Let us suppose that the judge rules that MJT perjured herself; failed to give truthful testimony under oath by abusing the ‘I don’t recall’ response; and that she violated the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment. 1/8
In that event, does Raffensperger have the authority to allow her name to be on the primary ballot, as the judge in the case seemed to imply today? Is it his call? 2/8
Raffensperger is GA’s Secretary of State, so it would clearly be his decision with regard to any election law governing the state of GA, but could he ignore and in effect overrule a federal court in the matter by allowing MJT on the R primary ballot for a federal office? 3/8
I don’t think so. Why? BECAUSE ultimately it is the federal courts that rule on what is permissible or not in a federal election in such questions. That is clear. 4/8
Suppose, for example, that a district in GA ran a primary election in which the candidate that won failed either to be at least 25 years old, or to have been a U.S. citizen for at least seven years, or to live in the state they represent. 5/8
Would that *candicacy* be allowed on the ballot in GA by a federal court?
I don’t think so, because the candidate if elected could not hold the office for which he was running, as that would be a violation of U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 2. 6/8
So the candidacy and the election ballot itself would be a constitutional offense. 7/8
Federal jurisdiction here would appear to be plenary.
For example, a state cannot put a state initiative or referendum anywhere on the federal section of a ballot (thinking, perhaps, that this could increase the chances that voters in the state would vote on it). 8/8
@JimNivison Challengers are invoking Section 3 of the 14th amendment, which plainly states that anyone guilty of insurrection (think Cawthorn and MTG) are ineligible to hold any federal office.
So the issue before the courts is most decidedly not “theater,” whatever that might mean. 1/6
@JimNivison The insurrectionist MoCs like Cawthorn and MTG sought through their words and actions to nullify *my* vote for Biden, by acting to maintain Trump in the WH, even though he had, by law, undoubtedly lost the election. (Even Barr said so.) 2/6
@JimNivison Should they be allowed to run for reelection in 2022? Of course not.
Having taken the oath to support the constitution, they have run afoul of the plain meaning of Section 3. Allowing them on the ballot for a federal office would be an offense against federal election law. 3/6
Josh Blackman and Seth Tillman, two constitutional law professors, argued two days ago that the MJT and Cawthorn cases (and others like them) cannot be decided at the state level, by either state courts or election boards. 1/16 tinyurl.com/y2xoj593
I have argued the same in previous threads, though I came at the matter from a different direction. 2/16
My biggest disagreement (at least I assume it’s a disagreement) with Blackman and Tillman centers on this sentence in their NYT op-ed: 3/16
Forbes also believes that it’s Raffensperger’s call. For now, that is the case, but ultimately this will end up in SCOTUS. Why? 1/7 tinyurl.com/y4nvq7bo
Because a state court or a state official like Raffensperger cannot, at the end of the day, decide issues of federal law, and this case is ultimately about whether a federal law has been violated. 2/7
Greg Yudin--a sociologist at a university in Moscow--is probably unique in having been right about *everything* so far, so his forecasts carry a lot of weight. Here is how Yudin sees things now and in the near future. 1/7 tinyurl.com/ycc9qmp4
1/ Putin has succeeded in “depoliticizing” the Russian population. Russians (the non-elites) are disengaged, believing that no one can stop Putin from doing what he will do anyway. 2/7
2/ For the elites and Putin in particular, a failure to achieve victory in UKR would be an existential threat.
3/ As of now, Russians believe that the setbacks, including the economic ones, are temporary and are expecting a "return to normal" in a matter of weeks. 3/7
The outcome is likely to turn on UKR-NATO and E. Ukraine & Crimea. 1/7 tinyurl.com/y8scysbm
As for the latter, Putin’s negotiating position is so weak that he will be unable to get a formal declaration that Crimea is part of Russia or for autonomy from the rest of Ukraine for Donetsk and Luhansk. 2/7
However, he has already relocated 400K E Ukrainians to Russia. If they have in fact gone willingly, he will be in a position to claim that he has achieved his objective of saving them (pro-Russian Ukrainians) from Nazi genocide. 3/7 tinyurl.com/ybn5jl6p
Biden, NATO, and the EU have been laying down red lines for Putin in the last couple of days. FWIW: here’s how I see the red lines: 1/10
1/ Use chemical or biological weapons in UKR, and we will respond in kind against the Russian army in UKR (we are already sending UKR these weapons). See also 4/ below. 2/10
2/ Use nukes in UKR (much less anywhere else) and we are prepared to respond, the response not being limited necessarily to UKR. (Our memo to Putin: DO NOT DO THIS! BIG MISTAKE!) 3/10