Keeping Trump off the ballot disenfranchises NO ONE

[BS Filter]

In many if not most states, NO!

Bullshit.

 

[kyzr]

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?

That's how Article-14, Section-3 works. It only applies to Federal Office.
It ONLY applies to ANYONE who swore an oath to the US and violated that oath.

The Post-Civil War Origins of the 14th Amendment's Disqualification Clause | HISTORY

Lawmakers drafted Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as a means to block former Confederate officers who were elected to...

www.history.com

The end result was Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualified anyone from holding federal or state political office who had violated their oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” by engaging “in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

 

[Hum Dinger]

You're delusional.

Try as you may, your gaslighting is a FAIL.

Just think - SCOTUS witnessed the Jan. 6 insurrection along with everyone else. The Dept. of Justice certainly was locked down that day - all the SCOTUS justices must have been scared that the riot would spill over to them.

Don't count on them having much sympathy!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually the states have both a right and an obligation to only put "eligible" candidates on the ballot.

States have the right and responsibility to protect the rights of the voters.
Voters have the ---- literal, absolute --- right to vote for anyone they want.

That's why votes for Mickey Mouse aren't even counted.

But they are. And recorded.
And if he wins the majority, he's won the election.
THEN the eligibility comes into question - ineligibility to hold office comes into play -after- the election.
Eligibility to hold office is not the same as eligibility to be voted for, or eligibility to win an election - anyone can be voted for, and anyone can win an election.

 

[jbander]

What does the constitution say that disqualifies Trump, and what evidence, besides feelings, is there to support the language?

Keep in mind that when Trump gets stopped before or because of the election he will ask his followers to kill for him and they will, every right winger here should be asked if they will kill for him, when he asks them to.So big guy will you kill for him when asked?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Would the same apply to a 30 year old running?

What happens if a given congressional district votes in the majority for 20yr old?

 

[meaner gene]

Wrong. Three Supreme Court judges in Colorado said Trump didn't engage in an insurrection.

You have it backwards. It was already determined by the lower court judge that Trump engaged in insurrection, but that the office of president wasn't covered by the 14th.
The three judges on the Colorado supreme court ruled that the office of president does make the president an officer of the United States.
Thus both parts of A14-3 were satisfied for his disqualification.

 

[Hum Dinger]

That's how Article-14, Section-3 works. It only applies to Federal Office.
It ONLY applies to ANYONE who swore an oath to the US and violated that oath.

The Post-Civil War Origins of the 14th Amendment's Disqualification Clause | HISTORY

Lawmakers drafted Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as a means to block former Confederate officers who were elected to...

www.history.com

The end result was Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualified anyone from holding federal or state political office who had violated their oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” by engaging “in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

Wrong:

"or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state"

 

[BS Filter]

Try as you may, your gaslighting is a FAIL.

Just think - SCOTUS witnessed the Jan. 6 insurrection along with everyone else. The Dept. of Justice certainly was locked down that day - all the SCOTUS justices must have been scared that the riot would spill over to them.

Don't count on them having much sympathy!

The Supreme Court will decide based upon the Constitution, not their feelings. You're delusional.

 

[Cellblock2429]

LOL lost, sense of humor if found contact Cellblock2429

/——/ Subtle sarcasm and humor doesn’t always translate on the internet thingy. Sorry, but I can’t take down the post. Time expired.

 

[Hum Dinger]

What happens if a given congressional district votes in the majority for 20yr old?

The opposing party would take them to court and the court would find them ineligible.

 

[BS Filter]

You have it backwards. It was already determined by the lower court judge that Trump engaged in insurrection, but that the office of president wasn't covered by the 14th.
The three judges on the Colorado supreme court ruled that the office of president does make the president an officer of the United States.
Thus both parts of A14-3 were satisfied for his disqualification.

Three judges found Trump qualified to be on the ballot. Period.

 

[kyzr]

Nothing in the Constitution says that Trump is eligible.

Running for President is not a right.

Nothing in the Constitution says that Trump is ineligible.
Why isn't running for president a right for citizens of age 35 or older? What other eligibility requirements are there?

Think hard.

 

[meaner gene]

35 is the minimum age to run for President. That's clear.

Actually the constitution doesn't give a minimum age to RUN for president, only a minimum age to exercise the powers of the presidency. No matter how that person would come to the office, whether through election, or succession.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually the constitution doesn't give a minimum age to RUN for president, only a minimum age to exercise the powers of the presidency. No matter how that person would come to the office, whether through election, or succession.

Did you just prove my point?
Heh. Yep.

 

[BS Filter]

Actually the constitution doesn't give a minimum age to RUN for president, only a minimum age to exercise the powers of the presidency. No matter how that person would come to the office, whether through election, or succession.

Whatever.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The Supreme Court will decide based upon the Constitution, not their feelings. You're delusional.

Yes, SCOTUS - the court with 5 Conservative justices that believe in interpreting the Constitution according to "Original Intent".

Do you really think that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment would think that it should not apply to Trump?

Guess again!

Trump and people like him are exactly who they had in mind when they wrote it!

 

[meaner gene]

That's how Article-14, Section-3 works. It only applies to Federal Office.
It ONLY applies to ANYONE who swore an oath to the US and violated that oath.

The Post-Civil War Origins of the 14th Amendment's Disqualification Clause | HISTORY

Lawmakers drafted Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as a means to block former Confederate officers who were elected to...

www.history.com

The end result was Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualified anyone from holding federal or state political office who had violated their oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” by engaging “in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

Your first mistake: That's how Article-14, Section-3 works. It only applies to Federal 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,

 

[JWBooth]

Then you should have convinced him to stay inside the rule of law.

#gofuckyouself

 

[Crick]

Yes. Its here: https://www.usmessageboard.com/account/

But that doesnt change how you did not provide the link which I asked you about --as far as Mr. Trump feeling like our candidate choices are universal and should not be.

Jeezus dude, I was being facetious. I NEVER claimed that Trump had said candidate choices were universal. It is simply implicit in his claim that restricting anyone from being a candidate will disenfranchise voters.

hmmmmm I did some further research and still cannot find how your claim is implicit in Mr. Trump's contention about not being on ballots.

I'm sorry, but I think everyone else here understood.

I would be enthused to read you further qualify that.

I would be enthused if you'd stop trying to put on airs.

For this: "Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Since only Congress can remove the disability, and it has not done so... then whom is the qualified body of government that can deem him an insurrectionist?? You know, since he has not been deemed that yet by 2/3rd vote of EACH house.

Since Mr. Trump is an insurrectionist, and the DOJ's Jack Smith did not charge him with that... then what are you using as a legitimate, official decision --to deem him an ineligible insurrectionist??

He was so deemed by the Supreme Court of Colorado and the Maine Secretary of State.

I agree. And in that case, I cannot find a thing online to answer my question.
Can you tell me what is the "requirement" in our society, which occurred when officially deeming him as insurrectionist who is now ineligible to run?

I have lost the original text to this post and can't tell what requirement you're talking about. The original applications of this Amendment were made in civil courts thus it would appear that historically, the federal courts have had to power to make such pronouncements.

Under what contention did they err? What body or what decision or what circumstance do you feel the Fed Elect Comm erred against, by approving the 2024 application of an insurrectionist?

Obviously, I think they failed to take Section 3 of the 14th Amendment into account. Since it hasn't been used in the lifetimes of anyone currently employed at the FEC, I'm not surprised.

Okay. And again, I ask if you can please provide some links or some info or evidence that our nation/our DOJ/our GOVT has officially classified him as an insurrectionist?

The USMB rules say that we shouldn't tell people to go look things up themselves but I think there is really also an unwritten rule that you shouldn't demand OP look things up that are widely available and easily found.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

I agree.

And since no ineligible person is allowed to be put on a ballot, which then makes Mr. Trump okay since no forces/no entities deemed him ineligible...

The Supreme Court of Colorado and the Maine Secretary of State have both declared him ineligible.

then, what did you use to conclude they voted for unqualified candidates?

It was an exercise in logic.

Yes, I agree. Just like within disenfranchising Mr. Trump's voters --by leaving him off of ballots where he is NOT been proven an insurrectionist.

Even were Trump removed from the ballot without due cause, it would not disenfranchise voters. There is a difference between duly or unduly affecting the choices available to a voter and removing the ability to cast any vote at all. That was the intent of my first line - the universality of choice. We don't get to cast a valid vote for anyone we want to. We only get to cast votes for candidates that are deemed to have met the Constitution's qualifications. Removing Trump from the ballot disenfranchises no one.