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.

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.

  • PorradaVFR
    43•11 months ago

    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.

      • PorradaVFR
        11•11 months ago

        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.

        • @quo@feddit.uk
          11•11 months ago

          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.

          • PorradaVFR
            1•11 months ago

            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.