Keeping Trump off the ballot disenfranchises NO ONE

[ThisIsMe]

Nominate someone else.

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.

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

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

 

[Crick]

Um, the 2020 election was stolen. There can be no other way of explaining the anomalies.

The election was NOT stolen. There can be no other explanation for the complete lack of evidence from 61 court cases, multiple recounts, studies and audits.

 

[Crick]

Keeping Trump off the ballot disenfranchises NO ONE​

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

It is simply another Constitutional restriction. It is no more disenfranchising than is the requirement that one be 35 or over, a naturalized citizen and a resident of at least 14 years standing. What is mindless is the acceptance of Trump's ignorant whine.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do the Constitution's requirements that a presidential candidate be 35 years of age or older, a naturalized citizen and a resident of at least 14 years standing disenfranchise voters who might want to elect someone who doesn't meet those qualifications? YES or NO?

No.
Natural-born citizen.

 

[BS Filter]

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.

What was the purpose for the 14th Amendment?

 

[Crick]

What about all the Trump supporters? You are saying screw them, vote for some one else?

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

Involved in?

Based upon your above post.......what was it, an insurrection or an attempted insurrection?

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

Well, in 1865, congress and President Lincoln made a formal declaration of an insurrection.

The application of 14/3 during the Reconstruction Era was made using civil actions.

I haven't heard any declaration of an insurrection having occurred by the president or congress, only a couple stooge biased judges and a whole bunch of democrats................I don't think that meets the basis for an insurrection....by any means.

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

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act​

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569#:~:text=Section%203%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment%20does%20not%20expressly%20require,to%20refuse%20to%20seat%20Members.

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

 

[BluesLegend]

This isn't a point of opinion. It is a point of fact and logic. Enforcing the requirements of the Constitution disenfranchises no one.

 

[BS Filter]

It is simply another Constitutional restriction. It is no more disenfranchising than is the requirement that one be 35 or over, a naturalized citizen and a resident of at least 14 years standing. What is mindless is the acceptance of Trump's ignorant whine.

Who were the writers of the 14th Amendment referring to when they mentioned "insurrection"?

 

[BluesLegend]

/---/ It's a shame they no longer teach civics in school. We end up with uninformed dopes saying and believing stupid stuff like you.

Method 1: Congress Proposes an Amendment
To be approved, the amending resolution must be passed by a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House and the Senate.

States Ratify the Amendment
If approved by Congress, the proposed amendment is sent to the governors of all 50 states for their approval, called “ratification.” Congress will have specified one of two ways by which the states should consider ratification:

The governor submits the amendment to the state legislature for its consideration; or
The governor convenes a state ratifying convention.
If the amendment is ratified by three-fourths (currently 38) of the state legislatures or ratifying conventions, it becomes part of the Constitution.

How Difficult Is It to Amend the Constitution?

Find out about the processes used to amend the Constitution and see how many times the Constitution has been amended.

www.thoughtco.com

LOL lost, sense of humor if found contact Cellblock2429

 

[BS Filter]

Do the Constitution's requirements that a presidential candidate be 35 years of age or older, a naturalized citizen and a resident of at least 14 years standing disenfranchise voters who might want to elect someone who doesn't meet those qualifications? YES or NO?

By following the edicts of the US Constitution?

Does a red traffic light disenfranchise the drivers who don't want to stop?

 

[JWBooth]

Keeping Trump off the ballot disenfranchises NO ONE​

Except for the millions who voted for him before that might want to do it again.

 

[Crick]

Nope. The Constitution says absolutely no such thing.

The Constitution specifially says

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and VicePresident, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who,having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, oras a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to supportthe Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against thesame, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds ofeach House, remove such disability.​

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically,one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oustofficials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members.​

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569#:~:text=Section%203%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment%20does%20not%20expressly%20require,to%20refuse%20to%20seat%20Members.

 

[Phactotum]

You claim to be a poster named "Phactotum". Do you have a link?

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.

The statement is a premise to my argument, not a claim of Trump's. It is, however, implicit in his contention that removing him from the ballot would 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 would be enthused to read you further qualify that.

Qualified a body of government for what?

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??

The text here does not require a conviction

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 believe the Federal Election Commission erred when they allowed his name to appear.

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?

I believe that Trump's insurrectionist activity disqualify him from ever holding office again with the US government.

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?

No, they cannot. They NEVER HAD A RIGHT TO VOTE FOR UNQUALIFIED CANDIDATES IN THE FIRST PLACE.

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

Unfair? It would be illegal and unconstitutional.

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.

 

[Crick]

Yes, it's clear why you dummy-craps staged that insurrection.

It's good to know right off that bat that you're that stupid.

So you could end elections in America forever.

Says the man who thinks Trump should have overthrown the 2020 election.

You haven't a legal leg to stand on.

We have the US Constitution to stand on you ignorant scumsucking piece of bantu shit

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and VicePresident, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who,having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, oras a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to supportthe Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against thesame, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds ofeach House, remove such disability.​

And if you ccksuckers pull this off you will start a civil war.

Does that make you feel better about that embarrassment between your legs?

Anyone who says this kind of crap is right to my face will be spitting up teeth.

I would have thought that even someone as mentally handicapped as you would have figured out by now how threats on an anonymous discussion board come across. Poorly.

 

[Crick]

Specifically, where?

14/3

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and VicePresident, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who,having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, oras a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to supportthe Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against thesame, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds ofeach House, remove such disability.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Keep telling yourself that to make your side seem less like authoritarian Stalinist/Maoist hacks.

 

[Crick]

That is obviously not true.

If SCOTUS found he was under 35, not a naturalized citizen or had not been resident for 14 years, would you all be disenfranchised? Would THAT be election interference? Ever hear the line "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? That you - and most of us - were unfamiliar with 14/3 doesn't mean we get to skip it. It's the F-ing Constitution. Biden isn't doing this. These are American citizens bringing suit in court. The courts are looking at the law.

 

[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....

Until someone starts casting votes, the election has not yet begun.

 

[Hellbilly]

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.

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

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

This is the system that your people created. Embrace it.

 

[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....

Not what I said above where?