Keeping Trump off the ballot disenfranchises NO ONE

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump must be kept off the ticket. He conspired against the Nation, will not uphold the Constitution, wants to be a dictator for a day.

 

[meaner gene]

so why wasnt all this shit brought up the week trump said he was running?.....they should have stopped him then.....now its interfering in an election....

You probably made the same argument a bout all the indictments against Trump, that they didn't start until he announced his run for president. But what you leave out is thqt Trump is running for president BECAUSE of the criminal cases against him.

 

[Billiejeens]

Did you mean to say that if it had NOT been established? If so, I agree. My problem is that were I given the authority, I would eliminate all the US states. For that matter, I would eliminate all the world's countries. I'm for a single world governmetn. But unless I find that Fountain of Youth, I really don't think I've gonna see it.

Hopefully no one will.
There couldn't be a more stupid idea proffered.

 

[dblack]

Trump must be kept off the ticket. He conspired against the Nation, will not uphold the Constitution, wants to be a dictator for a day.

Why not just nominate someone who can defeat him?

 

[Billiejeens]

Trump must be kept off the ticket. He conspired against the Nation, will not uphold the Constitution, wants to be a dictator for a day.

Poor clown

 

[BackAgain]

I and a lot of other Americans are fully convinced that it does.

You’re wrong.

So was the Supreme Court of the state of Colorado and the Secretary of State for Maine and likely a number of other courts and officials now waiting for SCOTUS to weigh in.

Yes. The Secretary of State of Maine ignorantly relied on the decision of another State. Even the Maine Supreme Court has seen fit to put a stay on her moronic decision.

Colorado’s Supreme Court decision is absurd and will get reversed.

The reason, as I already pointed out, is obvious. You cannot apply the label to someone who hasn’t been convicted. That’s not the way it works.

 

[meaner gene]

You are confused.

The age requirement would keep a 33 year old off the ballot. No big deal.

But the disqualification for someone who engaged in “insurrection” doesn’t automatically keep anyone off the ballot unless that person has been proved guilty of having been an insurrectionist.

You could say the same of a 33 year old. That they have to be taken to court and it PROVED in a court of law, that they're 33 years old. Maybe the supreme court has to make that determination before it would hold?

Same for the natural born citizen requirement. Or the 14 years resident in the USA, No matter now much proof there is to the contrary, "due process" requires it go to the supreme court.

Right?

 

[Crick]

Spoken like the one-party fascist you are.

Do c'mon back and let us know if and when you actually have anything meaningful to say about the thread topic, ok?

 

[hadit]

Ok, so what are you going to say when the first state finds a reason to disqualify Biden?

1. That's different.
2. You're a racist.
3. Bigot.
4. You probably wear white after Labor Day.
5. I need a safe space with therapy puppies.

Things like that, probably.

 

[Crick]

Trump lost the election by 38 votes.

Biden won the election with 306 electoral votes and 51.3% of the national popular vote, compared to Trump's 232 electoral votes and 46.9% of the popular vote

2020 United States elections - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[meaner gene]

Nope. I'm right. You have it ass-backwards.
Amendment-14, Section-3, can ONLY be enforced by a vote of CONGRESS to disqualify someone.
Trump is eligible until congress makes him ineligible.

Only by congress? You want congress involved in local elections?
Because that's what you're saying. That if a governor wanted to appoint Robert E. Lee to a position in his states government, that congress would have to make the call?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Biden won the election with 306 electoral votes...

Trump needed 38 more votes to win.
Thus: 38 votes.

 

[HeyNorm]

Our choices for the presidency are not universal. There are millions of Americans, billions of people, for whom the US Constitution will not allow anyone to vote. We cannot vote for anyone under 35. We cannot vote for anyone who is not a naturalized citizen. We cannot vote for anyone that hasn't been a US resident for at least 14 years. And we cannot vote for anyone who has ever taken an oath to support the US Constitution and then been involved in an insurrection against the US government. Trump keeps screaming that finding him ineligible for office would disenfranchise all his supporters. But no one would be any more disenfranchised by that restriction than they are by the others. The disenfranchised are those who cast valid votes which don't get counted or those who are not allowed to vote at all. Trump did his damnedest after the 2020 election to disenfranchise millions of Biden voters so the claim that he's concerned about anyone's vote rings like a massive bell of dried horseshit.

How pathetic are you?

 

[Crick]

You’re wrong.

Can you prove it? Can you make a good case for it? Can you even make ANY sort of case for it?

Yes. The Secretary of State of Maine ignorantly relied on the decision of another State. Even the Maine Supreme Court has seen fit to put a stay on her moronic decision.

Colorado’s Supreme Court decision is absurd and will get reversed.

The reason, as I already pointed out, is obvious. You cannot apply the label to someone who hasn’t been convicted. That’s not the way it works.

You need to do a little research. That is precisely how it has worked.

 

[Crick]

Trump needed 38 more votes to win.
Thus: 38 votes.

Okay. So what?

 

[Crick]

How pathetic are you?

That I would spend my day in front of computer arguing with whack jobs like you lot? Pretty pathetic. But then... what are YOU doing?

 

[Delldude]

What does the US Constitution say about them? Does it say that popularity will allow a waiver of the requirements for candidacy?

The requirements for candidacy have not been defined specifically in this instance. Traditionally, the courts leave selection of a particular candidate to the voters.

However, from your article:

It is unclear whether Section 3 is self-executing, which, if it is not, would leave federal and state courts or election authorities without power to determine the eligibility of candidates unless Congress enacts legislation to permit it.

It was an unsuccessful insurrection. The crime was in the attempt.

The FBI, investigating for the DOJ, found no evidence of an insurrection.

Your article:

Determining who has engaged in either of the two disqualifying activities—that is, engaging in insurrection or rebellion or giving aid or comfort to an enemy—is likely to be a difficult task given the scarcity of precedents and lack of clear definitions.

Hence no indictments on this specific claim.

Once an insurrection is deemed to have occurred, the question becomes whether a specific person engaged in it. Section 3 does not establish a procedure for determining who is subject to the proscription on holding office, instead providing only a process by which the disability may be removed (i.e., by two-thirds vote in both houses). Congress has also not set forth a procedure for determining who is subject to the disability imposed by Section 3. Although definitions of insurrection and rebellion for purposes of the
Fourteenth Amendment would not necessarily be confined by statute, it would appear that a criminal conviction for insurrection or the “levying of war” prong of treason would provide sufficient proof, and each of them contains a bar on holding office.

I'm afraid that fully meets the requirements of 14/3.

Not according to the information you have posted.

Determining who has engaged in either of the two disqualifying activities—that is, engaging in insurrection or rebellion or giving aid or comfort to an enemy—is likely to be a difficult task given the scarcity of precedents and lack of clear definitions.

Do you see the point I am making about Constitutional restrictions and disenfranchisement?

Not at all.

It is unclear whether Section 3 is self-executing, which, if it is not, would leave federal and state courts or election authorities without power to determine the eligibility of candidates unless Congress enacts legislation to permit it.

If the article does anything, it makes it quite obvious that there is no cut and dried definition or procedures for denying someone their place on a ballot.

 

[Crick]

My god. You are just as stupid when it comes to politics as you are when it comes to Climate Science. You never get anything right, do you?

You've never shown me wrong about anything.

 

[BackAgain]

Can you prove it? Can you make a good case for it? Can you even make ANY sort of case for it?

Based on precedent? No. It hasn’t come up yet. Based on the American legal system’s principals? Sure.

Look. If having participated in a bank robbery were the disqualifier, there wouldn’t be even this much of a discussion. Obviously, anybody being “disqualified” would rightly say “wait one damn second. I haven’t ever been convicted of bank robbery!” He’d be right.

You need to do a little research. That is precisely how it has worked.

It has never worked the way you claim.

You’re seriously delusional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. So what?

Much like your use of "naturalized citizen" instead of the constitutionally specified "natural born citizen", I am pointing out your error.