it legal, extralegal, or just out and out terrorism and if we concede anything to them they’ll just have more leverage by which to bypass or end american democracy in their quest for full autocratic power.

    • DrMango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      6 months ago

      Thank you! This is an easy pill for some of us to swallow when these states are barring Trump, but blocking a candidate from the ballot for ANY reason at the state level sets a dangerous precedent.

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, but straight-up ignoring the Constitution is also a big problem, so… Feels like maybe if your try to overturn an election you shouldn’t get to run for office.

        • DrMango@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          I agree, but I also feel that decision should be made at the federal level thereby barring a candidate from ALL states rather than states selectively barring candidates they don’t like.

            • Liz@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              6 months ago

              Some aspects of the elections can be dictated by the feds, some are left to the states. If it was purely up to the states the civil rights act would have no power.

              • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Most are left to the states, I’d argue. Traditionally how the state determines and sends electors is entirely up to them, they just can’t disenfranchise their voters per the rights in the constitution.

      • CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        There’s a reason that there is such a tiny list of reasons for justifying this. It’s supposed to be a near impossibility for anyone to have qualified for such a measure. And then there’s Trump who just blasted himself right past that hurdle.

        Hopefully what comes out of this is a rigid set of standards that any state has to meet before resorting to this in the future. It remains to be seen whether those strictures will come down in favor of Trump or not. They may well decide that he’s met all the requirements for disqualification and he will be the benchmark (skidmark might be more accurate) going forward.

      • Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        Except our constitution gives us 1 reason. Trump managed to break the 1 rule. Either we ignore the constitution or we follow it.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        can you imagine that they won’t do this anyway, though? the house just passed an impeachment inquiry without even being able to articulate charges, out and out admitting that it’s a fishing expedition. no appeasement. we use every weapon in our arsenal to defend democracy from the terrorists.

      • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        How does relieving the housing crisis lead to corporations buying cheap farmland?

        And how’s any of that related to candidates being removed from the states’ ballots?

        • FlickOfTheBean@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I think the commenter you’re replying to made some logical enough jumps.

          Like it seems that they’re assuming people in Republican rural counties who start doing this to random candidates would move out, causing a localized housing crisis in that area that banks could come in and capitalize on like the vultures that they tend to act like. That would lead to the pattern that they’re painting in their comment.

          So I can imagine how it’s all connected, but that said, I don’t claim to know the inner mind of this poster so I could be very wrong.

  • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    The Constitution doesn’t give the deciding power to the SCOTUS, it requires a 3/4 vote of Congress to resolve this.

    It’s completely unconstitutional for the SCOTUS to be making the final decision. They should be the ones penalizing any state that doesn’t remove him from the ballot for violating the Constitution.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      scotus decides what the constitution means, though. and they’ll decide it doesn’t mean this, because they’re openly corrupt, bought and paid for with receipts.

    • Zengen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      6 months ago

      That would only hold true if Donald trump was officially convicted of the crime of insurrection. A crime which so far he hasn’t even been charged with. Until he is charged tried and convicted of insurrection the 14th amendment isnt applicable here and I’d bet my money that’s exactly what the surpreme court is going to rule on.

      If they are serious about wanting to remove him from the vallt then they should start there. By trying him for insurrection.

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        56
        ·
        6 months ago

        The 14th doesn’t require a conviction. It was written in the wake of the civil war, to prevent confederates from holding office without needing to convict them.

        The union didn’t want to have to drag every confederate to court just to keep them out of office, because the union knew it would be impossible for the courts to handle and would run counter to reunification efforts. But they were afraid that the confederates would attempt to seize power via the elections once it became clear that the insurrection had failed. So they wanted a way to preemptively bar any former confederate from running for office.

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          I bet Zengen is right though. I bet if SCOTUS hears the case the majority opinion will pretend that a conviction is a necessary requirement to use the 14th amendment, even though it obviously isn’t.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        constitution says absolutely zero about conviction, and 14th has been invoked in the past against people without convictions. but you’re right, scotus will ignore both the constitution and precedent because they’ve been hand selected to grant the presidency to the traitor.

      • Rusticus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Let us know where the wording of the 14th requires a conviction. He’s being judged in COURTS by the state supreme courts. You are creating hurdles that simply aren’t present.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      So it’s liberals for “states’ rights”, like in “Firefly” and SW Prequels?

      (Not American, so you may consider this joke dumb.)

  • Insig@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    What does this even mean? If he allowed in all the other states and wins. Do these 2 states have to follow suit? Do they elect their own president? Are they independent for the interim?

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      You can still vote for someone not on the ballot, it’s just a means of reducing the vote

    • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      6 months ago

      Lincoln didn’t qualify to be on the ballot in 10 out of 11 Confederate states. In Virginia northerners were successful in getting enough signatures to get him on but he got basically no votes.

    • Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      The Supreme Court will have to rule whether or not the 14th disqualifies him. We can’t have states disagree on who the president is.

    • CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Considering the court is currently stacked with his own judges, I’m definitely not optimistic about them ruling against him.

  • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    This might be a play to get him to admit he didn’t win a second term.

    Maybe it’s wishful thinking, and the most ardent cultists will just pivot… but a girl can dream. It might snap some people out of the illusion.

  • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Nice!

    E: doubly nice because Maine actually wasn’t a 100% D state in the last 2 elections. They went 1/4 to Trump in both 2016 and 2020.