The Sunshine State governor made a similar comment recently when he warned that Maine’s ruling disqualifying Trump ‘opens up Pandora’s box’
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has revealed that he’s “looking” into ways to block President Joe Biden from the 2024 primary ballot in Florida.
“This is just going to be a tit for tat and it’s just not gonna end well,” the GOP presidential candidate warned Friday alongside Rep. Chip Roy, R-TX, according to a video posted by CNN. “You could make a case — I’m actually looking at this in Florida now [if we] could we make a credible case” to block Biden from the ballot “because of the invasion of 8 million.”
deleted by creator
Obama isn’t eligible to run for President because he already served 2 terms. It doesn’t need to go to court - he’s automatically disqualified. Same thing applies to insurrection, which is why convictions were not required after the Civil War to bar Confederates from holding office.
deleted by creator
And if Obama tried to run, he’d be rightfully barred from the ballot until he could prove his legal theory on why the law doesn’t apply to him.
Same thing for Trump.
With Biden there’s no existing law barring him from running. He hasn’t taken part in an insurrection or served 2 terms. He isn’t under 35 and isn’t foreign-born. There’s literally no constitutional justification for keeping him off the ballot.
With Trump there is.
Due process means the courts treat people as innocent until proven guilty.
The supreme Court like likely let both on the ballot because neither have a conviction.
Many laws are self-executing without the need for a conviction.
If you get drunk, you’re not allowed to drive just because you haven’t been convicted of having consumed alcohol. By being drunk you’re automatically barred from driving, and it’s 100% legal and proper for the state to prevent you from driving before you get behind the wheel.
A firearm salesman can’t sell a weapon to someone if they know they smoke weed, even if there’s never been a drug conviction. In fact, the salesman can be arrested for knowingly selling to a drug user even if there’s no proof of drug use.
A tradesman can lose their state license for without ever having the police or the courts involved if they perform dangerous work or work knowingly without permits.
An attorney can be prohibited from practicing law without having been convicted or even being charged with any crimes.
And an act of insurrection automatically disqualifies someone from being an officer of the United States. It’s self-executing and always has been in both the language of the law and in actual use.
I never said that’s how it worked.
I said that you only get punished after a conviction.
Which is exactly how drunk driving works. If you drive drunk, they cannot fine, imprison, or sanction you without that conviction.
Even the arrest and jailing has to stop if they take too long to press charges and get a court case. If they failed to do that, the drunk driver would go unpunished.
A firearm salesman is not the government deciding a punishment, they are a private entity that is legally required to use their own discretion.
The courts would rule whether he knowingly broke the law (selling to a drug user) separately.
The government would need a conviction to punish the drug user themselves.
They could punish the seller, even if the drug user was never convicted, if a court found the seller guilty (i.e. a conviction)
Without a conviction for the seller, they cannot be punished.
Yes, losing your licence doesn’t require conviction. Though there are avenues to appeal the licence removal in civil court.
This is because it’s considered civil not criminal.
The Bar association handles this, they are not quite a government agency, despite being closely linked to the government.
The supreme court obviously disagrees since they said they would review the case. That implies they consider some level of due process necessary before states can do this. Whether Colorado met those requirements is up for debate.
Yes, but if you get pulled over for drunk driving, you don’t get to continue driving home while awaiting the conviction. They can stop you from driving because the prohibition on driving while intoxicated is self-executing.
What requires a court process is the punishment for refusing to obey that restriction.
Donald Trump is drunk and Colorado and Maine are saying he’s not allowed to drive.
Colorado Judge ruled Trump committed insurrection. That’s as much due process as is needed. He’s been found guilty.
If that were true, the supreme Court wouldn’t have agreed to review Colorado’s decision.
“As much do process as needed” implies the case is over, not that it’s about to start. The real decision is up to the federal supreme Court, not the state supreme Court.