Legally preventing Trump from running is unconstitutional and is net detrimental to our nation.

[Dekster]

How many times do we need to point out to you that it is REPUBLICANS who are bringing these suits and applications to bar Trump from running. This is a moderate REPUBLICAN initiative and Democrats have had no part in it.

It is the border governors who are suffering from their failure to work towards any kind of immigration reform, but to simply use these poor people to create a political, but do NOTHING towards solving the problem.

The smarter voters are catching on to the notion that Republicans are REFUSING to deal with any of the nation's problems, because to help the American people or solve any of these problems would be giving "Joe Biden a win".

They've voted against any and all measures to deal with immigration or border security, including increasing border security, because they need all the angry voters they can get. If Biden "fixes" the border, how will that help them win in November??? Wash rinse and repeat for inflation - they voted against reducing insulin costs for seniors.

Republicans voted against the Instructure Bill, and then ran on the benefits it brought to their states!!! One Republican ran ads on a provision in the Inflation Reduction Act that gave a tax break to small restaurant owners, that he specifically opposed in Committee and bipartisan Committee meetings.

The Biden Economy is so successful, Donald Trump is already trying to take credit for it, saying it's running on the "fumes" of the Trump economy.

Nobody is going to be voting for the orange menace. They didn't vote for him in 2016, or 2020 and Trump has done NOTHING to endear himself to business leaders, big money Republican donors, women, minorities, or anyone with half a brain.

Even Republicans are saying they'll vote for Biden if Trump is the nominee. January 6th really was a bridge too far.

Sheena Bellows Main Secretary of State is a democrat....and the coloradfo case was filed by liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Nice try but fail.

 

[Rigby5]

I guess you missed the fact that the Constitution sets limits on who can be President in a number of ways and one of them is INSURRECTION

Except that Jan 6 clearly was NOT "insurrection", NOR was it ever proven in a court of law that Trump was encouraging any crime that occurred on Jan 6.
You can not violate the single most important rights of all in a republic, on wild personal opinions.

Not a single person charged with "insurrection".

{...
Of those arrested, 225 people were charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees. More than 75 of those were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon against police officers or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. The office said 140 police officers, including Capitol officers and members of the D.C. police department, were victimized during the attack.
The office said about 10 individuals were charged with assaulting members of the media or destroying their equipment.

Some 640 people were charged with entering a restricted federal building or its grounds. More than 75 were charged with entering a restricted area with a deadly weapon.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

Holy Crap. Tell me you really don’t believe that nonsense.

First. Nothing in the 14th says that the individual must be convicted. In fact it clearly indicates conviction is not needed. As Congress has the power to remove the disability. Congress has no such power regarding any criminal conviction.

Second. The freedom of speech is not absolute. You can’t claim first Amendment protection if you tell someone to murder another.

Shall I continue to point out the obvious and fatal flaws of your assertions?

Absolutely wrong.
Without a conviction, then it is a government crime to infringe upon rights without the person having the opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law.
A conviction is absolutely required whenever a charge is used to deny rights.

The fact congress "has the power to remove the disability" does NOT at all imply a conviction is not necessary.
Congress can allow convicted felons to vote or run for office.
It just implies denying rights like voting or running for office is weak.

Of course some speech can be illegal if it incites harm to innocents.
But that has to be proven in court, so that there is an opportunity to prevent a defense.
Without the opportunity for a defense in a court of law, any infringement on rights is a clear crime.

 

[Rigby5]

The text of 14/3 does NOT require a conviction and the many people on which it was used following the end of the Civil War were removed from ballots AND FROM OFFICE by CIVIL procedures, not criminal.

ANY infringement on rights requires a court procedure, so one has the opportunity to defend themselves.
Those in the civil war declared themselves as insurrectionists and signed papers attesting to the fact.
They avoided prosecution on the fact they were willing to confess.
The 14th amendment insurrection clause is likely illegal, but they obviously were not going to challenge the fact they were getting a good deal by being pardoned.

And anyone trying to compare Jan 6 with the half million dead in the Civil War, clearly is lying.
The obvious proof is that all the capital police were armed, and yet only 1 shot was ever fired.
That is obvious proof no one ever felt fearful of any use of force against the government, in any way.
Any act of "insurrection" would have been met with gun shots.
So clearly the police never believed there was any act of "insurrection", so then no one else has the right to claim "insurrection".

 

[Supposn]

I guess you missed the fact that the Constitution sets limits on who can be President in a number of ways and one of them is INSURRECTION

Lesh, Sealybobo, and Dragonlady, you guys don't accept USA's legal concept, assumption of innocence until proven guilty. Trump hasn't yet been tried for the crime of sedition. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Rigby5]

The text of 14/3 does NOT require a conviction and the many people on which it was used following the end of the Civil War were removed from ballots AND FROM OFFICE by CIVIL procedures, not criminal.

Wrong.

The wording is, "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same".
Insurrection or rebellion is a criminal act, and you cannot prove a criminal act occurred in a civil court.
The proceeding to remove people from office or ballots are civil, but only AFTER a criminal court has established proof of insurrection of rebellion.
A civil court ruling can NOT be used as proof of insurrection or rebellion.

 

[Supposn]

The text of 14/3 does NOT require a conviction and the many people on which it was used following the end of the Civil War were removed from ballots AND FROM OFFICE by CIVIL procedures, not criminal.

Crick, aside from the courts on rare occasions over-turned previous court decisions, (e.g. to some extent Roe Vs. Wade), precedents of illegal actions are not legal precedents. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Rigby5]

It's insane a convicted felon can be president but not vote for president. This needs to be fixed. This is why we are open to the possibility of being taken over by a criminal. I can't believe America.

BUT, America hasn't voted for this criminal yet. They voted for him in 2016 when he was just a criminal in his personal life. Not yet as a politician. After 4 years of Trump, we rejected him. That was before he was up on 4 cases.

If we didn't like him in 2020, imagine now. Especially with what his judges did with Roe? AND, think of how many of Trump's supporters in 2020 are dead now.

There actually is no basis in law to allow for anyone to be denied the right to vote.
Felons originally were allowed to vote and it was not until after the Civil War that changed much.
{...
By 1840, four states[a] had felony disenfranchisement policies. By the American Civil War, about 24 states had some form of felony disenfranchisement policy or similar provision in the state constitution, although only eighteen actually disenfranchised felons.
...}
There is no real legal basis to deny anyone their inherent right to vote.
It is an absolute violation of "taxation without representation" if nothing else.

There is nothing inherently wrong about being a convicted felon.
It is the drug laws that are illegal, not those who choose to violate that illegal legislation.
Same with violating Prohibition.
It is protected 1st amendment speech.
Law only gets its authority from borrowing from those it protects.
Laws like Prohibition and the War on Drugs protect no one, so are inherently illegal.

Whether or not the voters want Trump is up to them, not corrupt prosecutors.
I hate Trump, but I hate Jack Smith a million times more.
Anyone supporting these 91 ridiculous charges should be imprisoned for life.
None of them should have been allowed by any real judge.

 

[martybegan]

There actually is no basis in law to allow for anyone to be denied the right to vote.
Felons originally were allowed to vote and it was not until after the Civil War that changed much.
{...
By 1840, four states[a] had felony disenfranchisement policies. By the American Civil War, about 24 states had some form of felony disenfranchisement policy or similar provision in the state constitution, although only eighteen actually disenfranchised felons.
...}
There is no real legal basis to deny anyone their inherent right to vote.
It is an absolute violation of "taxation without representation" if nothing else.

There is nothing inherently wrong about being a convicted felon.
It is the drug laws that are illegal, not those who choose to violate that illegal legislation.
Same with violating Prohibition.
It is protected 1st amendment speech.
Law only gets its authority from borrowing from those it protects.
Laws like Prohibition and the War on Drugs protect no one, so are inherently illegal.

Whether or not the voters want Trump is up to them, not corrupt prosecutors.
I hate Trump, but I hate Jack Smith a million times more.
Anyone supporting these 91 ridiculous charges should be imprisoned for life.
None of them should have been allowed by any real judge.

If you can deny someone their freedom via incarceration, or even their life via the death penalty using the route of due process, denying someone the franchise to vote is a natural extension of that.

 

[Rigby5]

Trump disqualified himself when he tried to overthrow the government on January 6th. You cannot vote for a "naturalized" citizen for President, you cannot vote for someone under the age of 35 for President.

It is neither "unconstitutional" nor a violation of your "rights" if your preferred candidate is disqualified from running. Perhaps you should look for a candidate that isn't a lying insurrectionist.

That is obviously false.
If you claim a candidate is not a citizen or under age, you have to prove it in a court of law.
If you claim a candidate is guilty of insurrection, you have to prove it in a court of law.

Attempting to block a previous president from running is about the single worst act of insurrection imaginable.

 

[Rigby5]

Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to decide. I would personally drop the whole ballot challenges, let him run, and let him face the current indictments he has against him. Just like every other citizen would have to do. He's doing a good job of destroying the Republican party in the process. I say, let him continue.

Wrong.

I am a Bernie Sanders supporter, but the democratic party will never again ever get a vote out of me, due to the obvious illegal and corrupt attempt to violate the rights of 80 million voters.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Wrong.

I am a Bernie Sanders supporter, but the democratic party will never again ever get a vote out of me, due to the obvious illegal and corrupt attempt to violate the rights of 80 million voters.

Wrong what? The courts WILL decide if he stays on the ballot...because..that's what courts are there to do. Make decisions like that. Kinda how the system works.

 

[Rigby5]

I am now confident, certain that America is not going to vote for this man in the general election. No fucking way. If we do, then we deserve what we get. Biden has done a fantastic job. He deserves another 4 years. Fuck how old he is. But maybe Democrats did a horrible job at promoting Kamala the last four years. Missed opportunity. They could have made her look presidential. Instead she went into hiding for 4 years. Certainly she's no Dick Chaney type of VP. One who's very involved. And if she is, they did a terrible job explaining that to America. It's too late now. But, it's not too late for Biden to explain to poor and middle class America all that he did for them. He did A LOT. And the economy is booming. Stocks, unemployment, inflation going down.

Republicans have one good issue. The Border. We have Abortion.

Wrong.
The border and abortion are nothing compared to the fact the 91 charges against Trump are so ridiculous as to themselves be an obvious attempt at "insurrection".
That is NOT how you run a republic except banana ones.
All those involved, like Jack Smith, will have to be punished.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Wrong.
The border and abortion are nothing compared to the fact the 91 charges against Trump are so ridiculous as to themselves be an obvious attempt at "insurrection".
That is NOT how you run a republic except banana ones.
All those involved, like Jack Smith, will have to be punished.

4 indictments, 91 counts. This isn't "banana republic". This is justice..long overdue. None of which will prevent him from running for President. No one is being deprived of their "rights" to vote for the candidate of their choice. I don't see him sitting in a prison cell right now. If this were you or I, we'd be sitting in a jail cell or under house arrest while the government ensured our right to a speedy trial.
But to the powerful, goes privilege.

 

[BlindBoo]

Except that Jan 6 clearly was NOT "insurrection", NOR was it ever proven in a court of law that Trump was encouraging any crime that occurred on Jan 6.
You can not violate the single most important rights of all in a republic, on wild personal opinions.

Not a single person charged with "insurrection".

{...
Of those arrested, 225 people were charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees. More than 75 of those were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon against police officers or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. The office said 140 police officers, including Capitol officers and members of the D.C. police department, were victimized during the attack.
The office said about 10 individuals were charged with assaulting members of the media or destroying their equipment.

Some 640 people were charged with entering a restricted federal building or its grounds. More than 75 were charged with entering a restricted area with a deadly weapon.
...}

Former President Donald Trump in a statement Sunday said he wanted then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 presidential election, repeating the false claim that Pence had the power to do so and slamming recent bipartisan efforts to reform the Electoral Count Act.

Trump falsely claimed that a bipartisan group of lawmakers working to reform the Electoral Count Act proves his claim that Pence had the power, according to the ECA, to overturn the 2020 election. Though the Act is vague, it is clear the role of the vice president is ceremonial and does not include the power to overturn the result of a presidential election.

“Actually, what they are saying, is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!” Trump wrote.

Trump says he wanted Pence to overturn the 2020 election and falsely claims it was vice president's 'right'

Former President Donald Trump in a statement Sunday said he wanted then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 presidential election, repeating the false claim that Pence had the power to do so and slamming recent bipartisan efforts to reform the Electoral Count Act.

www.cnn.com

Demanding that Pence throw out enough votes on Jan 6th to swing the election to Trump was a rebellion against the Constitutional order, making it unconstitutional for him to ever hold public office again without the consent of 2/3rds of Congress.

 

[Rigby5]

If you can deny someone their freedom via incarceration, or even their life via the death penalty using the route of due process, denying someone the franchise to vote is a natural extension of that.

Wrong.
It is not government that provides the authority to incarcerate of execute.
Government is merely borrowing the authority that comes from the defense of the rights of others the suspect is threatening.
It can even then easily be argued that all executions are inherently illegal, since the suspect is no longer a threat to anyone.
The only possible legal excuse for executions is the theory that using the ultimate penalty may defend someone else in the future, from the deterrent value.

There is no one being defended at all when the right to vote is denied.
In fact is violates basic principles that justify open rebellion, which is taxation without representation.
Government never has that authority, and if it is ever to be applied, it has to be by the judge in the actual trial, not by the generic and anonymous act of legislature.

We saw it in the 2000 election, where 40k Dade country votes were denied over past drug convictions, that were no threat to anyone.

 

[Crepitus]

Legally preventing Trump from running is unconstitutional and is net detrimental to our nation.

It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall, (not Voltaire) who wrote, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". She better than all others expressed the essence of the “Bill of Rights first amendment to the USA's constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

A democratic republic must and is always vulnerable due to its dependence upon the judgment of its citizens who elect the government's officeholders. We seldom if ever have had lesser, and sometimes have had better government than we deserve. Among those us who believe ex-president Donald Trump to be inferior to all others who are or have ever been president, they only pay lip service to our constitution and our democratic republic if they advocate Trump be legally prevented from again seeking federal office.

Only until he's tried and convicted of sedition against the United States of America, should he be legally prevented from running for that office.
Respectfully, Supposn

"legally".

/thread.

 

[martybegan]

Wrong.
It is not government that provides the authority to incarcerate of execute.
Government is merely borrowing the authority that comes from the defense of the rights of others the suspect is threatening.
It can even then easily be argued that all executions are inherently illegal, since the suspect is no longer a threat to anyone.
The only possible legal excuse for executions is the theory that using the ultimate penalty may defend someone else in the future, from the deterrent value.

There is no one being defended at all when the right to vote is denied.
In fact is violates basic principles that justify open rebellion, which is taxation without representation.
Government never has that authority, and if it is ever to be applied, it has to be by the judge in the actual trial, not by the generic and anonymous act of legislature.

We saw it in the 2000 election, where 40k Dade country votes were denied over past drug convictions, that were no threat to anyone.

The Constitution explicitly lists risk of life as a consequence of a criminal act.

If you can deny a person their freedom for crimes via due process, you deny their right to vote, the RKBA and various other rights as well.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong what? The courts WILL decide if he stays on the ballot...because..that's what courts are there to do. Make decisions like that. Kinda how the system works.

The POINT is that 91 counts, from acts ignored for years, that harmed no one, clearly is illegal malicious prosecution intended to deliberately bias or prevent normal elections.
judges allowing malicious prosecution means the system has already totally failed and it time for pitchforks and torches.

 

[sealybobo]

There actually is no basis in law to allow for anyone to be denied the right to vote.
Felons originally were allowed to vote and it was not until after the Civil War that changed much.
{...
By 1840, four states[a] had felony disenfranchisement policies. By the American Civil War, about 24 states had some form of felony disenfranchisement policy or similar provision in the state constitution, although only eighteen actually disenfranchised felons.
...}
There is no real legal basis to deny anyone their inherent right to vote.
It is an absolute violation of "taxation without representation" if nothing else.

There is nothing inherently wrong about being a convicted felon.
It is the drug laws that are illegal, not those who choose to violate that illegal legislation.
Same with violating Prohibition.
It is protected 1st amendment speech.
Law only gets its authority from borrowing from those it protects.
Laws like Prohibition and the War on Drugs protect no one, so are inherently illegal.

Whether or not the voters want Trump is up to them, not corrupt prosecutors.
I hate Trump, but I hate Jack Smith a million times more.
Anyone supporting these 91 ridiculous charges should be imprisoned for life.
None of them should have been allowed by any real judge.

You think Trump should get a pass for all the crimes he committed? And you're going to be okay with him breaking the law if he wins again? Wow!

I think this is all by design. Trump broke any law he felt with even though his handlers repeatedly tried to stop him or leaked it when he did it. And he wouldn't stop, because he believes the president is above the law. And you think this guy should be president again? Okay.

I don't even know JackSmith. I know I hate Trump. So who is Jack for me to hate him more?

Don't forget Mitch said he would have convicted Trump in the Senate, but he was no longer president. Of course Trump is arguing that when he broke the law, he was acting as president. So this is fucked up dude. The Senate needs to try Trump for Jan 6 NOW. Nancy impeached him. Now they need to rule. According to Mitch, he would have convicted Trump. IF ONLY he was still president. But since he was on his way out, he didn't.

Why? Because he didn't want Trump supporters to punish him. Either with their votes or death threats.