Keeping Trump off the ballot disenfranchises NO ONE

The Colorado case was tried in a District Court and the State Supreme Court and BOTH concluded that Trump had committed insurrection.
Why didn't they charge Him then and sentence Him to death?
 
If you can't legally stop someone from running for president its a "de facto" right, even if not "enumerated" in the Constitution.

We have the right to eat and breathe and go potty even though they are not enumerated..

The right to eat, breathe and go to the potty would be considered part of the inalienable right to life.

Running for President is not either an inalienable right or a Constitutional right.

There is no such thing as a 'defacto' right.

Running for President is a privilege, like driving on public roads. If you abuse that privilege, like Trump did, you lose that privilege.
 
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.
What? By "14/3" I am referring to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution under whose restrictions the Supreme Court of Colorado and the Main Secretary of State have both concluded that Trump is ineligible to run for president in their state's elections. Is that not a problem for him?
From what I have seen, Mr. Trump has mentioned no concerns, functionally nor legally, with the qualifications of candidacy.
Trump has made numerous comments about the issue in the media and in press briefs and his legal team has filed briefs with the Colorado 2nd District and Supreme Courts, the Maine Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court.
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.
Okay
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.
No it is not. It's not even close.
 
The Maine Secretary of State overstepped her authority. Her opinion isn't law.
She did not overstep her authority. The Maine State Constitution explicitly gives her the power to determine candidate eligibility.
 
LMAO have you been to the VA hospital? :talk2hand:

No, but I know plenty of people that live in countries that have socialized healthcare. Everyone of them is very happy with that system. There is no country in the world whose people have wanted to desocialize healthcare.

Most people think that the American healthcare system is barbaric.
 
Were you thinking that a disagreement about an election WOULDN'T be political? And what persecution of whom are you talking about and how is the government being used to do it?
The insurrection is bogus. President Trump was leading a protest. A sitting President doesn't overthrow his own country.
 
No, but I know plenty of people that live in countries that have socialized healthcare. Everyone of them is very happy with that system. There is no country in the world whose people have wanted to desocialize healthcare.

Most people think that the American healthcare system is barbaric.
Yeah like Canada, no wait they come here for quality healthcare. Well those who didn't die first waiting in Canada for an appointment for government shitcare.
 
Jan. 6 was an insurrectionist riot with the intent of overthrowing the Democratic transition of power - overthrowing that process is effectively overthrowing the democratically elected government.

But you knew that, so please stop trying to play dumb.
Nope. The USSC will educate you soon.
 
Not regarding federal elections.

The U.S. Constitution explicitly states that the States control Federal elections. The States then determine who is responsible for running those elections and who has the authority to determine if candidates are qualified.

In almost every state (possibly every state), the State Secretary of State is the person responsible.

Legally, the SOS can remove Trump from the ballot. People can sue or State Legislature may, or may not, have the authority to reverse that decision depending on the State laws..
 
The U.S. Constitution explicitly states that the States control Federal elections.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
 
15th post
Yeah like Canada, no wait they come here for quality healthcare. Well those who didn't die first waiting in Canada for an appointment for government shitcare.

Funny, but I've known quite a few people that go to Canada for Healthcare.

It's doubtful anybody from Canada comes here. Possibly the wealthiest 1% of Canadians, but I doubt it. There is far better Healthcare in a number of European countries.

Hell, Cuba has a better Healthcare system.
 
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Yes, Congress has passed the voting rights act and other legislation, and they could if they had a majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate, force Trump to be included on the ballot. But don't hold your breath!

But otherwise, the States control all federal elections.

On second thought, please, please hold your beath until; Congress intervenes!
 
Back
Top Bottom