Legally preventing Trump from running is unconstitutional and is net detrimental to our nation.

[WorldWatcher]

Problem is...
People can still vote for that someone, so that someone can still win the election.
Further, electors form the states won by that person, can still vote for him.

People can vote for whomever they want via write in. However if the person does not meet the qualifications for office they will not be certified and it goes to the person with the next highest vote count.

WW

 

[postman]

Let me get this straight... (pertaining to the President)...

#1 If someone is under 35 years of age they have to be allowed on the ballot, can win the election, seated in office, and has to be removed only if someone complains.

#2 If someone is not a resident of the United States for 14 years, they have to be allowed on the ballot, can win the election, seated in office, and has to be removed only if someone complains.

In those cases, the constitution 20th amendment section 3 says

Section 3
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, ...
... if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;

Age or years of residency are qualifications that if not met at the time the president elect is to take office, can be met afterwards, when he reaches 35, or has been resident for 14 years.

So the constitution allows somebody not yet qualified, but who can qualify afterwards, to run and get elected to office.

 

[Lesh]

There's a process for this.
Trump wins.
He takes office.
Someone sues. He is removed from office.
The VP takes over.

The fact people can still vote for him and he can still win, means there's no sound legal reason for any state to take him off the ballot -- doing so only serves to suppress those votes.

Which is why the Democrats want to do it.

If judged to have participated in an insurrection no votes can be cast for his electors.

 

[postman]

People can vote for whomever they want via write in. However if the person does not meet the qualifications for office they will not be certified and it goes to the person with the next highest vote count.

WW

Actually not. It requires they get 270 EC votes to be elected. If the leading candidate got 270 or more votes, the guy who came in second, can't have enough votes to be elected.

And then it is up to congress to choose from the top 3 vote receivers.

12th amendment --- and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President...

 

[SavannahMann]

Interesting. Was not aware.
But, also not binding on the USSC.

I'm not. Send it. Rule he can't be on the ballot. Apply to to 50 states + DC.
Trump can't win, so getting someone else in there is better for everyone.

No it isn’t binding on the USSC. But it was one of the Precedent cases considered by the Colorado State Supreme Court.

If there is no direct precedent, courts are supposed to see if there are similar cases that have been ruled on before. Those cases are a guide. What the Jurists considered and said.

It appears as though the Colorado SC did that. And they make a strong argument to support their position in the written decision. That decision, including dissents, is more than 200 pages.

Each phrase and sub argument has footnote links to previous decisions of many Courts. Including previous US Supreme Court cases.

That is why I say I honestly don’t know how they will decide. Like Cato, I hope they write a good decision with similar notes to precedent setting cases. In other words a rational explanation for their decision.

I even read the dissent arguments. Now if there was anything explosive in those dissenting opinions the Propagandists would be putting those arguments in their signature lines. But they aren’t. That tells me that the RW people who did read them saw what I saw. We don’t like it and we aren’t going to do it because it isn’t fair. That isn’t judicial reasoning. That isn’t the way our Courts are supposed to work.

But that is the way the dissents were written.

 

[Supposn]

That’s not the process.

One of the few Precedent cases on this issue is Hassan. Gorsuch wrote the opinion. There Gorsuch said it was in the Interest of a State to prevent the inclusion on a ballot of an unqualified candidate.

But going your way would be a disaster. Let’s say it took a year to order Trump removed. That means that for the year Trump was ineligible to be President. That means all laws signed by him. All orders issued. All policies would be invalid as Trump didn’t have the Constitutional authority to issue those orders.

But I repeat. Why are you guys so afraid of it going to the Supremes? I don’t know how they will rule. They may say it wasn’t an insurrection and Trump is eligible. They may say it was but since President isn’t mentioned Trump is eligible. They may say that Trump is ineligible. I honestly have no idea. I wouldn’t bet a dollar on either side of it.

If you guys are so sure this is bullshit why the outrage that it is going to the Supremes?

SavvannahMann, appellate courts are “courts of appeals” where defendants, or plaintiffs, or prosecutors who are dissatisfied with a lower court's decisions are permitted to appeal for the appellate court's reconsideration of the legal matters in contention. The U.S. Supreme Court's the federal court system's ultimate appellate court of last appeal. To appeal a court decision, the lower courts' must first have made a decision. Courts make decisions on cases brought before them. The Supreme Court considers all appeals brought before it, but the justices choose which of those appeals are worthy to be further argued before them. The Supreme Court may choose not to hear any more additional arguments, thus permitting the lower court's decision to stand.

I don”t know who or what you meant when (within your response to M14Shooter) you posted, “Why are you guys so afraid of it going to the Supremes”? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[SavannahMann]

SavvannahMann, appellate courts are “courts of appeals” where defendants, or plaintiffs, or prosecutors who are dissatisfied with a lower court's decisions are permitted to appeal for the appellate court's reconsideration of the legal matters in contention. The U.S. Supreme Court's the federal court system's ultimate appellate court of last appeal. To appeal a court decision, the lower courts' must first have made a decision. Courts make decisions on cases brought before them. The Supreme Court considers all appeals brought before it, but the justices choose which of those appeals are worthy to be further argued before them. The Supreme Court may choose not to hear any more additional arguments, thus permitting the lower court's decision to stand.

I don”t know who or what you meant when (within your response to M14Shooter) you posted, “Why are you guys so afraid of it going to the Supremes”? Respectfully, Supposn

Why am I not surprised that a Trump Supporter has such strong opinions, while being totally ignorant of the situation.

Let’s begin at the beginning. Republicans in Colorado, Registered Republicans in the state, filed a lawsuit demanding that the Secretary of State for Colorado remove Trump from the Ballot because he had violated the 14th Amendment.

‘Unprecedented’ Trump 14th Amendment trial in Colorado comes to a close - Colorado Newsline

Plaintiffs' attorney Sean Grimsley called the insurrection clause “one of the few self-defense mechanisms (the Constitution) has."

coloradonewsline.com

The final decision from that trial was in three parts. First, the Judge ruled that there had been an Insurrection. Second. That Trump had participated in the Insurrection. However, the Judge ruled that since the office of President was not listed in the 14th Amendment, that there was no grounds to remove Trump from the ballot.

So Trump won the important point. He was on the ballot. But that wasn’t good enough for him. He wanted the two point conversion.

Colorado judge finds Trump engaged in insurrection, but rejects constitutional ballot challenge

The decision by District Judge Sarah B. Wallace is the third ruling in a little over a week against lawsuits seeking to knock Trump off the ballot by citing Section 3 of the amendment.

whyy.org

So Trump appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. Demanding that they overturn the findings that it had been in insurrection, and that Trump had participated in it.

As appeals flow into Colorado Supreme Court, Trump disqualification ruling faces scrutiny

In the hours and days after a Denver judge found Donald Trump remains eligible for the 2024 presidential ballot despite engaging in an insurrection, her reasoning has come under scrutiny from legal scholars and the parties on both sides of the litigation, who are now seeking review of the decision.

www.coloradopolitics.com

This catastrophic blunder is in keeping with Trump’s trait to commit great blunders. The man could fuck up a circle jerk.

The Colorado Supreme Court heard all the petitioners, and read all the documents, and issued a two hundred page decision.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/38112584-ce79-4a11-9671-6a3ad2f97ef3.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4

Now that is the explanation of how the Colorado Supreme Court came to their decision. Two hundred pages. And don’t tell me you’ve read it, you didn’t even know about it. Apparently the RW Propaganda site you faithfully visit hasn’t mentioned that the decision was published on the day it was announced.

So how did we get here? Well Trump blundered going into January 6th. He blundered again on January 6th. He blundered after the day by continuing his nonsense attacks and claims he was cheated. He makes the Three Stooges look competent by comparison.

Then he won the important part of the Court Case, he was still on the ballot. But he blundered again and appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Court. And he’s blundered again since then, by filing one of the weakest appeals in history. Oh the Supremes are taking it and they’ll decide. But frankly the arguments that Trump is using are almost as bad as the ones he used in the Immunity hearing before the US Court of appeals in Washington. Almost. It would be hard to top the argument made by his attorney that a President who assassinated his political rival should have immunity. I have Faith that Trump will make a strong effort to top that blunder however.

Trump’s blunders are becoming a daily thing. But none of the fanboys know anything about it. They rush out and parrot the idiotic idea that having questions settled by courts is somehow unconstitutional. You didn’t even know what we were talking about, the 14th amendment. But you were certain.

I say Trump’s petition is a blunder, and it is. He claims if Colorado is allowed to stand it will disenfranchise millions. Baloney. Disenfranchise means not letting them vote. Because they don’t let Mickey Mouse on the ballot doesn’t stop people from voting for him every election. I know. I’ve voted for him for a few offices when all of the candidates sucked ass. Other times I wrote NOTA in the block. None Of The Above.

Now I wonder how it is you can be so certain that the entire thing is just unfair and unconstitutional, when you don’t know anything about it?

 

[Supposn]

Why am I not surprised that a Trump Supporter has such strong opinions, while being totally ignorant of the situation.

Let’s begin at the beginning. Republicans in Colorado, Registered Republicans in the state, filed a lawsuit demanding that the Secretary of State for Colorado remove Trump from the Ballot because he had violated the 14th Amendment.

https://colorado newsline.com/2023/11/16/trump-14th-amendment-trial-colorado/

The final decision from that trial was in three parts. First, the Judge ruled that there had been an Insurrection. Second. That Trump had participated in the Insurrection. However, the Judge ruled that since the office of President was not listed in the 14th Amendment, that there was no grounds to remove Trump from the ballot.

So Trump won the important point. He was on the ballot. But that wasn’t good enough for him. He wanted the two point conversion.

Colorado judge finds Trump engaged in insurrection, but rejects constitutional ballot challenge

The decision by District Judge Sarah B. Wallace is the third ruling in a little over a week against lawsuits seeking to knock Trump off the ballot by citing Section 3 of the amendment.

whyy.org

So Trump appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. Demanding that they overturn the findings that it had been in insurrection, and that Trump had participated in it.

As appeals flow into Colorado Supreme Court, Trump disqualification ruling faces scrutiny

In the hours and days after a Denver judge found Donald Trump remains eligible for the 2024 presidential ballot despite engaging in an insurrection, her reasoning has come under scrutiny from legal scholars and the parties on both sides of the litigation, who are now seeking review of the decision.

www.coloradopolitics.com

This catastrophic blunder is in keeping with Trump’s trait to commit great blunders. The man could fuck up a circle jerk.

The Colorado Supreme Court heard all the petitioners, and read all the documents, and issued a two hundred page decision.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/38112584-ce79-4a11-9671-6a3ad2f97ef3.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4

Now that is the explanation of how the Colorado Supreme Court came to their decision. Two hundred pages. And don’t tell me you’ve read it, you didn’t even know about it. Apparently the RW Propaganda site you faithfully visit hasn’t mentioned that the decision was published on the day it was announced.

So how did we get here? Well Trump blundered going into January 6th. He blundered again on January 6th. He blundered after the day by continuing his nonsense attacks and claims he was cheated. He makes the Three Stooges look competent by comparison.

Then he won the important part of the Court Case, he was still on the ballot. But he blundered again and appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Court. And he’s blundered again since then, by filing one of the weakest appeals in history. Oh the Supremes are taking it and they’ll decide. But frankly the arguments that Trump is using are almost as bad as the ones he used in the Immunity hearing before the US Court of appeals in Washington. Almost. It would be hard to top the argument made by his attorney that a President who assassinated his political rival should have immunity. I have Faith that Trump will make a strong effort to top that blunder however.

Trump’s blunders are becoming a daily thing. But none of the fanboys know anything about it. They rush out and parrot the idiotic idea that having questions settled by courts is somehow unconstitutional. You didn’t even know what we were talking about, the 14th amendment. But you were certain.

I say Trump’s petition is a blunder, and it is. He claims if Colorado is allowed to stand it will disenfranchise millions. Baloney. Disenfranchise means not letting them vote. Because they don’t let Mickey Mouse on the ballot doesn’t stop people from voting for him every election. I know. I’ve voted for him for a few offices when all of the candidates sucked ass. Other times I wrote NOTA in the block. None Of The Above.

Now I wonder how it is you can be so certain that the entire thing is just unfair and unconstitutional, when you don’t know anything about it?

SavvannahMann,thank you for providing the link, ‘Unprecedented ’ Trump 14th Amendment trial in Colorado comes to a close - Colorado Newsline .
Donald Trump wasn't on trial for the federal crime of sedition. Regardless of the Colorado court's decision, Donald Trump didn't face trial in a federal court for a crime of sedition against the United States of America.

The Colorado court, you and I believe Donald Trump while president did urge his followers to march onto the Capitol Building. He was aware, or was made aware by credible persons in his administration, of organizations within those groups of marchers who had violent intentions. He deliberately said nothing to dissuade them prior to or during the attack upon the Capitol building. He and his administration deliberately hindered states from sending their state's military or law enforcement units to assist federal and Washington DC officers defending the Capitol Building.
You and I believe that was a seditious attack upon the government of the United States. But although what you and I believe may be the absolute truth, our opinions are not deniable or even undeniable facts; the facts have been proved to the satisfaction of a court in Colorado, but Donald Trump has not yet been tried for the crime against the United States, within a federal court.

Theoretically, if Donald Trump was being held in a Colorado prison, until he's been deemed guilty of sedition or found to be a traitor in a federal court or by the United States Congress, it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to prohibit him from seeking to be re-elected president of the United States. The U.S. Department of Justice has waited too long before bringing Donald Trump up for trial in Washington's District of Columbia. If they fail to finish that trial before election day, it's conceivable that Trump proponents could be elected to serve in the Electoral College. In that case, barring the U.S. Congress or the Supreme Court doing something radically unprecedented, Donald Trump could theoretically be sworn in as the next president of the United States.

We U.S. Voters should beware of what we wish for; our wishes may be satisfied. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[frigidweirdo]

Legally preventing Trump from running is unconstitutional and is net detrimental to our nation.

It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall, (not Voltaire) who wrote, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". She better than all others expressed the essence of the “Bill of Rights first amendment to the USA's constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

A democratic republic must and is always vulnerable due to its dependence upon the judgment of its citizens who elect the government's officeholders. We seldom if ever have had lesser, and sometimes have had better government than we deserve. Among those us who believe ex-president Donald Trump to be inferior to all others who are or have ever been president, they only pay lip service to our constitution and our democratic republic if they advocate Trump be legally prevented from again seeking federal office.

Only until he's tried and convicted of sedition against the United States of America, should he be legally prevented from running for that office.
Respectfully, Supposn

Having Trump running after what he did is a detriment to the country.

Having a guy who constantly ignores reality is a detriment to the country.

 

[SavannahMann]

SavvannahMann,thank you for providing the link, ‘Unprecedented ’ Trump 14th Amendment trial in Colorado comes to a close - Colorado Newsline .
Donald Trump wasn't on trial for the federal crime of sedition. Regardless of the Colorado court's decision, Donald Trump didn't face trial in a federal court for a crime of sedition against the United States of America.

The Colorado court, you and I believe Donald Trump while president did urge his followers to march onto the Capitol Building. He was aware, or was made aware by credible persons in his administration, of organizations within those groups of marchers who had violent intentions. He deliberately said nothing to dissuade them prior to or during the attack upon the Capitol building. He and his administration deliberately hindered states from sending their state's military or law enforcement units to assist federal and Washington DC officers defending the Capitol Building.
You and I believe that was a seditious attack upon the government of the United States. But although what you and I believe may be the absolute truth, our opinions are not deniable or even undeniable facts; the facts have been proved to the satisfaction of a court in Colorado, but Donald Trump has not yet been tried for the crime against the United States, within a federal court.

Theoretically, if Donald Trump was being held in a Colorado prison, until he's been deemed guilty of sedition or found to be a traitor in a federal court or by the United States Congress, it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to prohibit him from seeking to be re-elected president of the United States. The U.S. Department of Justice has waited too long before bringing Donald Trump up for trial in Washington's District of Columbia. If they fail to finish that trial before election day, it's conceivable that Trump proponents could be elected to serve in the Electoral College. In that case, barring the U.S. Congress or the Supreme Court doing something radically unprecedented, Donald Trump could theoretically be sworn in as the next president of the United States.

We U.S. Voters should beware of what we wish for; our wishes may be satisfied. Respectfully, Supposn

Interesting. You apparently read one link. I give you credit for doing so. But I don’t understand one thing.

Your entire response can be summarized into a short paragraph. I suppose we should start here.

Who the hell does the Colorado Supreme Court think they are? What do they think they are doing? What gives them the right to do that?

The rest is mixing Apples and Oranges to the insane degree.

Now the last link I provided was the actual decision from the Colorado Supreme Court including dissents. This is literally their explanation of what they were doing, why, and by what authority. It would be the source of the current controversy.

The TV Show Ted Lasso mis attributes the quote Be Curious, not Judgmental to Walt Whitman. It actually comes from a newspaper column from the 1980’s.

But you aren’t curious. If someone tells you something is in the Bible, you probably take their word for it. Instead of looking it up to see the quote in context to better understand. You just aren’t curious enough to go to the source.

Obviously you’ve read articles, and I read them too, from RW news sites that bemoan this all without a conviction. You are thus convinced that a conviction is required. You aren’t curious. You object to the outcome. Not the process. The outcome in your mind shows the process as flawed. The outcome in your opinion proves the action is illegitimate.

If you had read the decision. You would see that the Colorado Supreme Court had the authority under Colorado State Law and Federal Law to decide such things. They were dealing with the Colorado ballot after all.

If you were curious you would have read about the Michigan State Supreme Court who was faced with a similar issue. Only Michigan State law doesn’t give the Secretary of State the responsibility or authority to remove unqualified candidates from a primary ballot.

Michigan, like Colorado has a majority Democrat Justices on the State Supreme Court. The different outcome stems from the different laws in play. Every state has different laws.

If you had read the decision from Colorado, all your questions would be answered as to who they thought they were, and what they thought gave them the authority.

One of those precedents that are quoted is from Neil Gorsuch, when he was an Appeals Court Judge. That was quoted by the Colorado Supreme Court as part of their authority, and their reasoning for believing it was the right thing to do.

We know you aren’t curious. The only question that remains is how judgmental you are.

 

[Supposn]

Interesting. You apparently read one link. I give you credit for doing so. But I don’t understand one thing.

Your entire response can be summarized into a short paragraph. I suppose we should start here.

Who the hell does the Colorado Supreme Court think they are? What do they think they are doing? What gives them the right to do that?

The rest is mixing Apples and Oranges to the insane degree.

Now the last link I provided was the actual decision from the Colorado Supreme Court including dissents. This is literally their explanation of what they were doing, why, and by what authority. It would be the source of the current controversy.

The TV Show Ted Lasso mis attributes the quote Be Curious, not Judgmental to Walt Whitman. It actually comes from a newspaper column from the 1980’s.

But you aren’t curious. If someone tells you something is in the Bible, you probably take their word for it. Instead of looking it up to see the quote in context to better understand. You just aren’t curious enough to go to the source.

Obviously you’ve read articles, and I read them too, from RW news sites that bemoan this all without a conviction. You are thus convinced that a conviction is required. You aren’t curious. You object to the outcome. Not the process. The outcome in your mind shows the process as flawed. The outcome in your opinion proves the action is illegitimate.

If you had read the decision. You would see that the Colorado Supreme Court had the authority under Colorado State Law and Federal Law to decide such things. They were dealing with the Colorado ballot after all.

If you were curious you would have read about the Michigan State Supreme Court who was faced with a similar issue. Only Michigan State law doesn’t give the Secretary of State the responsibility or authority to remove unqualified candidates from a primary ballot.

Michigan, like Colorado has a majority Democrat Justices on the State Supreme Court. The different outcome stems from the different laws in play. Every state has different laws.

If you had read the decision from Colorado, all your questions would be answered as to who they thought they were, and what they thought gave them the authority.

One of those precedents that are quoted is from Neil Gorsuch, when he was an Appeals Court Judge. That was quoted by the Colorado Supreme Court as part of their authority, and their reasoning for believing it was the right thing to do.

We know you aren’t curious. The only question that remains is how judgmental you are.

SavvannahMann, do you suppose the Colorado Supreme Court may consider themselves to be the supreme court within their state's justice system? Do you suppose that may be germane to the topics we're discussing?

In regard to those topics, specifically who are or are not permitted to be on the election ballots, all of USA's states currently choose those who represent their states in the electoral college. Not all members of the electoral college were elected by their state's voters in general state-wide elections; this is permitted under Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution's Article 2.


Within the general elections within every U.S. State where I was residing, the names of nominated candidates to be elected to represent our state in the U.S. Electoral College, rather than political parties' nominations for president, is what appeared and what I was able to vote upon. In those states, and I suppose in many if not all states, it is the state, not the federal government that determines how those who represent their state by proxie should be chosen. The federal government may pass legislation to regulate who may be a presidential candidate, but before that, they must amend Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution's Article 2.

Lacking an amendment of the constitution'sSection1 of Article 2, it would be unconstitutional for the president and/or the congress to attempt overturning the U.S. Electoral College's choice. The only other alternative would be to seek a Supreme Court's decision to prevent swearing in of the electoral college's choice for president.

In accordance with the U.S. Constitution, the state's, not the federal government determines how they're represented within the Electoral College, and it is the Electoral College that determines who should be our next president. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[SavannahMann]

SavvannahMann, do you suppose the Colorado Supreme Court may consider themselves to be the supreme court within their state's justice system? Do you suppose that may be germane to the topics we're discussing?

In regard to those topics, specifically who are or are not permitted to be on the election ballots, all of USA's states currently choose those who represent their states in the electoral college. Not all members of the electoral college were elected by their state's voters in general state-wide elections; this is permitted under Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution's Article 2.


Within the general elections within every U.S. State where I was residing, the names of nominated candidates to be elected to represent our state in the U.S. Electoral College, rather than political parties' nominations for president, is what appeared and what I was able to vote upon. In those states, and I suppose in many if not all states, it is the state, not the federal government that determines how those who represent their state by proxie should be chosen. The federal government may pass legislation to regulate who may be a presidential candidate, but before that, they must amend Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution's Article 2.

Lacking an amendment of the constitution'sSection1 of Article 2, it would be unconstitutional for the president and/or the congress to attempt overturning the U.S. Electoral College's choice. The only other alternative would be to seek a Supreme Court's decision to prevent swearing in of the electoral college's choice for president.

In accordance with the U.S. Constitution, the state's, not the federal government determines how they're represented within the Electoral College, and it is the Electoral College that determines who should be our next president. Respectfully, Supposn

I’m a little confused. You are aware that this whole thing started about Trump being on the Ballot in Colorado right?

 

[Supposn]

Regarding the topic of this thread, Refer to: MSN
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

I’m a little confused. You are aware that this whole thing started about Trump being on the Ballot in Colorado right?

SavvannahMann, your confusion is apparent. The title of this thread is “Legally preventing Trump from running is unconstitutional and is net detrimental to our nation”. The topic of this thread did not “start” and it will not be entirely resolved depending upon what will be printed on Colorado's ballots. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[ThisIsMe]

Legally preventing Trump from running is unconstitutional and is net detrimental to our nation.

It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall, (not Voltaire) who wrote, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". She better than all others expressed the essence of the “Bill of Rights first amendment to the USA's constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

A democratic republic must and is always vulnerable due to its dependence upon the judgment of its citizens who elect the government's officeholders. We seldom if ever have had lesser, and sometimes have had better government than we deserve. Among those us who believe ex-president Donald Trump to be inferior to all others who are or have ever been president, they only pay lip service to our constitution and our democratic republic if they advocate Trump be legally prevented from again seeking federal office.

Only until he's tried and convicted of sedition against the United States of America, should he be legally prevented from running for that office.
Respectfully, Supposn

Nope..nope..let me stop you right there…the left have already decided that a person doesn’t need to be charged let alone convicted of insurrection to be ineligible, someone just has to “say” he committed insurrection while removing him from the ballot.

You’re wasting your time even trying to argue. You will never sway a lefty opinion here. Your best course of action is to just remember these days for when it comes time to hold them to the same standard, and when they come here and rant and rave about how it’s unfair and unconstitutional, you can just point back to these threads and say “I told you so…”

 

[Supposn]

Refer to: The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

Within the general elections within every U.S. State where I was residing, the names of nominated candidates to be elected to represent our state in the U.S. Electoral College, rather than political parties' nominations for president, is what appeared and what I was able to vote upon. In those states, and I suppose in many if not all states, it is the state, not the federal government that determines how those who represent their state by proxie should be chosen. The federal government may pass legislation to regulate who may be a presidential candidate, but before that, they must amend Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution's Article 2.

Lacking an amendment of the constitution'sSection1 of Article 2, it would be unconstitutional for the president and/or the congress to attempt overturning the U.S. Electoral College's choice. The only other alternative would be to seek a Supreme Court's decision to prevent swearing in of the electoral college's choice for president.

In accordance with the U.S. Constitution, the state's, not the federal government determines how they're represented within the Electoral College, and it is the Electoral College that determines who should be our next president. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

SavvannahMann, your first sentence of one among your responses to my posts was, “Why am I not surprised that a Trump Supporter has such strong opinions, while being totally ignorant of the situation”.

I no less than you believe Trump is unsuitable for any federal office. His election was, and if re-elected it would also be net detrimental to our nation; I don't believe I'm totally ignorant of the facts and we both have strong opinions regarding this matter.

I firmly uphold the U.S. Constitution and I believe any U.S. government's action contrary to our Constitution is net detrimental to our nation. Preventing Donald Trump from seeking to be re-elected by unconstitutional means would be net detrimental to our nation. If our government by unconstitutional means succeeded or permitted others to succeed to prevent Trump from seeking re-election, it would be net detrimental to our nation. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[SavannahMann]

SavvannahMann, your confusion is apparent. The title of this thread is “Legally preventing Trump from running is unconstitutional and is net detrimental to our nation”. The topic of this thread did not “start” and it will not be entirely resolved depending upon what will be printed on Colorado's ballots. Respectfully, Supposn

The issue began in Colorado. And now Maine and Michigan have weighed in.

But let’s pretend that the arguments made by the Colorado Supreme Court in deciding the issue regarding the Ballots in Colorado, the foundation of the discussion, won’t have any effect.

Let’s move on to the effect on our nation.

A principal that founded this nation and has been championed often is that no one is above the law, and no one is below the law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The argument you are making is that that law must be subservient to public opinion. The laws must bend to the will of the voters. The Constitution is not the supreme law of the land. It is merely a set of guidelines. A long held suggestion that will be applied if the majority feels it is ok.

Ben Franklin famously described the nation as a Constitutional Republic, if we could keep it. Your ideals, if they are adopted, mean we aren’t a Constitutional Republic anymore.

The Supreme Court will have to answer three questions. The first. Was January 6th an Insurrection? Legislation passed by Congress says it was. The findings of the Courts in Colorado, the reason the Supremes are getting involved, says it was.

If the Supremes says yes to that question it brings up the next issue. And a less obvious one.

The second question. Was Donald Trump involved as party to the Insurrection?

The evidence appears to support saying yes to that. But the Supremes may say no. We will have to wait and see. If they say yes the next question is academic.

If the Supremes say yes to the first two, they’re pretty well stuck saying that Trump is ineligible. Regardless of how many people vote for him, he can’t serve.

You say it is up to the electors. At that point. It isn’t. Congress decides. No matter who they choose the President will be unelected. Do you really want four years of that crap?

 

[Supposn]

The issue began in Colorado. And now Maine and Michigan have weighed in.

But let’s pretend that the arguments made by the Colorado Supreme Court in deciding the issue regarding the Ballots in Colorado, the foundation of the discussion, won’t have any effect.

Let’s move on to the effect on our nation.

A principal that founded this nation and has been championed often is that no one is above the law, and no one is below the law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The argument you are making is that that law must be subservient to public opinion. The laws must bend to the will of the voters. The Constitution is not the supreme law of the land. It is merely a set of guidelines. A long held suggestion that will be applied if the majority feels it is ok.

Ben Franklin famously described the nation as a Constitutional Republic, if we could keep it. Your ideals, if they are adopted, mean we aren’t a Constitutional Republic anymore.

The Supreme Court will have to answer three questions. The first. Was January 6th an Insurrection? Legislation passed by Congress says it was. The findings of the Courts in Colorado, the reason the Supremes are getting involved, says it was.

If the Supremes says yes to that question it brings up the next issue. And a less obvious one.

The second question. Was Donald Trump involved as party to the Insurrection?

The evidence appears to support saying yes to that. But the Supremes may say no. We will have to wait and see. If they say yes the next question is academic.

If the Supremes say yes to the first two, they’re pretty well stuck saying that Trump is ineligible. Regardless of how many people vote for him, he can’t serve.

You say it is up to the electors. At that point. It isn’t. Congress decides. No matter who they choose the President will be unelected. Do you really want four years of that crap?

SavvannahMann, efforts to prevent Donald Trump from seeking the Republican nomination and running for president did not begin and they will not end in Colorado. We're past Colorado, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Trump's appeal of the Colorado court's decision.

I don't believe any undermining of the U.S. Constitution is extremely detrimental to our nation. I firmly support our U.S. Constitution. Regardless of how unsuitable Trump is, stopping him by unconstitutional means would be the greater harm to our nation.

I certainly do not believe our laws should, or as you posted “must be subservient to public opinion”. That's arguments made by Trump and his supporters. I'm opposed to any unconstitutional methods of hindering Trump's to be re-elected.

[We're now at this point because our U.S. Department of Justice was unable or less than willing to accomplish their task in a timely manner. Refer to: Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case) - Wikipedia].

In January 2025, it will be as it always has been; the Electoral College will determine who was elected president of the United States. If they elected Trump and the Supreme Court agrees that he should be sworn in, then our nation is screwed; Trump will again be president of the United States. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[SavannahMann]

SavvannahMann, efforts to prevent Donald Trump from seeking the Republican nomination and running for president did not begin and they will not end in Colorado. We're past Colorado, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Trump's appeal of the Colorado court's decision.

I don't believe any undermining of the U.S. Constitution is extremely detrimental to our nation. I firmly support our U.S. Constitution. Regardless of how unsuitable Trump is, stopping him by unconstitutional means would be the greater harm to our nation.

I certainly do not believe our laws should, or as you posted “must be subservient to public opinion”. That's arguments made by Trump and his supporters. I'm opposed to any unconstitutional methods of hindering Trump's to be re-elected.

[We're now at this point because our U.S. Department of Justice was unable or less than willing to accomplish their task in a timely manner. Refer to: Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case) - Wikipedia].

In January 2025, it will be as it always has been; the Electoral College will determine who was elected president of the United States. If they elected Trump and the Supreme Court agrees that he should be sworn in, then our nation is screwed; Trump will again be president of the United States. Respectfully, Supposn

You keep saying you are motivated to support the Constitution, but the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was a section you were ignorant of.

Let’s discuss the ballot issue. You argue that it is up to the electors to figure it out after the election. That isn’t how it works. The electors are not chosen by the people, but nominated by the candidate who wins. So the electors do little but carry the decision to Congress for the official count. After that, if nobody has the 270 required, Congress steps in.

But ineligible candidates being on the ballot is an issue that was litigated before. The Hassan case.

Hassan v. Colorado, 495 F. App'x 947 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Hassan v. Colorado, 495 F. App'x 947, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

But, as the magistrate judge's opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office. See generally Munro v. Socialist Workers Party,

That was written by Gorsuch when he was an appeals court Judge.

The question remains is Trump Constitutionally prohibited from assuming the office. Many people, including the Supreme Court of Colorado which is where this started, argue yes.

The reason is that it is not required that the individual get a Conviction to be disqualified by the Insurrection clause. Congress has no authority to overturn any conviction of any individual. No authority period. Not legislatively, and not Constitutionally. Yet Congress has, by a 2/3 vote, the ability to restore the honor of the individual to allow them to serve in elected office, an honorable office.

The only remedy by the Hassan decision is to exclude Trump from the ballot if he is found to have engaged in either Insurrection, or aide and comfort of those who engaged in insurrection.

That is the Constitutional Law. That is Constitutional.