Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Voters have standing.I'm not sure this will work because of "standing". It may have to be a candidate that gets disqualified.
Not saying this is fact, just a possibility.
That isn't how courts look at it. I don't like when they do this either but right now there hasn't been a single voter stopped from voting for anyone.
Yes, that is how courts look at it.
The law will obviously stop voters from voting for Trump.
What kind of idiot are you?
You can't sue unless you have been harmed. You can't sue because you think you might be harmed. I don't know what to tell you. That's the way it works.
Yet the only harm you can think of was your fucking moron notion that voters can't vote for someone unless they're on the ballot.Of course they are. Only a certified moron would disagree.Fucking moron, the people who filed the suit are not harmed by the law.It represents the people who filed this suit, moron. Note: That's exactly what I said. I did not say it represents "THE PEOPLE." That's a deliberate misstatement - a lie, in other words.Judicial watch does not represent the people, ya fucking moron. The people have not hired them nor have the people filed suit. And even if the people did, they still don't have standing. A candidate who's name would otherwise appear on the ballot would.Judicial Watch is simply the legal counsel for the people who are suing, dumbass.And suits were thrown out against such 3rd party activists who tried to gain access to Obama's birth certificate and school records -- because they didn't have standing. And those people could actually show harm.
You can't sue on behalf of someone else.
Are you actually claiming Trump's name wasn't going to be on the ballot?
Nope, it's nothing like that, fucking moron, since a burglar offering you that option is in the commission of committing a felony. Whereas California requiring a candidate's tax return is legal.That's his choice, fucking moron. And even if he chooses not to be on the ballot, that doesn't prevent anyone from voting for him.His name will not be on the ballot. Case closed . . . unless you're an idiot.Fucking moron, any voter can still vote for trump even if his name does not appear on the ballot. You lose again because you're a loser.He's not allowed to vote for the candidate of his choice, you fucking moron. I thought you leftwing vermin claimed to believe in democracy.Aww, you hurt my feelings, ya fucking moron. Try explaining how a voter is harmed by a law that applies to candidates and not them....
That's the kind of choice a mugger gives you when he tells you to hand over your wallet or take a bullet in the stomach. It amazes me how often you Stalinist douchebags use this thug morality to justify your assaults on our freedom.
No, you can't do that either; otherwise, the line of conservatives filing suit to claim Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional would extend beyond what the eye can see. The only time you can do that is when you're the defendant in a case and you want to fight the charges against you base on their Constitutionality.Voters have standing.I'm not sure this will work because of "standing". It may have to be a candidate that gets disqualified.
Not saying this is fact, just a possibility.
That isn't how courts look at it. I don't like when they do this either but right now there hasn't been a single voter stopped from voting for anyone.
Yes, that is how courts look at it.
The law will obviously stop voters from voting for Trump.
What kind of idiot are you?
You can't sue unless you have been harmed. You can't sue because you think you might be harmed. I don't know what to tell you. That's the way it works.
That's not true at all. That's only for a lawsuit where you are seeking damages. If you're simply saying a law is unconstitutional then of course you don't have to be damaged to sue.
No, you can't do that either; otherwise, the line of conservatives filing suit to claim Roe v. Wade would extend beyond what the eye can see. The only time you can do that is when you're the defendant in a case and you want to fight the charges against you base on their Constitutionality.Voters have standing.
That isn't how courts look at it. I don't like when they do this either but right now there hasn't been a single voter stopped from voting for anyone.
Yes, that is how courts look at it.
The law will obviously stop voters from voting for Trump.
What kind of idiot are you?
You can't sue unless you have been harmed. You can't sue because you think you might be harmed. I don't know what to tell you. That's the way it works.
That's not true at all. That's only for a lawsuit where you are seeking damages. If you're simply saying a law is unconstitutional then of course you don't have to be damaged to sue.
You lied again. I didn't say that.Yet the only harm you can think of was your fucking moron notion that voters can't vote for someone unless they're on the ballot.Of course they are. Only a certified moron would disagree.Fucking moron, the people who filed the suit are not harmed by the law.It represents the people who filed this suit, moron. Note: That's exactly what I said. I did not say it represents "THE PEOPLE." That's a deliberate misstatement - a lie, in other words.Judicial watch does not represent the people, ya fucking moron. The people have not hired them nor have the people filed suit. And even if the people did, they still don't have standing. A candidate who's name would otherwise appear on the ballot would.Judicial Watch is simply the legal counsel for the people who are suing, dumbass.
Are you actually claiming Trump's name wasn't going to be on the ballot?
Wrong again. Just admit that you endorse the ethics if thugs.Nope, it's nothing like that, fucking moron, since a burglar offering you that option is in the commission of committing a felony. Whereas California requiring a candidate's tax return is legal.That's his choice, fucking moron. And even if he chooses not to be on the ballot, that doesn't prevent anyone from voting for him.His name will not be on the ballot. Case closed . . . unless you're an idiot.Fucking moron, any voter can still vote for trump even if his name does not appear on the ballot. You lose again because you're a loser.He's not allowed to vote for the candidate of his choice, you fucking moron. I thought you leftwing vermin claimed to believe in democracy.
That's the kind of choice a mugger gives you when he tells you to hand over your wallet or take a bullet in the stomach. It amazes me how often you Stalinist douchebags use this thug morality to justify your assaults on our freedom.
Yes, you did, ya fucking moron. You said voters would be harmed because the won't be able to vote for the candidate of their choice.You lied again. I didn't say that.Yet the only harm you can think of was your fucking moron notion that voters can't vote for someone unless they're on the ballot.Of course they are. Only a certified moron would disagree.Fucking moron, the people who filed the suit are not harmed by the law.It represents the people who filed this suit, moron. Note: That's exactly what I said. I did not say it represents "THE PEOPLE." That's a deliberate misstatement - a lie, in other words.Judicial watch does not represent the people, ya fucking moron. The people have not hired them nor have the people filed suit. And even if the people did, they still don't have standing. A candidate who's name would otherwise appear on the ballot would.
Are you actually claiming Trump's name wasn't going to be on the ballot?
He's not allowed to vote for the candidate of his choice, you fucking moron.
Oh? What's wrong? Are you saying it's legal to rob someone? Or are you saying it's illegal to require a candidate's tax returns?Wrong again. Just admit that you endorse the ethics if thugs.Nope, it's nothing like that, fucking moron, since a burglar offering you that option is in the commission of committing a felony. Whereas California requiring a candidate's tax return is legal.That's his choice, fucking moron. And even if he chooses not to be on the ballot, that doesn't prevent anyone from voting for him.His name will not be on the ballot. Case closed . . . unless you're an idiot.Fucking moron, any voter can still vote for trump even if his name does not appear on the ballot. You lose again because you're a loser.
That's the kind of choice a mugger gives you when he tells you to hand over your wallet or take a bullet in the stomach. It amazes me how often you Stalinist douchebags use this thug morality to justify your assaults on our freedom.
Yet the only harm you can think of was your fucking moron notion that voters can't vote for someone unless they're on the ballot.Of course they are. Only a certified moron would disagree.Fucking moron, the people who filed the suit are not harmed by the law.It represents the people who filed this suit, moron. Note: That's exactly what I said. I did not say it represents "THE PEOPLE." That's a deliberate misstatement - a lie, in other words.Judicial watch does not represent the people, ya fucking moron. The people have not hired them nor have the people filed suit. And even if the people did, they still don't have standing. A candidate who's name would otherwise appear on the ballot would.Judicial Watch is simply the legal counsel for the people who are suing, dumbass.
Are you actually claiming Trump's name wasn't going to be on the ballot?
As I said before, the law will not survive the 9th circus, the supreme court decided that States can't add requirements for ballot access for federal offices in 1995.
Today's cases present a challenge to an amendment to the Arkansas State Constitution that prohibits the name of an otherwise eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the general election ballot if that candidate has already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the amendment violates the Federal Constitution. We agree with that holding. Such a state imposed restriction is contrary to the "fundamental principle of our representative democracy," embodied in the Constitution, that "the people should choose whom they please to govern them." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 547 (1969) (internal quotation marks omitted). Allowing individual States to adopt their own qualifications for congressional service would be inconsistent with the Framers' vision of a uniform National Legislature representing the people of the United States. If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended.
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
Oh? What's wrong? Are you saying it's legal to rob someone? Or are you saying it's illegal to require a candidate's tax returns?Wrong again. Just admit that you endorse the ethics if thugs.Nope, it's nothing like that, fucking moron, since a burglar offering you that option is in the commission of committing a felony. Whereas California requiring a candidate's tax return is legal.That's his choice, fucking moron. And even if he chooses not to be on the ballot, that doesn't prevent anyone from voting for him.His name will not be on the ballot. Case closed . . . unless you're an idiot.
That's the kind of choice a mugger gives you when he tells you to hand over your wallet or take a bullet in the stomach. It amazes me how often you Stalinist douchebags use this thug morality to justify your assaults on our freedom.
Compelling.Yet the only harm you can think of was your fucking moron notion that voters can't vote for someone unless they're on the ballot.Of course they are. Only a certified moron would disagree.Fucking moron, the people who filed the suit are not harmed by the law.It represents the people who filed this suit, moron. Note: That's exactly what I said. I did not say it represents "THE PEOPLE." That's a deliberate misstatement - a lie, in other words.Judicial watch does not represent the people, ya fucking moron. The people have not hired them nor have the people filed suit. And even if the people did, they still don't have standing. A candidate who's name would otherwise appear on the ballot would.
Are you actually claiming Trump's name wasn't going to be on the ballot?
Everything you need to know about the law and its fate is contained in this post:
As I said before, the law will not survive the 9th circus, the supreme court decided that States can't add requirements for ballot access for federal offices in 1995.
Today's cases present a challenge to an amendment to the Arkansas State Constitution that prohibits the name of an otherwise eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the general election ballot if that candidate has already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the amendment violates the Federal Constitution. We agree with that holding. Such a state imposed restriction is contrary to the "fundamental principle of our representative democracy," embodied in the Constitution, that "the people should choose whom they please to govern them." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 547 (1969) (internal quotation marks omitted). Allowing individual States to adopt their own qualifications for congressional service would be inconsistent with the Framers' vision of a uniform National Legislature representing the people of the United States. If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended.
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
.
Compelling.Yet the only harm you can think of was your fucking moron notion that voters can't vote for someone unless they're on the ballot.Of course they are. Only a certified moron would disagree.Fucking moron, the people who filed the suit are not harmed by the law.It represents the people who filed this suit, moron. Note: That's exactly what I said. I did not say it represents "THE PEOPLE." That's a deliberate misstatement - a lie, in other words.
Are you actually claiming Trump's name wasn't going to be on the ballot?
Everything you need to know about the law and its fate is contained in this post:
As I said before, the law will not survive the 9th circus, the supreme court decided that States can't add requirements for ballot access for federal offices in 1995.
Today's cases present a challenge to an amendment to the Arkansas State Constitution that prohibits the name of an otherwise eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the general election ballot if that candidate has already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the amendment violates the Federal Constitution. We agree with that holding. Such a state imposed restriction is contrary to the "fundamental principle of our representative democracy," embodied in the Constitution, that "the people should choose whom they please to govern them." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 547 (1969) (internal quotation marks omitted). Allowing individual States to adopt their own qualifications for congressional service would be inconsistent with the Framers' vision of a uniform National Legislature representing the people of the United States. If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended.
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
.
