• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Trump Not Allowed on Colorado, Maine Ballots

Both Trump and Biden are experiencing a decline in their mental acuity. That comes with age. The extent of that decline and the speed it is occuring can't be accurately determined because both are shielded and limited from public display. An earlier post suggested the only real difference between them is that Trump is crazy. I agree. The stress Trump is experiencing from his legal difficulties is begining to show. Nevertheless, they will be the choices we have for POTUS in November.

The more concerning aspect is that either is a candidate. If this is the best our nation has to offer, this country is in serious trouble. Both parties should be ashamed of themselves.
 
BlackjackMc said:
Both Trump and Biden are experiencing a decline in their mental acuity. That comes with age. The extent of that decline and the speed it is occuring can't be accurately determined because both are shielded and limited from public display. An earlier post suggested the only real difference between them is that Trump is crazy. I agree. The stress Trump is experiencing from his legal difficulties is begining to show. Nevertheless, they will be the choices we have for POTUS in November.

The more concerning aspect is that either is a candidate. If this is the best our nation has to offer, this country is in serious trouble. Both parties should be ashamed of themselves.
Click to expand...
Jesus H. Christ, that is not the only difference.
 
BlackjackMc said:
Trump has never been convicted of insurrection, sedition or treason in a court of law. Despite the evidence, it hasn't happened yet. That remains the reason the SCOTUS will rule against Colorado. I'm glad Colorado gave it a try. It will force the SCOTUS to provide an opinion, which could reveal other factors in play.
Click to expand...
Colorado did have a civil trial in Colorado District Court which did conclude that Trump engaged in insurrection. That was an adversarial proceeding. Trump was represented by Counsel.

Elections in the US are run by states. There is no national election authority. If state election authority isn't allowed to decide who meets qualifications to be on the ballot in that state, who decides?
 
Deaconblue said:
Colorado did have a civil trial in Colorado District Court which did conclude that Trump engaged in insurrection. That was an adversarial proceeding. Trump was represented by Counsel.

Elections in the US are run by states. There is no national election authority. If state election authority isn't allowed to decide who meets qualifications to be on the ballot in that state, who decides?
Click to expand...

Do you really want individual state legislatures to have the unchecked power to throw a Democrat off the ballot? NC is a purple state but overwhelmingly gerrymandering to the right for state house/senate. Give them an opening to declare Biden ineligible and they will exploit it.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Do you really want individual state legislatures to have the unchecked power to throw a Democrat off the ballot? NC is a purple state but overwhelmingly gerrymandering to the right for state house/senate. Give them an opening to declare Biden ineligible and they will exploit it.
Click to expand...
It's always interesting to me when people are concerned about the government unjustly enforcing the law against innocent people. The solution usually isn't not enforcing the law at all.
 
warak said:
I think it is really messed up that if you commit a federal crime you can’t vote, but you can run for office.
Click to expand...
there are officers that don't hold an office, you know. Or so I heard
 


Likely one whole day before the primary! I’m still expecting a unanimous or near unanimous holding, but I’m curious to see the rationale and whether there are concurring and/or dissenting opinions.
 
Will this decision include who executes the qualifications for President? I can understand the "not the States" argument since 14A's intention was to limit the former Confederate States, not empower them. Kicking it to Congress doesn't make sense - then why have the 14A at all? It seems the SCOTUS would be the executor of all qualifications for President (min age, nature born citizen, 14 yr resident, non-insurrectionist). If a popular 30 yo wanted to run for President, who executes the 35 yo qualification?
 
Welp, that’s over.

Loading…

www.bbc.com

SC unanimously says only congress can prohibit a candidate based on the 14th amendment. Apparently the courts have no other role…?
 
ConnorEl said:
Welp, that’s over.

Loading…

www.bbc.com

SC unanimously says only congress can prohibit a candidate based on the 14th amendment. Apparently the courts have no other role…?
Click to expand...
Not exactly. 9-0 Trump stays on the ballot. But 5-4 on the breadth of the holding. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson with a pretty blistering concurrence and Barrett with a “I don’t want to say I concur with the liberal block, but read between the lines and see that I do” concurrence. So we’ve got boys vs. girls…

All justices say a state, on its own, can’t disqualify under Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment. Majority goes further to say that Sec. 3 is not self-executing and that the only way to for any candidate for federal office to be disqualified under it is through a statue enacted by Congress.
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
Not exactly. 9-0 Trump stays on the ballot. But 5-4 on the breadth of the holding. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson with a pretty blistering concurrence and Barrett with a “I don’t want to say I concur with the liberal block, but read between the lines and see that I do” concurrence. So we’ve got boys vs. girls…

All justices say a state, on its own, can’t disqualify under Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment. Majority goes further to say that Sec. 3 is not self-executing and that the only way to for any candidate for federal office to be disqualified under it is through a statue enacted by Congress.
Click to expand...

Thx.

First part seems reasonable, second seems ridiculous.
 
So state's rights only work in support of the second amendment. Got it
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
All justices say a state, on its own, can’t disqualify under Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment. Majority goes further to say that Sec. 3 is not self-executing and that the only way to for any candidate for federal office to be disqualified under it is through a statue enacted by Congress.
Click to expand...
I know very little about this, but I'm not sure I understand the difference between the two things here.

If a state on its own cannot do it, who else would be able to but Congress? A group of states?
 
On the bright side, if Dems win the House and Senate this election, then Obama can run for a 3rd term bc only Congress can execute the qualifications for President.

See how ridiculous this ruling is?
 
awaken said:
On the bright side, if Dems win the House and Senate this election, then Obama can run for a 3rd term bc only Congress can execute the qualifications for President.

See how ridiculous this ruling is?
Click to expand...
Can’t wait to see the mental gymnastics on them ruling presidential immunity for Trump but only Trump
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top