"I'm mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on section three of the 14th Amendment. But I'm also mindful that no presidential candidate has, ever before, engaged in insurrection."
I like how Trumpers always seem to forget about that 2nd sentence.
O'l smelly they used ta call him. He had tiny hands and giant tits, which was the style at the time.
The more states that block him, the better the argument that the Supreme Court should decline to intervene and let the state decisions stand.
Perfect time to use the "states rights" catch to make their heads spin
Oh, but it's only about states' rights when it is convenient for conservative arguments. Otherwise it's just federal power all the way down.
They can only be called the Party of Responsibility if it's within the America region. Otherwise it's legally required to be called Sparkling Hypocrisy.
If the individual states don’t allow him on their ballot although he hasn’t been found guilty by courts or congress how long is it before the pre-election period is just red states eliminating blue nominees?
This is bad precedent.
although he hasn’t been found guilty by courts or congress
It’s not a legal trial, it’s not a law, it’s an amendment to the constitution. No finding of guilt by a court is required.
This is bad precedent.
Blocking a presidential candidate from a states ballot because they violated the 14th amendment by engaging in an insurrection is bad precedent? Your argument is a little silly, Republicans already work in contradiction to the laws and constitution, doesn’t mean Democrats or the American people in general should not follow them.
What’s stopping the republicans from doing the same to Biden?
That’s what the people who are taking offence to what I’m saying are not seeing.
What’s stopping the republicans from doing the same to Biden?
Did Biden participate in an insurrection? Unless some very big news went under the radar Republicans can’t disqualify Biden under the 14th amendment. That’s what you’re not seeing.
Your argument is don’t uphold the 14th amendment to the constitution because Republicans might try to unlawfully disqualify Biden from the ballot? I don’t believe you don’t understand how absurd that is.
What are they trying to impeach Biden for right now?
My argument is one person should have the ability to disqualify someone from running for president without being convicted by congress or the court.
I understand it’s an unpopular opinion but this is going to backfire when republicans start going after the democratic nominee for anything they imagine and they control the Secretary of State and state Supreme Court.
without being convicted by congress or the court.
Elections aren’t run by the federal government, they’re run by the states. Also, Trump is not disqualified for “breaking a law”, he’s being disqualified under the terms of the 14th amendment section 3. He took an oath as president to support the constitution and then engaged in insurrection.
My argument is one person should have the ability to disqualify someone from running for president
Isn’t that what state’s rights is all about?
Do you believe that only certain things should be state’s rights?
Who decides which is which and if it’s the feds that do that would that mean that states have no rights?
Are you just going to skip over the main part of what I said there?
this is going to backfire when republicans start going after the democratic nominee for anything they imagine and they control the Secretary of State and state Supreme Court.
This is the important part but you’re just going to not address it?
Is it too hard?
I genuinely cannot tell if you're this obtuse or just trolling for attention so I'll give this one last shot and then I am done with you and your ridiculous statements.
this is going to backfire when republicans start going after the democratic nominee for anything they imagine and they control the Secretary of State and state Supreme Court.
This argument is "don't uphold the laws and rules of the US government because some group might retaliate". Do you honestly not understand how absolutely bonkers that is? Not to mention that it doesn't matter if these individual states uphold the 14th amendment on this issue because as your own question earlier pointed out, they are already engaging in retaliatory behavior with the impeachment against Biden, which is going nowhere.
What you either don't or are choosing not to understand is that these Republicans who are playing at these games right now are stuck. They cannot attack the Biden presidency and the Democratic Party within the same system of laws and rules of government because of existing checks and balances. They cannot completely subvert it because then it removes any legitimacy of the laws and system of government which is the one thing they deprive power from.
You also skipped over the part about States rights and elections being run by the individual states, not the federal government. This is the important part but you’re just going to not address it? Is it too hard? Or is it because those questions about States rights from my last comment were lifted word for word from one of your comments elsewhere on Lemmy and you got yourself stuck with contradictions?
On what grounds would they be removed? They can’t kick somebody off the ballot if it won’t stand up in court.
I wish I had your optimism.
Thanks. It’s a legit question though. A rogue Secretary of State could try but you know it’ll land in court and the Judiciary will decide based on the merits of the case.
Personally I support this precedent being set. We should uphold our laws to protect our country. If a Democrat ever lands in a similar situation then this precedent will be good to have had set.
But then the argument is we shouldn't follow the law because the GOP might break it
No, it’s to follow the law wisely knowing the conservatives will weaponize the precedent.
Does following the law wisely mean not enforcing it?
I told you my reasoning, I clarified it and if you’re looking for an argument about it you’re not getting it from me.
Have a nice day and thanks for the conversation.
I just asked a non confrontational question. If you can't deal with that, that's your business
I just asked a non confrontational question. If you can't deal with that, that's your business
Honestly do you think that will matter? What's to stop the Supreme Court from saying we are the final say and no one can block him?
Nothing, I think they will do it.
But the GOP likes to pretend it is about states rights and Neil Gorsuch ostensibly has a lower court ruling related to this that would seem to favour blocking Trump. I have read the opinion And I didn't think it applied, but I'm an idiot on my couch with no legal training.
I'm not sure it matters yet. Are the parties even required to have primaries? What keeps them from just choosing at the convention?
No.
The people.
Both parties used to have a much more closed process that didn't announce a winner until their convention. The public primaries weren't anything more than a preference poll. Voters punished them both for it so severely that they changed.
When some states allow him and some block him, that's the argument for the Court to step in.
Normally, I’d agree that a split encourages them to take the case, but political questions are extremely thorny. The fact that all these states are using their own processes to decide how to regulate their own elections tilts toward the system working the way it’s supposed to IMO.
Both of these arguments presuppose that principles and precedent are important factors for the current conservative majority to consider. Evidence says otherwise.
When you're such a bitchass corrupt sore loser that legal experts need to clear the dusty cobwebs off ancient scrolls and navigate new legal waters because you decided to be the first brainlet to violate laws that no one before you was stupid and unpatriotic enough to even consider attempting.
Amendment, not law. And it was written in the aftermath of the Civil War, this is exactly what it was for.
The real issue at the heart of all this is that the popular vote doesn't win the presidency.
Seriously. Didn't Biden only win by like 43,000 votes in the electoral college?
There's only 538 votes total in the electoral college. It was 306/232. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're referring to, then, apologies.
In competitive states, he won by only 43k votes as opposed to the many more votes he won by in the popular vote. In other words, had those votes been cast differently, the electoral college would be very different
This. And it was too close for those competitive electoral votes.
Republicans have not won the popular vote for a president since HW Bush.
Doesn't matter. The electoral college is the only thing that counts.
Keep it going!
Any real impact from blue states barring Trump, or are we just hoping to set enough of a precedent for a red state to actually grow a pair and kick him too?
He is blocked from the primary. Blue states still vote in the Republican primary, this means Maine and Colorado will be won by someone else. There is a chance if enough states do it, won't have enough votes to be the nominee
If that happens the pay will just change the rules and select him at the convention.
They're all-in with this doomsday cult.
Isn't Maine not all of nothing for electoral college votes? So while minor if trump did run he would lose some amount?
Yep, he won a single electoral vote in 2020.
That's fine, right now it's the momentum that counts. Hopefully other states will follow. I don't know how this process works but I'm hoping he's spread thin enough while fighting them all at once. Maybe that'll do something to his pockets and stress him tf out, idk,
No impact because the Supreme Court is going to overturn their interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Maine's top election official has ruled that Donald Trump cannot run for president next year in the state, citing a constitutional insurrection clause.
Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said Mr Trump was not eligible because of his actions leading up to the US Capitol riot in 2021.
Maine now joins Colorado as the two states to ban Mr Trump from the ballot.
The 34-page ruling says that Mr Trump must be removed from the ballot because he "engaged in insurrection or rebellion".
In her order, Mrs Bellows says that Mr Trump "over the course of several months and culminating on January 6, 2021, used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them to the Capitol".
She added that his "occasional requests that rioters be peaceful and support law enforcement do not immunize his actions".
The original article contains 148 words, the summary contains 139 words. Saved 6%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
saved 6% wow well done bot
makes no difference
it is a state by state at this point in time like the cannabis issue and other laws have gone even Biden has gone for this
either are born in a state with favorable laws or not and some are not allowed to vote and some candidates are barred already from participating and nobody fussed about that why is this any different
Obama and Biden chained a candidate to chair for wanting to debate with Republicans and Democrats and they won that election and we voted Biden in
why should anything block someone being eligible for president now nobody cares unless that person is Trump or someone wanting different options other than not Trump
You realize it’s literally in the constitution that anyone taking part in an insurrection is barred from elected office (among other things) without 2/3rds approval from the house and senate?
You want to know why “no one cared until Trump”? Because it literally hadn’t happened in our lifetimes. It’s really hard to hold people accountable for things that aren’t happening.
Because drumpf commitment treason. Besides this is a matter of the doj and not the president.
I like how Trumpers always seem to forget about that 2nd sentence.
O'l smelly they used ta call him. He had tiny hands and giant tits, which was the style at the time.
The more states that block him, the better the argument that the Supreme Court should decline to intervene and let the state decisions stand.
Perfect time to use the "states rights" catch to make their heads spin
Oh, but it's only about states' rights when it is convenient for conservative arguments. Otherwise it's just federal power all the way down.
They can only be called the Party of Responsibility if it's within the America region. Otherwise it's legally required to be called Sparkling Hypocrisy.
If the individual states don’t allow him on their ballot although he hasn’t been found guilty by courts or congress how long is it before the pre-election period is just red states eliminating blue nominees?
This is bad precedent.
It’s not a legal trial, it’s not a law, it’s an amendment to the constitution. No finding of guilt by a court is required.
Blocking a presidential candidate from a states ballot because they violated the 14th amendment by engaging in an insurrection is bad precedent? Your argument is a little silly, Republicans already work in contradiction to the laws and constitution, doesn’t mean Democrats or the American people in general should not follow them.
What’s stopping the republicans from doing the same to Biden?
That’s what the people who are taking offence to what I’m saying are not seeing.
Did Biden participate in an insurrection? Unless some very big news went under the radar Republicans can’t disqualify Biden under the 14th amendment. That’s what you’re not seeing.
Your argument is don’t uphold the 14th amendment to the constitution because Republicans might try to unlawfully disqualify Biden from the ballot? I don’t believe you don’t understand how absurd that is.
What are they trying to impeach Biden for right now?
My argument is one person should have the ability to disqualify someone from running for president without being convicted by congress or the court.
I understand it’s an unpopular opinion but this is going to backfire when republicans start going after the democratic nominee for anything they imagine and they control the Secretary of State and state Supreme Court.
Elections aren’t run by the federal government, they’re run by the states. Also, Trump is not disqualified for “breaking a law”, he’s being disqualified under the terms of the 14th amendment section 3. He took an oath as president to support the constitution and then engaged in insurrection.
Isn’t that what state’s rights is all about?
Do you believe that only certain things should be state’s rights?
Who decides which is which and if it’s the feds that do that would that mean that states have no rights?
Are you just going to skip over the main part of what I said there?
This is the important part but you’re just going to not address it?
Is it too hard?
I genuinely cannot tell if you're this obtuse or just trolling for attention so I'll give this one last shot and then I am done with you and your ridiculous statements.
This argument is "don't uphold the laws and rules of the US government because some group might retaliate". Do you honestly not understand how absolutely bonkers that is? Not to mention that it doesn't matter if these individual states uphold the 14th amendment on this issue because as your own question earlier pointed out, they are already engaging in retaliatory behavior with the impeachment against Biden, which is going nowhere.
What you either don't or are choosing not to understand is that these Republicans who are playing at these games right now are stuck. They cannot attack the Biden presidency and the Democratic Party within the same system of laws and rules of government because of existing checks and balances. They cannot completely subvert it because then it removes any legitimacy of the laws and system of government which is the one thing they deprive power from.
You also skipped over the part about States rights and elections being run by the individual states, not the federal government. This is the important part but you’re just going to not address it? Is it too hard? Or is it because those questions about States rights from my last comment were lifted word for word from one of your comments elsewhere on Lemmy and you got yourself stuck with contradictions?
On what grounds would they be removed? They can’t kick somebody off the ballot if it won’t stand up in court.
I wish I had your optimism.
Thanks. It’s a legit question though. A rogue Secretary of State could try but you know it’ll land in court and the Judiciary will decide based on the merits of the case.
Personally I support this precedent being set. We should uphold our laws to protect our country. If a Democrat ever lands in a similar situation then this precedent will be good to have had set.
But then the argument is we shouldn't follow the law because the GOP might break it
No, it’s to follow the law wisely knowing the conservatives will weaponize the precedent.
Does following the law wisely mean not enforcing it?
I told you my reasoning, I clarified it and if you’re looking for an argument about it you’re not getting it from me.
Have a nice day and thanks for the conversation.
I just asked a non confrontational question. If you can't deal with that, that's your business
I just asked a non confrontational question. If you can't deal with that, that's your business
Honestly do you think that will matter? What's to stop the Supreme Court from saying we are the final say and no one can block him?
Nothing, I think they will do it.
But the GOP likes to pretend it is about states rights and Neil Gorsuch ostensibly has a lower court ruling related to this that would seem to favour blocking Trump. I have read the opinion And I didn't think it applied, but I'm an idiot on my couch with no legal training.
I'm not sure it matters yet. Are the parties even required to have primaries? What keeps them from just choosing at the convention?
No.
The people.
Both parties used to have a much more closed process that didn't announce a winner until their convention. The public primaries weren't anything more than a preference poll. Voters punished them both for it so severely that they changed.
When some states allow him and some block him, that's the argument for the Court to step in.
Normally, I’d agree that a split encourages them to take the case, but political questions are extremely thorny. The fact that all these states are using their own processes to decide how to regulate their own elections tilts toward the system working the way it’s supposed to IMO.
Both of these arguments presuppose that principles and precedent are important factors for the current conservative majority to consider. Evidence says otherwise.
When you're such a bitchass corrupt sore loser that legal experts need to clear the dusty cobwebs off ancient scrolls and navigate new legal waters because you decided to be the first brainlet to violate laws that no one before you was stupid and unpatriotic enough to even consider attempting.
Amendment, not law. And it was written in the aftermath of the Civil War, this is exactly what it was for.
The real issue at the heart of all this is that the popular vote doesn't win the presidency.
Seriously. Didn't Biden only win by like 43,000 votes in the electoral college?
There's only 538 votes total in the electoral college. It was 306/232. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're referring to, then, apologies.
In competitive states, he won by only 43k votes as opposed to the many more votes he won by in the popular vote. In other words, had those votes been cast differently, the electoral college would be very different
This. And it was too close for those competitive electoral votes.
Republicans have not won the popular vote for a president since HW Bush.
Doesn't matter. The electoral college is the only thing that counts.
Keep it going!
Any real impact from blue states barring Trump, or are we just hoping to set enough of a precedent for a red state to actually grow a pair and kick him too?
He is blocked from the primary. Blue states still vote in the Republican primary, this means Maine and Colorado will be won by someone else. There is a chance if enough states do it, won't have enough votes to be the nominee
If that happens the pay will just change the rules and select him at the convention.
They're all-in with this doomsday cult.
Isn't Maine not all of nothing for electoral college votes? So while minor if trump did run he would lose some amount?
Yep, he won a single electoral vote in 2020.
That's fine, right now it's the momentum that counts. Hopefully other states will follow. I don't know how this process works but I'm hoping he's spread thin enough while fighting them all at once. Maybe that'll do something to his pockets and stress him tf out, idk,
No impact because the Supreme Court is going to overturn their interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Maine's top election official has ruled that Donald Trump cannot run for president next year in the state, citing a constitutional insurrection clause.
Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said Mr Trump was not eligible because of his actions leading up to the US Capitol riot in 2021.
Maine now joins Colorado as the two states to ban Mr Trump from the ballot.
The 34-page ruling says that Mr Trump must be removed from the ballot because he "engaged in insurrection or rebellion".
In her order, Mrs Bellows says that Mr Trump "over the course of several months and culminating on January 6, 2021, used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them to the Capitol".
She added that his "occasional requests that rioters be peaceful and support law enforcement do not immunize his actions".
The original article contains 148 words, the summary contains 139 words. Saved 6%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
saved 6% wow well done bot
makes no difference
it is a state by state at this point in time like the cannabis issue and other laws have gone even Biden has gone for this
either are born in a state with favorable laws or not and some are not allowed to vote and some candidates are barred already from participating and nobody fussed about that why is this any different
Obama and Biden chained a candidate to chair for wanting to debate with Republicans and Democrats and they won that election and we voted Biden in
why should anything block someone being eligible for president now nobody cares unless that person is Trump or someone wanting different options other than not Trump
You realize it’s literally in the constitution that anyone taking part in an insurrection is barred from elected office (among other things) without 2/3rds approval from the house and senate?
You want to know why “no one cared until Trump”? Because it literally hadn’t happened in our lifetimes. It’s really hard to hold people accountable for things that aren’t happening.
Because drumpf commitment treason. Besides this is a matter of the doj and not the president.