Should Texas remove Biden from presidential ballot?

[bigrebnc1775]

And the states (who control over 95% of the offices that the 14th amendment addresses) are the arbiter when it comes to offices state and local.

You fail at comprehending to fact the 14th amendment was created to control the states over reach

 

[postman]

You keep dodging the fact your point is moot since Congress and only Congress has juridiction over the 14th amendment. Hell Congress has juridiction over all the amendments.

Wrong. If anything congress is the only entity without jurisdiction to directly enforce the 14th. They can pass laws to enforce it, but passing laws, and directly enforcing are two different animals.

 

[postman]

You fail at comprehending to fact the 14th amendment was created to control the states over reach

No the 14th was to make sure traitors and insurrectionists could not take control of any part of the government, federal state or local.

 

[RadicalRedneck]

Sure, go ahead. You won't see any of the Dems whining like you losers.

You GOT TO BE KIDDING!

 

[JWBooth]

You may throw around the term "treason", because you have no clue what the Constitutional definition of the word is.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Your failure here is a misinterpretation of language. United States in the 1780’s referred to thirteen separate, individual entities working in unison for some collective goal. Treason was not specifically an act against all thirteen as one, but could be an against one or two individually. Thus, using the language as written, treason could be giving aid and comfort to the enemies of Texas or Arizona while not threatening the DC regime.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wrong. If anything congress is the only entity without jurisdiction to directly enforce the 14th. They can pass laws to enforce it, but passing laws, and directly enforcing are two different animals.

Numbnuts the 14th amendment was created to control the states section 5 of the 14th amendment authorized Congress to enforce the 14th amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No the 14th was to make sure traitors and insurrectionists could not take control of any part of the government, federal state or local.

No it wasn't. You need to read the 14th amendment and stop spotting democrat cult media propaganda.

 

[postman]

Your failure here is a misinterpretation of language. United States in the 1780’s referred to thirteen separate, individual entities working in unison for some collective goal. Treason was not specifically an act against all thirteen as one, but could be an against one or two individually. Thus, using the language as written, treason could be giving aid and comfort to the enemies of Texas or Arizona while not threatening the DC regime.

Dude, read the Texas Constitution.

Sec. 22. TREASON AGAINST STATE. Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; and no person shall be convicted of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Who are the declared enemies of Texas?

 

[postman]

Numbnuts the 14th amendment was created to control the states section 5 of the 14th amendment authorized Congress to enforce the 14th amendment.

You left out the details

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Passing laws is how they enforce it. Not by direct enforcement. And those laws can't be bills of attainder.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You left out the details

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Passing laws is how they enforce it. Not by direct enforcement. And those laws can't be bills of attainder.

States don't have juridiction of the 14th amendment .

 

[postman]

States don't have juridiction of the 14th amendment .

Sure they do. Every judge in the state is bound to.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sure they do. Every judge in the state is bound to.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

No they don't. How many times has Texas tried to defend its border and the DOJ sue because immigration is federal authority? States have no juridiction with federal matters

 

[Slade3200]

You keep dodging the fact your point is moot since Congress and only Congress has juridiction over the 14th amendment. Hell Congress has juridiction over all the amendments.

Stella what it looks like for Congress to declare an insurrection. Do they need to call a special session and vote on a declaration. Do they need a unanimous vote? Majority? What does it look like?

 

[postman]

No they don't. How many times has Texas tried to defend its border and the DOJ sue because immigration is federal authority? States have no juridiction with federal matters

Correct, and elections are purely state matters.

Congress may impose different regulations, but until congress does, the states are 100% in charge.

Note: Congress mostly imposes anti-discrimination requirements, not rules for how an election is held.

 

[postman]

Stella what it looks like for Congress to declare an insurrection. Do they need to call a special session and vote on a declaration. Do they need a unanimous vote? Majority? What does it look like?

Don't forget, congress set up a special committee that came to the determination of an insurrection. So congress has already spoken with the January 6th committee.


The charges recommended by the committee are conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress, conspiracy to make a false statement and aiding an insurrection.

So let them believe that only congress can make that determination.

 

[Resnic]

Personally? Yes he should be banned.

Realistically? No. I hate to say it but he shouldn't because everyone should have the right to vote for the candidate they want.

Until he is charged with something officially and found guilty that would negate his ballot eligibility he shouldn't be banned anymore than trump should be banned from Colorado.

I hate the current administration with a passion he should be allowed on for the people who vote. It isn't right they tried to do it to trump and just because I don't like Biden doesn't mean it should be different for him.

 

[postman]

Personally? Yes he should be banned.

Realistically? No. I hate to say it but he shouldn't because everyone should have the right to vote for the candidate they want.

And if ex-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for the republican presidential nomination.

Should they put him on the ballot?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Some people ignore the fact that the Constitution specifically assigns responsibility to Federal elections to the States and Congress has the power to make specific governing rules (which pertaining to the 14th and elections they have not).

According to Justice Gorsuch, the State has a responsibility to ensure only qualified candidates are on the ballot. There are only 5 qualifications for President:

• Age 35+
• Resident for 14+ years
• A natural born citizen
• Not have engaged in insurrection, and
• Not have had the privilege removed by Congress via impeachment.

WW

 

[Slade3200]

Don't forget, congress set up a special committee that came to the determination of an insurrection. So congress has already spoken with the January 6th committee.


The charges recommended by the committee are conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress, conspiracy to make a false statement and aiding an insurrection.

So let them believe that only congress can make that determination.

The findings of the Jan 6 committee were the basis of the CO trial as well. Im just curious how these people think it should legally happen if they are crying foul with the current procedure

 

[postman]

According to Justice Gorsuch, the State has a responsibility to ensure only qualified candidates are on the ballot. There are only 5 qualifications for President:

• Age 35+
• Resident for 14+ years
• A natural born citizen
• Not have engaged in insurrection, and
• Not have had the privilege removed by Congress via impeachment.

WW

And the $64,000 question is, WHO can make the decision whether or not a candidate meets all of the qualifications.
Some think it has to be done by congress, some think it has to be done by a court.
Some think the states top election official (secretary of state) can decide.