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

[j-mac]

I guess you missed the fact that the Constitution sets limits on who can be President in a number of ways and one of them is INSURRECTION

Well, since you have no insurrection then I guess you got nothing....Fascist.

 

[john doe 101]

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

You arent educated in the law. Stop pretending you know anything about the law.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

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.

And if applied broadly, this allows many states to also remove Biden from ballots if they interpret his lack of border security as an insurrection by allowing and aiding an invasion.

Democrats should hope that Trump wins with the Court, because if he doesn't, this is going to get very ugly.

 

[SavannahMann]

And if applied broadly, this allows many states to also remove Biden from ballots if they interpret his lack of border security as an insurrection by allowing and aiding an invasion.

Democrats should hope that Trump wins with the Court, because if he doesn't, this is going to get very ugly.

Personally I do hope Trump wins in court. You see his argument before the Appeals court concerning his immunity is that nobody can punish a President. Ever. Trumps lawyer said that a President can have political rivals killed without any repercussions. So if Trump wins, Biden can order him assassinated.

But for this, it’s going to be harder to sell since Trump is telling Republicans in Congress not to pass a deal on border security so he can run on how awful Biden is.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

Personally I do hope Trump wins in court. You see his argument before the Appeals court concerning his immunity is that nobody can punish a President. Ever. Trumps lawyer said that a President can have political rivals killed without any repercussions. So if Trump wins, Biden can order him assassinated.

But for this, it’s going to be harder to sell since Trump is telling Republicans in Congress not to pass a deal on border security so he can run on how awful Biden is.

I think what happened to Kennedy suggests that presidents can definitely be punished, albeit not in the legal sense.

 

[SavannahMann]

I think what happened to Kennedy suggests that presidents can definitely be punished, albeit not in the legal sense.

History says that Presidents can face legal consequences for their actions in office. Let’s take the most famous case first. Nixon.

Nixon was pardoned by Ford. That ended any indictment while kt was still being arranged. So the courts and prosecutors of the era, as well as the public, believed Nixon could be prosecuted.

The more recent example. Clinton. By accepting a plea deal Clinton accepted guilt and ended further prosecution.

Why did they do that? Why admit guilt if they had some immunity?

 

[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.

SavannaMann, your last sentence of your prior response was “That is the Constitutional Law. That is Constitutional”.

Colorado's Supreme Court's decision regarding Trumps name on Colorada election ballots has been appealed and the Supreme court has agreed to hear arguments on that decision next month. They, not you, or I, or the U.S. Congress will then decide this particular matter. In accordance with the United States constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court's the court of last resort for any questions of what is or is not constitutional. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[SavannahMann]

SavannaMann, your last sentence of your prior response was “That is the Constitutional Law. That is Constitutional”.

Colorado's Supreme Court's decision regarding Trumps name on Colorada election ballots has been appealed and the Supreme court has agreed to hear arguments on that decision next month. They, not you, or I, or the U.S. Congress will then decide this particular matter. In accordance with the United States constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court's the court of last resort for any questions of what is or is not constitutional. Respectfully, Supposn

I was just thinking about the Court. It is interesting that four Justices decided that Texas had the right to exclude the Federal Government in immigration issues.

But you are right. The Supremes will decide. And if the “Originalists” go by the text then Trump will be excluded.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

History says that Presidents can face legal consequences for their actions in office. Let’s take the most famous case first. Nixon.

Nixon was pardoned by Ford. That ended any indictment while kt was still being arranged. So the courts and prosecutors of the era, as well as the public, believed Nixon could be prosecuted.

The more recent example. Clinton. By accepting a plea deal Clinton accepted guilt and ended further prosecution.

Why did they do that? Why admit guilt if they had some immunity?

I should clarify what I meant with my statement. I'm saying what happened to Kennedy wasn't punishment in the legal sense. I phrased it poorly earlier in my attempt to make a morbid joke.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

I was just thinking about the Court. It is interesting that four Justices decided that Texas had the right to exclude the Federal Government in immigration issues.

But you are right. The Supremes will decide. And if the “Originalists” go by the text then Trump will be excluded.

If that happens, you can expect Biden to be excluded in several states as well.

 

[SavannahMann]

If that happens, you can expect Biden to be excluded in several states as well.

I remember the era of Reagan. When Conservatives had principles. When Conservatives were well read and oftentimes, brilliant. The writings of Bob Novak were inspired as one example.

For years there wa laughter as the Left announced they had the Liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh.

Now I look at the Republicans and I honestly wonder what the fuck happened?

Republicans walked away from those who had committed crimes. Duke Cunningham as one example. Democrats were the ones who closed ranks, as with William Jefferson of Louisiana.

During the Obamacare debate Republicans made very valid points that I agree with. Government has no business in healthcare. It is between the patient and doctor.

What happened?

 

[Supposn]

If that happens, you can expect Biden to be excluded in several states as well.

Lone Wanderer, that real possibility occurs within states where the presidential candidate's name itself actually appears on the ballot. In some states it does, and within others it doesn't.

Attorneys may argue on behalf of Colorado's Republican party, because (I've read), Colorado's Court's decision was based upon evidence presented within Colorado court proceedings; but was Donald Trump a defendant in a Colorado court regarding Colorado's nominations for their representatives to the U.S. Electoral College? I don't know if that's the case.

If Trump wasn't a defendant, Colorado courts made a decision against Trump in court proceeding where he wasn't directly represented and had an opportunity to be defended? I think “due process of law” gave Trump's attorneys standing to argue their case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
If Colorada's or any other courts have not yet tried and determined Donald Trump to have committed sedition against theirs' or the United States, can the Colorada state courts prohibit his name to be on the 2024 Colorado ballots? Those are among the questions subject to theupcoming Supreme Court hearing. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

The SCOTUS will decide the ballot issue, but that the democrats are trying this shows how desperate they are. Joe is not going to recover from the damage being done by the morally bankrupt but politically brilliant decision by border governors to start shipping their illegals off to blue cities. They have superglued that dead albatross to democratic necks.

Dekster, I'm a registered as voter in the state where I reside. But I'm not registered as affiliated to any political party. Of course, I'm of considered as a 'lefty” by all who are the right of me within our nation's spectrum of political opinions. I suppose the majority of registered Republicans are to the right of me on that spectrum.

[I've rarely agreed with any Republican candidates upon what I considered to be the most vital of issues they stood on, to an extent that I considered voting for them. Thus, it's reasonable to expect Republicans to be opposed to the candidates I favor, and generally, (but not on every single issue), opposed to my political opinions.]
Despite some Supreme Court's decisions on constitutional issues, and some laws that were passed, I'm no less a firm supporter of all three branches of our government, our laws, and our constitution.

Although I oppose any extraordinary or unconstitutional means to prevent Trump from again seeking to be president, I also believe Republican nomination for Donald Trump this year would better improve the probability of Joseph Biden being re-elected.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

I remember the era of Reagan. When Conservatives had principles. When Conservatives were well read and oftentimes, brilliant. The writings of Bob Novak were inspired as one example.

For years there wa laughter as the Left announced they had the Liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh.

Now I look at the Republicans and I honestly wonder what the fuck happened?

Republicans walked away from those who had committed crimes. Duke Cunningham as one example. Democrats were the ones who closed ranks, as with William Jefferson of Louisiana.

During the Obamacare debate Republicans made very valid points that I agree with. Government has no business in healthcare. It is between the patient and doctor.

What happened?

SavvannahMann, regarding your comment, "During the Obamacare debate Republicans made very valid points that I agree with. Government has no business in healthcare. It is between the patient and doctor":
I, and I believe the Supreme Court still somewhat agree governments in the USA have a legitimate interest in the financial considerations regarding medical insurance costs and who is required to purchase or to be held responsible for medical costs. Those issues have been established and they continue to be legitimate interests of our federal and our states' legislators.

Regarding minimum required standards of healthcare relative to patients and their healthcare providers, the legitimate interests of our federal and our states' legislators in those matters are still within governments' jurisdictions in the USA. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Lone Wanderer]

I remember the era of Reagan. When Conservatives had principles. When Conservatives were well read and oftentimes, brilliant. The writings of Bob Novak were inspired as one example.

For years there wa laughter as the Left announced they had the Liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh.

Now I look at the Republicans and I honestly wonder what the fuck happened?

Republicans walked away from those who had committed crimes. Duke Cunningham as one example. Democrats were the ones who closed ranks, as with William Jefferson of Louisiana.

During the Obamacare debate Republicans made very valid points that I agree with. Government has no business in healthcare. It is between the patient and doctor.

What happened?

If you think Democrats "walk away from those who commit crimes", you haven't been paying attention to the Biden family in general.

What happened is that the Democrats became the neocon corporatist party, which is why part of the GOP is now populist. The Democrats left behind the white working class in favor of woke ideology and open borders.

When whites cease to be the majority here, there will be an interesting realignment of parties, because much of the Latino population isn't onboard with woke nonsense. The white guilt stuff doesn't tend to work with them like it does with about half of the white population.