Lawsuit filed in New Mexico to remove Trump from ballot

[ozro]

Didn't they just ban all guns in NM?

Only in Albuquerque, and that has nothing to do with this topic.

 

[ozro]

Your game is too low. If a state court decides that Trump's behavior meet the 14th Amendment criteria, it would go to SCOTUS for decision. This particular set of conservatives would probably rule against Trump.

Please follow your advice and read the 14th amendment. State courts are not able to do such a thing, although they could indeed influence congress.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Please follow your advice and read the 14th amendment. State courts are not able to do such a thing, although they could indeed influence congress.

ozro, the 14th amendment does not prevent states courts from doing this, so it will go to SCOTUS.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Federal lawsuit filed to remove Donald Trump from New Mexico ballots

It looks to remove Trump from the New Mexico Republican primary election and the 2024 presidential ballot in the state.

www.koat.com

"A Texas man has filed a lawsuit against former President Donald Trump and New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver."

I don't know why. 'Texas man' filed this in NM.
But the article says he has done the same in CO and MN. While I don't see this going anywhere, it is newsworthy as well as worthy of discussion.

My opinion is this should be the business of New Mexican people, specifically the person in charge of elections. I also think without a conviction, nobody should be barred from the ballot. I also believe this 'Texas man' should be charged with election interference if his cases are tossed out of court.

Try to engage in actual discussion and keep the name-calling to a minimum....please

He had no standing and should pay the court for wasting their time

 

[ozro]

ozro, the 14th amendment does not prevent states courts from doing this, so it will go to SCOTUS.

ozro, the 14th amendment does not prevent states courts from doing this, so it will go to SCOTUS.

Article 15 of the 14th amendment indicates that Congress has authority to enforce or to override article 13 of the 14th amendment. What you are saying was presented by an attorney as a novel legal theory. On CNN no less. Novel legal theories seldom are successful.

 

[my2¢]

Thinking outside the box, there is also the possibility that Trump and his folks are behind the lawsuit. Seems like a sure defeat for the party filing the lawsuit and a way for Trump to get this out of the way now instead of later.

Far-fetched but I'm personally aware of one situation where a company intentionally had somebody file a lawsuit against the company. The company desired to change a bylaw and to avoid a shareholder's vote on the matter (in which they'd likely lose) they came up with a way for the court to order the change.

 

[ozro]

Thinking outside the box, there is also the possibility that Trump and his folks are behind the lawsuit. Seems like a sure defeat for the party filing the lawsuit and a way for Trump to get this out of the way now instead of later.

Far-fetched but I'm personally aware of one situation where a company intentionally had somebody file a lawsuit against the company. The company desired to change a bylaw and to avoid a shareholder's vote on the matter (in which they'd likely lose) they came up with a way for the court to order the change.

Not too long ago I would have agreed that this sounds "far-fetched". However, the world seems to have become a place where far-fetched has become more normal.
Very good post though, and something I had not considered.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Article 15 of the 14th amendment indicates that Congress has authority to enforce or to override article 13 of the 14th amendment. What you are saying was presented by an attorney as a novel legal theory. On CNN no less. Novel legal theories seldom are successful.

No, it does not, and even if it did, the Senate will not go along with it. It is not a novel theory. Of course, we have never had an insurgent President before.

 

[ozro]

No, it does not, and even if it did, the Senate will not go along with it. It is not a novel theory. Of course, we have never had an insurgent President before.

You haven't read it.

 

[ozro]

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This includes a fairly in-depth discussion seemingly presenting several arguments.
Please read at least the portions under discussion.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Read it and weep.

Section 3​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

[ozro]

Read it and weep.

Section 3​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

That's not all of it. Legal documents must be considered in their totality. That's what legal scholars and lawyers do.

 

[Rawley]

Novel legal theories seldom are successful.

And these days, can get you criminally indicted.

 

[ozro]

Read it and weep.

Section 3​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

No weeping, and I ask respectfully to remain respectful. I removed you from my iggy list to speak with you and have been nothing but respectful and only ask the same.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

That's not all of it. Legal documents must be considered in their totality. That's what legal scholars and lawyers do.

That's the meet of it. Co, NH, NM, and FL are or will be considering. Other states will as well. It will go to SCOTUS.

Whether you Ignore me or not, the fact remains you are wrong so far on this question. It will go to SCOTUS,.

 

[ozro]

And these days, can get you criminally indicted.

That's true

 

[ozro]

That's the meet of it. Co, NH, NM, and FL are or will be considering. Other states will as well. It will go to SCOTUS.,

Yes it likely will end up before the highest court, but it seems it lies within the authority of Congress to be decided one way or the other.

 

[Thunk]

Only in Albuquerque, and that has nothing to do with this topic.

Sure it does.

First they ban guns.

Then they tell you who you can vote for.

Then they go door to door forcibly vaccinating you & your children.

And then...

And you're full of shit only in albuquerque...it was state wide..A dictate issued by a democrat governor. But sheriffs & even the democrat AG told the governor to pound sand.

 

[ozro]

That's the meet of it. Co, NH, NM, and FL are or will be considering. Other states will as well. It will go to SCOTUS.

Whether you Ignore me or not, the fact remains you are wrong so far on this question. It will go to SCOTUS,.

I will add that legal scholars, lawyers and judges and justices demand more that the "meat of it" when they decide a case or make decisions.

 

[Rawley]

That's the meet of it. Co, NH, NM, and FL are or will be considering. Other states will as well. It will go to SCOTUS.

Whether you Ignore me or not, the fact remains you are wrong so far on this question. It will go to SCOTUS,.

Nah. This lawsuits is absurd, as are any brought by individuals in any of those other states.