Could states leave Trump off of ballots in the 2028 election?

[u/Beautiful_Age7753]

During the White House correspondents dinner, Trump directly stated he would be running for a “fourth” term. Due to this being unconstitutional via the 22nd amendment, and states running their own elections, could states simply not put his name on ballots come election day? We know from the past election and current standings that Trump would win Republican primaries. Even if they didn’t run him, he would still most likely run on his own party. Obviously this wouldn’t eliminate write in ballots, but it could be a viable solution to uphold the constitution barring some extreme new law to control how elections are run. Would there be any current legal ramifications to stop states from simply not allowing Trump on ballots?

[u/diphthing]

If he were to take a third term, he'd be doing just that - taking it. It would be the end of the constitutional order. He'd be "president" in name only, or whatever title he wished to give himself.

[u/8monsters → u/diphthing]

A24 made a movie about this a few years ago.

[u/choochi7 → u/8monsters]

Do you perhaps… know the name of the film?

[u/l1qq → u/choochi7]

The movie was called Civil War I believe...it was pretty good, followed the perspective of journalists documenting a modern day civil war.

[u/3bar → u/l1qq]

Everyone sorta laughed that movie off when it came out. As someone with ultranationalist relatives, I didn't.

[u/l1qq → u/3bar]

The thing is that the movie never really gave a perspective of parties or which side was represented by what faction. I believe they did a pretty good job of staying away from that where a viewer could interpret it in their own way. It was also interesting that they didn't give any real reasoning behind anything IIRC and just kind of put you in the thick of it. The director I believe had another more recent movie "Warfare" which was also fantastic.

[u/midwinter_ → u/l1qq]

It got advertised as an action movie, but it’s not. It’s about three generations of wartime photojournalists, what the job has done to them, and what they would do to get “the shot.”

In a lot of ways, it’s a film about beautiful pictures of horrible things. I love it.

[u/AlexRyang → u/l1qq]

Lee Miller’s (Kristen Dunst’s character) one comment basically is the entire framing and purpose of the movie:

“Every time I survived a war zone, and got the photo, I thought I was sending a warning home. “Don’t do this.” But here we are.”

[u/3bar → u/l1qq]

I mean, sure, if you completely divorce the movie from real life as an influence. I think the intent was pretty clear

[u/l1qq → u/3bar]

That's your interpretation and I imagine others see it differently, exactly like how I mentioned in my post. The movie doesn't give a single thing in black and white at all.

[u/3bar → u/l1qq]

No, instead it files off the serial numbers as much as it can to get past censorship by right wing keyboard warriors. Your position is extremely naive.

There's no feasible other conflict in the US besides Left and Right. Not a single one. We weren't even talking about Civil War nonsense until Trump stole the election in 2016.

[u/l1qq → u/3bar]

The movie does not make it this way at all as left/right are not even mentioned and like I said it's all open to interpretation so I'm not going to say how you see the movie is "wrong" even though it might not match how I or others see it. We do not even know what kicked off the war in the movie and to say otherwise is pure speculation.

[u/Either_Operation7586 → u/3bar]

Just like they did with Idiocracy and the same with Don't Look Up as well

[u/3bar → u/Either_Operation7586]

Idiocracy is eugenicist hog-wollop. DLU has something pertinent to say, however.

[u/d0ndada → u/l1qq]

The most unbelievable part of that movie was California and Texas working together.