Keeping Trump off the ballot disenfranchises NO ONE

[EvilCat Breath]

Keeping Trump off the ballot disenfranchises NO ONE​

Of course it does. What a mindless OP thread headline.

They mean no one is disenfranchised because you can vote for anyone they allow on the ballot.

 

[kyzr]

Wrong.

Congress only has the power to reverse it if someone is barred by the courts - and that would take a 2/3 majority in both houses.

Which courts? The USSC ultimately.
Still a tough policy to enforce.

 

[BS Filter]

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!

Nope. They had the Confederacy in mind. Read a history book.

 

[Crick]

Who is far more dangerous.

I used to think so and I'm a long time Florida resident. But I now don't think he could win another election, even here, were he eligible.

 

[Phactotum]

The point of the OP was that, functionally and legally, 14/3 is simply another qualification for candidacy, just like the text in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
And, as such, it disenfranchises no one any more than does Article II.

I see.

Although, I am more confused now. Mainly because I could not find where you presented proofs here that Mr. Trump has a problem with 14/3 nor Article II Sect 1, whatsoever.

From what I have seen, Mr. Trump has mentioned no concerns, functionally nor legally, with the qualifications of candidacy. When I turn on CNN, I keep being told that Mr. Trump is upset over being called an insurrectionist --he said especially since that unfair label keeps him from running for Presidency. I have never heard of him being upset only by how 14/3 forbids him from running as the proud insurrectionist that he is claiming to be.

If he feels the label is unfair including it keeps him from being eligible to run for an office he feels he deserves to run for, then... that is an exact definition of disenfranchising any voters who want to vote for him.

 

[Crick]

Trump. DeSantis is incompetent.

I think they are both incompetent and they are both dangerous, but I think as to general knowledge, the law and the art of governance, DeSantis is way ahead of Trump. Of course, who isn't.

 

[Hum Dinger]

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.

Please post a link to any statement in the Constitution that says that running for President is a 'Right'.

It is neither an inalienable nor a Constitutional right.

And yes, there is something in the Constitution that says that Trump is ineligible - the 14th Amendment!

Obviously!

 

[BS Filter]

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

It was an exercise in logic.

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.

The Maine Secretary of State overstepped her authority. Her opinion isn't law.

 

[kyzr]

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,

Do all state offices swear to uphold the US Constitution?
Article-14, Section-3 ONLY applies to those who broke their oath to the US.

 

[meaner gene]

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

Or the election board wouldn't put them on the ballot in the first place.
No different than if they needed 5,000 nominating signatures, and only got 4,999 signatures.

 

[Hellbilly]

Pretty much what I expected from you

 

[jbander]

Stop watching the fear porn, there was never any attempt to, "overthrow," the government.

In order to do that, all the levers of power would need to be controlled, by whomever made such an attempt, that would include the military. . . No such attempt was ever made overthrow the military, the courts, the press or the economy. NO threat of martial law, was ever at hand.

You have lost touch with reality.


I recommend turning off the propaganda.

What a pile of shit. You are a joke , you would have us believe jan 6th was just a walk in the park and that everyone there was just sight seers. You people sold out your country, constitution and flag and the crazy part is you seem to be proud of it. History will tell your tail and it will say you sold out your country and so do I. By the way the only propaganda here is yours , Trying to sell lies as facts.
If these traitors were to kill the vice president and stop the election what do you think The piece of shit Trump would then do. You are a joke.

 

[Crick]

We are not talking true belief, we are talking danger. Trump is more dangerous, far more so, than DeSantis.

Yeah. DeSantis is not as absolutely sociopathic and doesn't suffer Trump's narcissism.

 

[Crick]

Correct. President Trump wasn't involved in anything like the Confederacy.

Sorry, the law is still on the books and insurrection is still an undesirable activity in a federal office holder.

 

[Crick]

I explained the problem with your OP.
You have, so far, failed to respond.

I have responded to you several times. I'm sorry if you don't like my answers, but they're not going to change.

 

[BS Filter]

What a pile of shit. You are a joke , you would have us believe jan 6th was just a walk in the park and that everyone there was just sight seers. You people sold out your country, constitution and flag and the crazy part is you seem to be proud of it. History will tell your tail and it will say you sold out your country and so do I. By the way the only propaganda here is yours , Trying to sell lies as facts.
If these traitors were to kill the vice president and stop the election what do you think The piece of shit Trump would then do. You are a joke.

Jan 6th was a protest. No different from BLM in 2020 when businesses were looted and burned to the ground and cops were assaulted.

 

[BS Filter]

Sorry, the law is still on the books and insurrection is still an undesirable activity in a federal office holder.

You can't make a case that the Jan 6th protest was an insurrection.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have responded to you several times

You have not responded to post #148.
Not once.

 

[Crick]

Obviously, Dems are pissing their pants left and right.

When Trump supporters have to continuously comfort themselves with the fanstasy that their opponents are all afraid of them and their big bad leader, all that gets conveyed is THEIR fear.

 

[meaner gene]

Nope. They had the Confederacy in mind. Read a history book.

No matter who they had in mind. When you amend the Constitution it applies according to the text, and for all eternity, or until the Constitution is amended again.