I don't have much to say about the legality of the attempts to block Trump from running, or whether they are justified. But it's just such a pathetic look from the Democrats. They're basically saying, "The only way we can beat Trump is to prevent him from running". If Trump is such a disaster - and I agree that he is - Dems should be able to find a candidate who could easily defeat him. But they're not even trying.
Keeping Trump off the ballot disenfranchises NO ONE
- Thread starter Crick
- Start date
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
Good luck with that in the Trump SCOTUS
I look forward to the Trump SCOTUS ***** slapping Dems onto their ass.
- Mar 3, 2013
- 89,287
- 53,571
- 2,605
Attachments
I don't see how.
Dems need to nominate a candidate who can make a legitimate claim to represent the entire nation, and not just their "side" of the culture war.
Billiejeens
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2019
- 52,487
- 38,557
- 3,545
There were no court cases.
No matter how many times one counts the same mixture of valid and invalid ballots the number will remain the same.
Because - Math.
What is really troubling is that you and people like you, don't even understand what is being discussed.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
Here;s the thing.
Assuming Trump did indeed participate in an insurrection...
The 14th says he cannot hold office; it does not say he cannot be elected to office.
That is, the 14th only applies if he is elected and takes office.
As such, the states do not have standing to remove him from their ballots, as the 14th Amendment does not yet apply.
So...
if he is elected, someone will sue in federal court, and, eventually, the USSC will decide if he is disqualified under the 14th Amendment.
If so, then he will be removed, and the VP will take over.
Assuming Trump did indeed participate in an insurrection...
The 14th says he cannot hold office; it does not say he cannot be elected to office.
That is, the 14th only applies if he is elected and takes office.
As such, the states do not have standing to remove him from their ballots, as the 14th Amendment does not yet apply.
So...
if he is elected, someone will sue in federal court, and, eventually, the USSC will decide if he is disqualified under the 14th Amendment.
If so, then he will be removed, and the VP will take over.
LOL .. You're anchoring to an amendment that was targeting participants of the Confederacy from running for office. Who has declared Trump is a Confederate like soldier? Where is the legal, objective outcome of this? Or is it just feelings?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.
Support what language? Amendments to the US Constitution? Majority decisions in at least three-fourths of the states. The 14th Amendment was fully ratified on July 28, 1868. It's primary purpose was extending civil rights to the nation's former slaves.
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868)
EnlargeDownload Link Citation: The House Joint Resolution Proposing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, June 16, 1866; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1999; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives. View All Pages in the National...www.archives.gov
- Thread starter
- #150
Much obliged for your response. My apologies for not having addressed you as well as I could, but I'm nore than a little swamped with responses here. There are 7 pages of posts here and I've just gotten to page 2.
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.
- Thread starter
- #151
Crying? What crying? I at least am not forced to pretend black is white and up is down in order to support a candidate.
- Thread starter
- #152
Trump, as far as the Republican party is concerned, is the incumbent. If Obama or Clinton has been in the same situation in which Trump finds himself, they would have gotten 80-90% of the vote. And, I repeat, more than half the Republicans in one of the nation's most conservative states DO NOT WANT HIM REELECTED. He is not doing well.
Hellbilly
Platinum Member
You need some better material
- Thread starter
- #154
I agree. And, of course, Both Trump and Bush Jr took office with a minority of the popular vote, which I find a more serious problem. I personally think we should have gone to direct elections years ago. I believe the Electoral College was established in order to maintain the control of the elite.
You realize that even direct elections will not eliminate that problem. If you get 51% for Candidate A and 49% for Candidate B, those 49% get their votes trashcanned. But that's how democracy works. I like Ranked Choice voting. It could make a lot of people happier with any given outcome.
The US has four times the population of Germany and more than 56 times that of Denmark. We're all aware of the problem. What's needed is some solutions. Got any?
- Thread starter
- #155
There is a small part of me that would like to see him win so the results can be pointed out to the people who supported him. But only a small part. If the law ends up removing him from the ballot, he will not get elected again in a fair election. There may well be violence and a great deal of unhappiness, but he will not sit his fat ass down again behind the Resolute Desk. And I think we all know that he will not live much longer. Based on their lifestyles, it would be surprising to see him outlive Biden. I don't know where his fans will go when he's gone but he seems to have some very difficult shoes to fill, even with 4 inch lifts.
I actually think the electoral college provides an important balance between urban and rural interests. The FPTP (plurality) voting is the real problem. Ranked choice voting would resolve that, and put an end to strategic voting ("lesser of two evils"). It would also steer us toward more civility and less polarization
- Thread starter
- #157
Do you have any actual facts, reasoning or logic to support that?
- Thread starter
- #158
Trump attempted to replace a large number of policy heads at the Pentagon in his last three months. And the planning to have no one but completely loyal peons in every position of Executive Branch power have been underway since the day he lost.
- Thread starter
- #159
There's a fair chance that MAGA will destroy this nation. Watch closely. You'll want to tell your grandchildren all about it.MAGA gonna getchya, cricket!!!!!!
BOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Harry Dresden
Only Adamantium Member
you were talking constitution above....now its the court.....either way the election has been interfered with...
Similar threads
New Topics
-
sound, water bubbles, and flash of light- Started by trevorjohnson83
- Replies: 0
-
Is the Strait of Hurmuz a sliver lining for Climate Change?- Started by Raynine
- Replies: 0
-
-
