Hypothetically speaking, what if Don is prevented from being on the ballot in a yet to be determined number of states.........

[petro]

I think that's right. But would a constitutional crisis ensue if he had been disqualified as a candidate in half a dozen states?

First, I guess we have to see how these ballot measures play out.

 

[DBA]

There is a danger to democracy in not making such a move. Like not following the constitutional order. There is a reason clause 3 of the 14th A was ratified. It's to protect the country from traitors like Trump who is a threat to the republic.

I and many millions more say that Biden is a traitor to our country and a threat to the republic. If that is all that is required to remove him from the ballot, then we have a very fragile system indeed.

 

[Kondor3]

If Trump meets the legal criteria to be on the ballot then it would be illegal to deprive the American voters from choosing him to be their President. Just because you don't like a candidate's ideology and love for America doesn't give you the right to force your displeasure on the rest of the nation.

Following the American Civil War, very large numbers of ex-Confederates were kept off the ballot without ever being actually charged with Insurrection...

Following the Trump-incited Insurrection of January 6, 2021, it is possible that large numbers of followers, and leadership itself, will also be banned, also without the need for an actual Insurrection charge against any individual...

The legal precedent exists and it is the hope of vast legions of Americans that the precedent is exploited to the fullest...

A severe example must now be made of a traitorous former leader who was willing to set aside the Constitution and to summon, incite and aim an Insurrectionist riotous mob against Congress, merely to retain his hold on political power...

A severe example must now be made of such traitorous scum as an object lesson for future generations, demonstrating what happens to scum who trample on the Constitution for their own sociopathic ego-driven ends...

Here's hoping that large numbers of States ban him from the ballot and that those bans withstand the inevitable challenges.

 

[Lisa558]

The documentary and testimonial evidence of his guilt is overwhelming.

No it isn’t. It’s nauseating how you claim evidence of Trump’s guilt - of what? - while ignoring the overwhelming guilt of Biden’s corruption.

Trump was a good president, and NO comparison to the disaster that Biden is.

 

[Lisa558]

And you are so blinded by hatred for Trump, that you'll jump at any chance to suppress the voters rights to vote for him.

It shows what Democrats really think of Americans. They want to deny 70 million of us our right to choose the president….because they don’t like him.

 

[berg80]

And you are so blinded by hatred for Trump, that you'll jump at any chance to suppress the voters rights to vote for him.

I am for the right of state's to enforce a constitutional provision to keep traitors off the ballot if they so choose.

 

[Nostra]

This is a Dimwinger scheme to disenfranchise millions of Black and Hispanic voters.

The party of racism strikes again!

 

[Nostra]

Why does the Dimwinger party want to disenfranchise the LQ BT !$%&.BR549 community in a half dozen states?

The party of transphobia.

 

[Papageorgio]

There is no prerequisite in Clause 3 of the 14th A necessitating a conviction for insurrection. So let's not get bogged down with that.

If you get bogged down in that everything goes and you get what is violation of human rights under the United Nations and violate his Constitutional rights.

Sowhat is the new criteria every state should weigh a presidential candidate? Is it one we believe has violated the Constitution or has been found through the courts to violate the Constitution?

 

[Papageorgio]

Untrue since many states have made laws against felons from running for office.

What felony has Trump been convicted of?

 

[Independentthinker]

......but wins the POT nomination?

New Disqualification Clause Case Filed Against Trump In Michigan

A good government group spearheading a national effort to bar Donald Trump from the election next year moved to remove him from the ballot in Michigan, citing the Constitution’s Disqualification Clause.

It’s the first such action in a major swing state from a group with the know-how and resources to present a legitimate argument.

The petition, filed in Michigan’s Court of Claims, asks the court to make a finding that Trump’s efforts to reverse his loss in the 2020 election render him ineligible for office under the Disqualification Clause. The group is also asking the court to block Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) from placing Trump the Republican primary ballot.

Free Speech for People, the non-profit which filed the suit, asked the Minnesota Supreme Court earlier this month to ban Trump from the ballot there as well.

It’s part of a national strategy to use the 14th Amendment’s Reconstruction-era ban on those who engaged in insurrection from holding office to block Trump from the 2024 ballot. Free Speech for People and CREW are, so far, the two main groups undertaking the effort. CREW filed suit in state court in Colorado this month seeking the same outcome there.
New Disqualification Clause Case Filed Against Trump In Michigan

To be honest, I had lost track of how many states have suits to remove the Orange fraud from the ballot. So I Googled it.

Six states facing push to keep Donald Trump off 2024 ballot​

Six states facing push to keep Donald Trump off 2024 ballot - Washington Examiner

At least six states are facing pushes from both Democrats and conservatives who are seeking to keep former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot by disqualifying him under the 14th Amendment. Election officials in Alaska, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Rhode Island all...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Despite what the headline says there are more than 6.

Perhaps the most salient question is what judicial body has jurisdiction over state ballots? Each state's Supreme Court or the SCOTUS. If the answer is the former, it's theoretically possible for Trump's name to be excluded from ballots in.......let's say a half dozen states.........but listed on the other 44. Obviously voters could write in his name but that does not address the complicated issue of his disqualification to be the prez in the aforementioned 6 states.

This..............

The Elections Clause is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to Congress’s authority to “make or alter” state regulations. It grants each level of government the authority to enact a complete code for such elections, including rules concerning public notices, voter registration, voter protection, fraud prevention, vote counting, and determination of election results. Whenever a state enacts a law relating to a congressional election, it is exercising power under the Elections Clause; states do not have any inherent authority to enact such measures.

Although the Elections Clause makes states primarily responsible for regulating congressional elections, it vests ultimate power in Congress. Congress may pass federal laws regulating congressional elections that automatically displace (“preempt”) any contrary state statutes, or enact its own regulations concerning those aspects of elections that states may not have addressed. The Framers of the Constitution were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress. They empowered Congress to step in and regulate such elections as a self-defense mechanism.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

.........gives Congress ultimate control over congressional elections but does not mention elections for the prez and VP.

Any thoughts?

There is no hypothetical, just another example of the left finding Trump guilty until he proves himself innocent. You can't keep someone off a ballot for 14A when he hasn't even been found guilty of anything that applies to 14A.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There is no prerequisite in Clause 3 of the 14th A necessitating a conviction for insurrection. So let's not get bogged down with that.

No USSC, and particularly not the current USSC, would ever sign off on the use of the 14th to disqualify Trump for giving a speech.

The text of the clause:

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

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.

The context of the clause:

The primary purpose of Section 3 was to address concerns related to the loyalty of individuals who had held public office before the Civil War and had taken an oath to support the Constitution. The provision was aimed at preventing individuals who had actively participated in or supported the Confederate rebellion from holding positions of public trust in the government.
Essentially, Section 3 established a disqualification from holding certain offices for individuals who had participated in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. However, it also allowed Congress to remove this disqualification by a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This provision reflected the post-Civil War context and the need to address issues related to the reintegration of former Confederate states and officials into the Union.

It had a very specific purpose and was targeted at former Confederates. Find any writing from the time where people said, "also, of some guy gives a speech and some other folks riot, we can call that an insurrection also!"

You guys are dreaming and you are taking a dangerous chance. If a state keeps Trump off the ballot, the current USSC may well decide that the remedy is that that state does not get to cast its electoral votes at all. Think about that as you turn off the light beside your bed tonight . . .

 

[Rawley]

.
Any thoughts?

Gives us a arm fuzzy feeling that Trump scares you guys that much. Confirms our support for him

 

[ActionJackson]

Following the American Civil War, very large numbers of ex-Confederates were kept off the ballot without ever being actually charged with Insurrection...

Following the Trump-incited Insurrection of January 6, 2021, it is possible that large numbers of followers, and leadership itself, will also be banned, also without the need for an actual Insurrection charge against any individual...

The legal precedent exists and it is the hope of vast legions of Americans that the precedent is exploited to the fullest...

A severe example must now be made of a traitorous former leader who was willing to set aside the Constitution and to summon, incite and aim an Insurrectionist riotous mob against Congress, merely to retain his hold on political power...

A severe example must now be made of such traitorous scum as an object lesson for future generations, demonstrating what happens to scum who trample on the Constitution for their own sociopathic ego-driven ends...

Here's hoping that large numbers of States ban him from the ballot and that those bans withstand the inevitable challenges.

You may have had a point, except for one very important point: Trump didn't start an insurrection. He called for a peaceful show of defiance (something the 1st Amendment allows for). So your entire premise is built on a foundation of loose sand.

 

[ActionJackson]

Untrue since many states have made laws against felons from running for office.

Apparently that didn't stop Biden from being appointed by Soros to the Presidency.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

DBA is gaslighting.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You may have had a point, except for one very important point: Trump didn't start an insurrection. He called for a peaceful show of defiance (something the 1st Amendment allows for). So your entire premise is built on a foundation of loose sand.

Yet watched for hours before calling off his minions. The courts will take that into account both unofficially and officially.

 

[ActionJackson]

Yet watched for hours before calling off his minions. The courts will take that into account both unofficially and officially.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Your boy is badly burned Orange Toast, A J

 

[konradv]

......but wins the POT nomination?

New Disqualification Clause Case Filed Against Trump In Michigan

A good government group spearheading a national effort to bar Donald Trump from the election next year moved to remove him from the ballot in Michigan, citing the Constitution’s Disqualification Clause.

It’s the first such action in a major swing state from a group with the know-how and resources to present a legitimate argument.

The petition, filed in Michigan’s Court of Claims, asks the court to make a finding that Trump’s efforts to reverse his loss in the 2020 election render him ineligible for office under the Disqualification Clause. The group is also asking the court to block Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) from placing Trump the Republican primary ballot.

Free Speech for People, the non-profit which filed the suit, asked the Minnesota Supreme Court earlier this month to ban Trump from the ballot there as well.

It’s part of a national strategy to use the 14th Amendment’s Reconstruction-era ban on those who engaged in insurrection from holding office to block Trump from the 2024 ballot. Free Speech for People and CREW are, so far, the two main groups undertaking the effort. CREW filed suit in state court in Colorado this month seeking the same outcome there.
New Disqualification Clause Case Filed Against Trump In Michigan

To be honest, I had lost track of how many states have suits to remove the Orange fraud from the ballot. So I Googled it.

Six states facing push to keep Donald Trump off 2024 ballot​

Six states facing push to keep Donald Trump off 2024 ballot - Washington Examiner

At least six states are facing pushes from both Democrats and conservatives who are seeking to keep former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot by disqualifying him under the 14th Amendment. Election officials in Alaska, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Rhode Island all...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Despite what the headline says there are more than 6.

Perhaps the most salient question is what judicial body has jurisdiction over state ballots? Each state's Supreme Court or the SCOTUS. If the answer is the former, it's theoretically possible for Trump's name to be excluded from ballots in.......let's say a half dozen states.........but listed on the other 44. Obviously voters could write in his name but that does not address the complicated issue of his disqualification to be the prez in the aforementioned 6 states.

This..............

The Elections Clause is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to Congress’s authority to “make or alter” state regulations. It grants each level of government the authority to enact a complete code for such elections, including rules concerning public notices, voter registration, voter protection, fraud prevention, vote counting, and determination of election results. Whenever a state enacts a law relating to a congressional election, it is exercising power under the Elections Clause; states do not have any inherent authority to enact such measures.

Although the Elections Clause makes states primarily responsible for regulating congressional elections, it vests ultimate power in Congress. Congress may pass federal laws regulating congressional elections that automatically displace (“preempt”) any contrary state statutes, or enact its own regulations concerning those aspects of elections that states may not have addressed. The Framers of the Constitution were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress. They empowered Congress to step in and regulate such elections as a self-defense mechanism.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

.........gives Congress ultimate control over congressional elections but does not mention elections for the prez and VP.

Any thoughts?

Unity Ticket, the two baddest bitches in the country!