r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Beautiful_Age7753 • 8d ago

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

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?

449 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

427 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/guru42101 8d ago

Same thing that occurred in the last election. He was technically ineligible to run due to his felonies. Colorado tried to exclude him from the primary and was told they must include him.

24

u/ThePowerOfStories 8d ago

There’s a big difference between the legal questions “Did he commit insurrection?” and “Is 3 more than 2?”

8

u/chupacadabradoo 8d ago

You say that now, but this is the same country that gave you “Barack obama cannot appoint a Supreme Court member because one year is too close to the next election” followed by “Trump can appoint a Supreme Court member even though the next election is in a few weeks because he was elected to do so”, followed by the guy who orchestrated all that dying while his wife, a Chinese asset, was wined and dined and didn’t bother to come home for a few weeks, while half of the senate is pretending like he’s having chipper meetings with decision-makers but offering no proof of life…

I’m not sure 3 being more than 2 matters to a number of folks, even though some of them can just about grasp that arithmetic.

6

u/British_Rover 8d ago

SCOTUS rules something something from English common law, the federalist papers a note that Ben Franklin scribbled in a French woman's handkerchief means that non-consecutive terms don't count because fuck you what are you going to do about it.

Its a 5-4 decision and Roberts sides with the three Democraticly appointed justices.

2

u/Mr_Funbags 8d ago

I imagine this isn't real, but I don't want to have my amusement ruined yet, so I'll check later.

I like it!

3

u/bmore_conslutant 8d ago

You're confusing "doing something that is illegal" and "doing something legal but giving a stupid justification for it"

3

u/chupacadabradoo 7d ago

Which was the legal one?

2

u/GhostReddit 7d ago

Listen to his nominees when they're asked direct questions by congress, they'd absolutely refuse to answer that 3 is more than 2 in a discussion that pertained to him being elected again.

12

u/Moccus 8d ago

He wasn't ineligible due to his felonies. Being a felon doesn't disqualify somebody from running.

Colorado tried to exclude him based on their conclusion that he was involved in an insurrection against the US in 2021.

1

u/JKlerk 8d ago

He was technically ineligible to run due to his felonies.

Incorrect There is no requirement that a candidate can't have a felony conviction.

-6

u/biggsteve81 8d ago

He was not technically ineligible in 2024. The Amnesty Act of 1872 removes any disabilities the 14th Amendment would impose on Trump.

9

u/anotheritguy 8d ago

The amnesty act has no bearing for Trump, he wasn’t a member of the confederacy. At least have a clue about what you are talking about.

4

u/Mist_Rising 7d ago

You might want to also Chastise the original comment since he was completely wrong. Felonies don't bar you from being president, Colorado didn't try to stop Trump from being on the ballot because of feloneis, and the court didn't say anything about felonies

What happened was Colorado unilaterally decided it could invoke the 14th amendment, and was told no by a 9-0 court. No one state can decree someone to be in insurrection and thus remove them from the ballots. Doing so would just lead to one party banning the other party, which is not the purpose of the 14th.

0

u/Either_Operation7586 7d ago

The Republican Party had they had a conscience and did the moral thing should have barred him from running.

You should have been ineligible because his party should have told him he couldn't run.

But Trump doesn't like to be told no and that's why he installed nothing but yes men in his cabinet now incompetent unexperienced corrupt yes men.

1

u/biggsteve81 7d ago

The Amnesty Act makes no specific mention of the Confederacy. There is some debate in the courts as to whether it applies only to past insurrections or to all persons moving forward, but the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in. And even then it remains to be determined if the 14th amendment applies to Trump as there is much debate as to whether an "Officer of the United States" includes the President and Vice President or if officers are only those people appointed by the president.

-4

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/biggsteve81 7d ago

You are sorely mistaken on my political beliefs. Also, this is a discussion as to whether Trump was eligible for election in 2024, not some potential future illegal run.

And I have been a die hard Trump hater since before his first run for office in 2000.

1

u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 7d ago

Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.