Trump’s on the ballot, but the Supreme Court left key constitutional questions unanswered

CNN ^

[Tench_Coxe]

CNN — This much is certain: Former President Donald Trump’s name will appear on the ballot this year as voters in every state choose a president.

But while the unsigned, 13-page opinion the Supreme Court handed down Monday decisively resolved the uncertainty around Trump’s eligibility for a second term, it left unsettled questions that could some day boomerang back to the justices.

Could Democratic lawmakers, for instance, disqualify Trump next January when the electoral votes are counted if he wins the November election? Could a state keep a president seeking a third term, in violation of the 22nd Amendment, off its ballot?

[Tench_Coxe]

You ever deal with a person purposely being obtuse, or looking to change rules in the middle of a game (Calvinball)?

And what is with the bolded part? An admission Trump is President and Biden is illegitimate, or trying to "reinterpret" the 22nd amendment?

[CottonBall]

CNN is trying its hardest to come up with stupid questions

[Eva]

The rumor is that the court has already decided in Trump’s favor on the eligibility issue, both civil and criminal.

[Bishop_Malachi]

Could Democratic lawmakers, for instance, disqualify Trump next January when the electoral votes are counted if he wins the November election?

____________________________________________________

This is what people who believe in “Lawfare First” do. Every solution can be solved by emphasizing “rule of law” but only when they get to determine the outcome in every case.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Could Democratic lawmakers, for instance, disqualify Trump next January when the electoral votes are counted if he wins the November election?

So they want to "reverse the results of an election?"

The same thing they accuse "insurrectionist" Trump of?

[Signalman]

If I recall, Richard Nixon ran for President three times:

1960, 1968 and 1972.

[ClearCase_guy]

Just wait for the Democrats to suddenly announce that Trump won in 2020. So, he was elected twice already and cannot run this year.

[hanamizu]

And what is with the bolded part?

---

I don’t think the bold-faced bit is anything dark or devious (although I could well be wrong). What if Obama declared his intention to seek a 3rd term, or if Arnold Schwarzenegger announced he was running for President. Could a state keep them off of the ballot since they are both Constitutionally not able to run? SCOTUS implied that determining eligibility is not the states’ call.

As far as dem Representatives refusing to recognize Trump’s Electors, well then we have a real Constitutional crisis on our hands.

[iontheball]

This is standard court action to only resolve the controlling issue in the case. In this case removing a Federal candidate from an election ballot is strictly a Federal jurisdictional matter.

[Skywise]

First off - Democratic electors refusing to vote for Trump got quashed back in 2016 because Hillary wanted to force the electors to choose her over Trump. (Course she was never prosecuted for that)
So they changed the laws stating that electors HAD to elect who they were chosen for.
So that throws out CNN’s first hand wringing concern troll.

Second - the 22nd amendment prevents Congress from electing the president for a third term anyway. It’d make for a nice constitutional crisis if somebody did but I doubt anyone would go through the effort and cost to try it except as a giant troll…

[albie]

It’s CNN. Enough said.

[DannyTN]

The most important question in my opinion has been hanging out there since Obama’s birth certificate was forged.

And that is who has the responsibility of ensuring eligibility? And that is Congress. It’s not states. It’s not some federal agency, unless Congress writes a law and delegates that authority.

I think Congress should write a law to have a federal agency investigate eligibility. But the agency should be tasked with after investigating kicking any ineligible candidates back to Congress for Congress to have the final say. We should never leave it to the executive to determine eligibility because we have seen the executive weaponized.

[Lazamataz]

I have more questions CNN could pose:

Could Democrats disqualify Trump if he throws slices of bologna out of Air Force One?

Could Democrats keep Trump off the ticket if he buys 20 monkeys and smears them with marmalade?

Could Democrats refuse to certify a Trump win if too many windmills are erected in New Hampshire?

WE NEED TO KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS!!!!

[fightin kentuckian]

CNN saying, “Soooo what your sayin is.....There’s still a chance! Woohoo!”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3QldN3EnBI

[Tell It Right]

Thanks for the reminder about Hillary wanting to force electors to vote against the voters!

[desertsolitaire]

Harold Stassen ran more than that. So Did Lyndon Larouche. Heck in 1908, Bryan ran AGAIN, against Taft. The slogan was; “You vote for Bryan anytime; Vote for Taft!”
My Grandfather (born in 1909) was named after him.

[odawg]

“It appears the court is limiting how Congress goes about enforcing Section 3 through legislation, which may also limit Congress if it attempts to refuse to count electoral votes,” said Derek Muller, an election law expert at Notre Dame Law School.

Refusing to count electoral votes??? Trump did not ask for a refusal, he merely asked for a hold to allow an investigation, and then was accused of insurrection. Refusing to count electoral votes based on partisan politics, however, is insurrection, or in other words, treason.

[abbastanza]

CNN can come up with the dumbest questions. They spend their time looking for ways to start a fight.

[econjack]

Another “I-Wish-I-Ruled-The-World” piece of trash that CNN tries to pass as journalism.

[jerod]

CNN and their ‘legal’ experts are grasping at straws... They are blissfully ignorant.