Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft said that while he didn’t want to do it, he had to remind people of how “severe” the situation is.
A top Republican official in Missouri is threatening to remove President Joe Biden from appearing on the ballot as retaliation for the determination in two other states that Donald Trump doesn’t qualify because he “engaged in insurrection.”
“What has happened in Colorado & Maine is disgraceful & undermines our republic,” Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft wrote on the social media site X on Friday. “While I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this, if not, Secretaries of State will step in & ensure the new legal standard for @realDonaldTrump applies equally to @JoeBiden!”
Ashcroft’s post came shortly after the Supreme Court agreed to review a decision by Colorado’s high court that found Trump could be barred from the state’s primary ballot because of his actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Trump hasn’t been found guilty of sedition either.
Yes, I’m prepared for the down votes from a bunch of idiots who hate reality.
Article 14 doesn’t stipulate guilt, just engaging in which the Colorado court determined he did. His removal is the result of due process. So if they can show in court that Biden did the same then sure…but they cannot.
Not the same, purely partisan BS.
deleted by creator
Nor did I say it did.
No, but you said Trump has not been found guilty which is not required for him to be precluded from running for office. It’s an artificial bar some are trying to set unsupported by the text in the Constitution.
In any rational timeline SCOTUS would agree but with these justices who knows.
He was responding to another poster who said not being found guilty should make Biden immune to being taken off.
That’s the context in which that was said, and you’re ignoring that context. There’s a big difference between saying it’s also true of trump, for consistencies sake, and someone bringing it up out of the blue to advocate for trump.
You either have poor reading comprehension or you are responding in bad faith.
I understood it perfectly - my point which applies to both comments is that nothing in the 14th stipulates or indeed even mentions conviction, it does specifically exclude insurrection which applies, as determined by the Colorado court, solely to Trump.
The original response was flawed in its premise, agreed, but the guilt angle is Constitutionally irrelevant regardless - that was my point.
deleted by creator
Not in a court of law; but given all the evidence you have to be willfully ignorant to believe he isn’t guilty of it and wouldn’t receive a conviction if/when there actually is a trial.
I think he’s guilty of it. But we shouldn’t be talking about guilt because it’s not part of the amendment.
That’s just being pedantic. What’s a better word to use to say “he fucking did it?”
… Did you really just dismiss something that relies, literally, on pedantry, as a system of understanding, for being… Pedantic?
Guilt isn’t part of the amendment, just engaging in sedition is enough, not being found guilty of it.
Guilty being the operative word, which has legal definitions, feel free to ignore/dismiss actual meanings of words for convenience but that is an odd stance to be taking if you aren’t a MAGA? (I’ve interacted with you before, and you’re better than that which is why I’m confused)
He engaged in it. Another way to say that is he is guilty of it. I didn’t say he was convicted. So the question still stands: Do you have a better word that means “he fucking did it” that isn’t “guilty?” Because this isn’t a court room and we’re not lawyers. Reasonable people understood what I meant.
Correct. Trump hasn’t been found guilty of sedition. He has been found guilty of insurrection by the Colorado supreme Court. He also hasn’t been criminally convicted of insurrection, because this isn’t a criminal case.
Sedition and insurrection are different, and parts of different laws. Criminal and civil guilt are also different mechanisms of our laws, but the 14th amendment doesn’t state someone needs to have a criminal conviction to be considered ineligible for office.
An interesting thing I hadn’t thought about. Thanks.
You’re not wrong. However by the text of the Constitution a guilty verdict isn’t required to invalidate candidacy.
Technically that is true. However, he was impeached for incitement of insurrection by the House of Representatives. The majority of the Senate then voted to remove him after impeachment, but not the 2/3s majority required.
So no, not “found guilty of sedition”. But he was impeached for inciting insurrection.
So what, you’re suggesting the reality is it was staged? Because we all observed reality with our real eyes in real time.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator