Keeping Trump off the ballot disenfranchises NO ONE

[BackAgain]

Because it is the centroid of Trump's aargument to the Supreme Court looking into the application of the 14th Amendment's Section 3 text to his candidacy: that removing his name from ballots will "disenfranchise" voters.


Obviously not.

The centroid? I do not believe that word means what you think it means.

Also, just as an aside, the main argument against the random use of the disqualification provision as urged by the Colorado Supreme Court is that it has no grounding in any proper judicial basis.

You jokers would disconnect the term from reality for purely cheap partisan political purposes.

 

[Billiejeens]

And you actually believe that?

It's reality.

 

[Edgetho]

This entire thread, and especially the idiot, scumbag OP, are proof-positive that dimocrap scum must be removed from political power.

Not eradicated, not murdered. Removed from power. Removed from having ANY power or decision making in the political process.

In fact, I wouldn't trust the average dimocrap to get my McDonalds order right.

There's no answer to this kind of stupidity, no rebuttal for this kind of scumbaggery.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Your fear is palatable

 

[dblack]

Your fear is palatable

Yummy!

 

[meaner gene]

Nope
The immutable ones are open to no interpretation.

Everything is open to interpretation.
We had the same argument of whether Barack Obama was a natural born citizen.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

Sorry about your butthurt. The SC will decide that Trump cannot be taken off ballots. And, he will win and be the next president. In fact, every betting agency has the odds of Trump winning.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/betting-odds/2024/president/

 

[Crick]

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

WHAT? The qualifications for candidacy are clearly spelled out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Nowhere is the selection of who can RUN - ie, who can BE a candidate, the choice of voters. Candidates declare their candidacy in whatever venue they like and then once they have raised or spent more than $5,000.00, they are required to register their candidacy with the Federal Election Commission.

However, from your article:

What 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.

The 14th Amendment, Section 3 has been used before and not only were officials removed from ballots but previously elected officials were removed from office. Check your Reconstruction history.

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

Sorry, but they did not. You have been taken in by another piece of right-wing misinformation. See:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/01/04/fbi-conspiracy-jan-6-attack-misinformation/

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.

No indictments are required by the text of 14/3 and none were found necessary for its repeated, successful application during the Reconstruction Era.

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.

Not according to the information you have posted.

A conviction would provide sufficient proof and would prohibit holding office. But a conviction is not required by the text of the Amendment.

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.

I agree. It is not well written. Feel free to start an amendment procedure to... amend that. But, for now, what we got is what we got.

 

[Crick]

Trump lost 302 to 233 EV, and he got only 48.7% of the vote.

I believe it was 306 to 232

 

[Crick]

How many people have been charged with the crime of insurrection?

For J6, six were charged and four were convicted.

 

[Crick]

Sorry about your butthurt. The SC will decide that Trump cannot be taken off ballots. And, he will win and be the next president. In fact, every betting agency has the odds of Trump winning.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/betting-odds/2024/president/

I bet you make a fortune in the stock market.

And my butt feels just fine.

 

[meaner gene]

I believe it was 306 to 232

You are correct, but his post was close enough for government work.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Grenades and mortal shells are as well, when necessary

 

[Crick]

thats not what you said above.....and yes whether we like it or not or no matter how they rule......he is in this election.... removing the no.1 person is interfering in that election....

You need to give reality a little more credence. If SCOTUS finds against him or finds that the states can decide, he will get removed from some or all ballots and he will NOT be reelected. But, hey, there's always DeSantis.

 

[Flash]

Keeping Trump off the ballot is just another way the filthy ass Democrats are stealing our Constitutional Republic and turning it into a Banana Republic.

Firt the filthy ass traitors tried the Russia bullshit coup against Trump. When that failed the assholes tried to impeach him. When that failed the turds illegally charged him with bogus crimes. Now they are trying to remove him from the ballots.

You've never shown me wrong about anything.

You are a dumbshit Moon Bat and you prove almost everytime you post your ignorance.

Keeping Trump off the ballot is just another way the filthy ass Democrats are stealing our Constitutional Republic and turning it into a Banana Republic and you are too stupid to know it or else too much of a traitor to your country to care.

First the filthy ass traitors tried the Russia bullshit coup against Trump. When that failed the assholes tried to impeach him. When that failed the turds illegally charged him with bogus crimes. Now they are trying to remove him from the ballots.

It is traitorous activity by Leftest scum and you should be ashamed to defend it. Of course you are a card carrying dumbass Environment Wacko that believes in this AGW scam so we all know you ain't too bright.

 

[tahuyaman]

We'll find out, won't we.

If he was disqualified, do you think any US voters would be disenfranchised by it?

Close to half the voters in the nation would be denied the right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Democrats lack the confidence that Biden can win, so they want to make him the only choice. They believe democracy can be strengthened by eliminating the democratic process.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It's far more than who is the Democratic candidate.

Most of the country believes Trump should not be eligible, period.

 

[dblack]

But, hey, there's always DeSantis.

Who is far more dangerous.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Who is far more dangerous.

Trump. DeSantis is incompetent.

 

[Crick]

Ok, now let’s find a reason to disqualify that person. Interpretation is very subjective. I’m sure, with this new method the left is using, the right can find reasons, through lawfare, to disqualify any number of candidates. A deep dive into their past will find something to use to keep them off the ballot.

Like what?

Again, now that we don’t have to have a charge or a conviction, and anyone in several governmental bodies can disqualify someone, it should be easy to keep a dem candidate off of the ballot

Who has the power to disqualify someone differs between states but is clearly lain out in each. As we have seen, any such attempts will quickly end up in court and so, if SCOTUS throws it back to the states, it will be decided by state supreme courts. Colorado's has already decided against Trump and it is likely others would do the same. It is NOT clear that any state's supreme court would allow an unjustified, politically arbitrary decision to stand. This is just bitter grapes and wishful thinking. Joe Biden didn't attempt to overthrow the ******* country.

Hell, we’ll just look to the national popular vote compact, and any red state can just pre determine that they will send their electoral votes to only the Republican candidate.

Welcome to the future of elections

In the view of a sixth grader.