Trump Banned from MAINE's ballot

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(12-30-2023, 04:36 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You are assuming a 6-3 vote to stop states from allowing Trump on the ballot. What if it is 7-2, 8-1 or 9-0?

Under the Supremacy Clause of our Constitution, if the SCOTUS rules Trump ENGAGED in an insurrection or gave comfort to the insurrectionist (8-Judges already have) then he'll be off the ballot in every single state for the national election.  If they punt it back to the states and say a political party can put anyone on their ballot they want, but a state can exclude a candidate from the national election ballot if they find under their election law he ENGAGED in an insurrection.

Also, remember this is a civil matter b/c Trump's liberty is not at risk so the level of liability only has to be a preponderance of the evidence that he ENGAGED in an insurrection. So, for folks saying he hasn't been convicted of insurrection, they are entirely wrong b/c the disqualification is a civil matter not a criminal matter. It's a matter of constitutional law. 

• Just like Taylor Swift cannot run b/c she's not 35; 
• Just like Elon Musk cannot run b/c he was born in South Africa, and;
• Just like former President Obama cannot run b/c he's already served two terms.
  

*I think they're going to do the latter, and it'll be August until we have a clear picture of what the SCOTUS will do for the national election.

[Belsnickel]

(01-02-2024, 10:23 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: *I think they're going to do the latter, and it'll be August until we have a clear picture of what the SCOTUS will do for the national election.

Honestly, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Like I said, a textualist or an originalist approach would side with removal. But who knows what will happen? It's not like justices are partisans, or anything.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(01-03-2024, 07:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Like I said, a textualist or an originalist approach would side with removal. But who knows what will happen? It's not like justices are partisans, or anything.

I agree.  After reading the debates when this legislation was first enacted, it is pretty cut and dry that Trump will be disqualified from the National election.  This Court claims to be "textualist" and will interpret the Constitution in the manner it was written at the time when the amendment was ratified but we'll see how many of them have been bought and sold by the Harlen Crow of the world.

Especially, with all the info regarding Clarance Thomas and Samuel Alito being paid off by these billionaires to push their views.  I can see this going down 7-2 with a finding that Trump violated the 14 Amendment, Article 3 by ENGAGING and giving aid and comfort to an insurrection.   

Maybe then the GOP can start returning to the party of Reagan and not MAGA fascism.

[*Nately120*]

(01-03-2024, 01:52 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Maybe then the GOP can start returning to the party of Reagan and not MAGA fascism.

Meh, Reagan was just a more diplomatic version of Trump.  I'm trying to predict now which current democrat celebrity from a state that conservative voters absolutely loathe is going to become the next face of the republican party.

[Luvnit2]

(12-29-2023, 03:03 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Under Maine's election laws, it's her call to make as the first step.  It can and will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Maine, and then possibly to the SCOTUS.  I don't think the SCOTUS (Although they should) will get involved b/c they'll say under the theory of Federalism it is up to the state's election laws.

Do you think red states don't have similar laws? If Republican (one person) took Biden or any Democrat off the ballot, my reaction would be the same, bad law and bad idea.

[Luvnit2]

(01-02-2024, 10:23 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Under the Supremacy Clause of our Constitution, if the SCOTUS rules Trump ENGAGED in an insurrection or gave comfort to the insurrectionist (8-Judges already have) then he'll be off the ballot in every single state for the national election.  If they punt it back to the states and say a political party can put anyone on their ballot they want, but a state can exclude a candidate from the national election ballot if they find under their election law he ENGAGED in an insurrection.

Also, remember this is a civil matter b/c Trump's liberty is not at risk so the level of liability only has to be a preponderance of the evidence that he ENGAGED in an insurrection. So, for folks saying he hasn't been convicted of insurrection, they are entirely wrong b/c the disqualification is a civil matter not a criminal matter. It's a matter of constitutional law. 

• Just like Taylor Swift cannot run b/c she's not 35; 
• Just like Elon Musk cannot run b/c he was born in South Africa, and;
• Just like former President Obama cannot run b/c he's already served two terms.
  

*I think they're going to do the latter, and it'll be August until we have a clear picture of what the SCOTUS will do for the national election.

I know you think you are an expert and the Supreme Court will have no power, but my experience is the Supreme Court can over rule any federal or state court. In time, we will see who is correct?

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(01-03-2024, 06:48 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I know you think you are an expert and the Supreme Court will have no power, but my experience is the Supreme Court can over rule any federal or state court. In time, we will see who is correct?

Well of course.  Did you read my post?? Obviously not.

The SCOTUS can have the final authority IF they choose to do so.  It's called the Supremacy Clause under Artice VI paragraph 2 of our Constitution; however, if they choose not to get involved and kick it back to the States ---then they're leaving it up to the individual state's Supreme Court to decide.  

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(01-03-2024, 06:46 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Do you think red states don't have similar laws? If Republican (one person) took Biden or any Democrat off the ballot, my reaction would be the same, bad law and bad idea.

If that's what one state's law said, and if there was probable cause that President Biden violated a disqualifying event under the Constitution, then it would be following that state's election law.  In the case of Maine election laws, the Secretary of State is the first stop.  She's stayed her ruling until the State of Maine's Supreme Court could weigh in with their final determination.

[Luvnit2]

(01-03-2024, 07:09 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: If that's what one state's law said, and if there was probable cause that President Biden violated a disqualifying event under the Constitution, then it would be following that state's election law.  In the case of Maine election laws, the Secretary of State is the first stop.  She's stayed her ruling until the State of Maine's Supreme Court could weigh in with their final determination.

I am reading there is a lot of gray area trying to keep Trump off the ballot. The biggest reason is the final draft of the constitution did NOT LIST THE POTUS, ONLY CABINET MEMBERS, HOUSE AND SENATE MEMBERS.

Here is an article, one thing is certain the Supreme Court can hear any case concerning federal election concerns.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/29/maine-trump-ballot-us-supreme-court

Feel free to read the ink.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(01-03-2024, 07:37 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I am reading there is a lot of gray area trying to keep Trump off the ballot. The biggest reason is the final draft of the constitution did NOT LIST THE POTUS, ONLY CABINET MEMBERS, HOUSE AND SENATE MEMBERS.

Here is an article, one thing is certain the Supreme Court can hear any case concerning federal election concerns.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/29/maine-trump-ballot-us-supreme-court

Feel free to read the ink.

1)That's total nonsense that you're probably parroting off right-wing media who are admitted liars. 

That exact question was addressed by the framers of the constitutional amendment when it was ratified in 1866. Sen. Johnson asks this exact question and Sen Morill points him to the wording of: OR HOLD ANY OFFICE having previously taken an oath under the United States as an executive.

14th Amendment, Article 3

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, OR HOLD ANY OFFICE, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


2)  YES that is correct, no one on here has ever said they cannot hear it, it's IF THEY ONLY CHOOSE NOT TO HEAR IT!!!  Only then will it be kicked back to the state's.

Do you get it, or do I need to draw you a picture?!!! 

[*pally*]

(01-03-2024, 09:22 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: 1)That's total nonsense that you're probably parroting off right-wing media who are admitted liars. 

That exact question was addressed by the framers of the constitutional amendment when it was ratified in 1866. Sen. Johnson asks this exact question and Sen Morill points him to the wording of: OR HOLD ANY OFFICE having previously taken an oath under the United States as an executive.

14th Amendment, Article 3

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, OR HOLD ANY OFFICE, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


2)  YES that is correct, no one on here has ever said they cannot hear it, it's IF THEY ONLY CHOOSE NOT TO HEAR IT!!!  Only then will it be kicked back to the state's.

Do you get it, or do I need to draw you a picture?!!! 

Trump’s legal team literally argued that the President is exempt because
1). Despite holding the OFFICE of the President of the United States he is not an OFFICER of the United States
2) the President does not take an oath to “support” the Constitution. I’m not quite sure one can swear an oath to “preserve and protect” the constitution and simultaneously fail to support the laws and principles within that document.

You don’t love your country when you are focused on the loopholes you need to exploit it

[Belsnickel]

(01-04-2024, 12:17 AM)pally Wrote: You don’t love your country when you are focused on the loopholes you need to exploit it

This is the key to me. If your defense in all of this is focused on these loopholes rather than "Trump did not engage in an insurrection," well, you should just **** right off. What that tells me is that you don't care about the bedrock of our democracy and you can pound sand. I want nothing to do with you. Here is the problem, though. Trump can't deny his involvement meaningful way because he needs the support of those that carried out his bidding. It's so telling that the briefs going to SCOTUS about the Colorado case do not use "Trump was not an insurrectionist" as a primary defense.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(01-04-2024, 08:21 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is the key to me. If your defense in all of this is focused on these loopholes rather than "Trump did not engage in an insurrection," well, you should just **** right off. What that tells me is that you don't care about the bedrock of our democracy and you can pound sand. I want nothing to do with you. Here is the problem, though. Trump can't deny his involvement meaningful way because he needs the support of those that carried out his bidding. It's so telling that the briefs going to SCOTUS about the Colorado case do not use "Trump was not an insurrectionist" as a primary defense.

Exactly, the MAGA movement is a parasite to our Constitutional Democracy.  I've had very high-level GOP operatives tell me, "Democracies throughout history always fail and have bloody endings and it's time that ours has run its course."  So to your opinion, MAGA doesn't care about the bedrock of our democracy, you're exactly right, they don't.

Notice Trump doesn't argue that whether or not he engaged in an insurrection as a primary defense, he argues he's essentially above the rules and laws of the Constitution.  The framers of our country were very careful not to allow a President to act as a King b/c that is what they ran away from.

I also find it very rich that Trump argues to ignore the Constitution or that he's exempt,  and "Let the voters decide" when that's why he staged a coup in the first place is b/c he was attempting to overturn the will of the voters who elected Joe Biden as the President.  Oh, the Irony!!

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(01-04-2024, 12:17 AM)pally Wrote: Trump’s legal team literally argued that the President is exempt because
1). Despite holding the OFFICE of the President of the United States he is not an OFFICER of the United States
2) the President does not take an oath to “support” the Constitution.  I’m not quite sure one can swear an oath to “preserve and protect” the constitution and simultaneously fail to support the laws and principles within that document.

You don’t love your country when you are focused on the loopholes you need to exploit it

Well, it looks as if the SCOTUS has accepted the case of Trump v. Colorado & Maine, and oral arguments will be heard on February 8, 2023.   Let's see if they take an off-ramp or if they enforce or choose not to enforce the 14th Amendment, Article 3 of the Constitution.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-05-2024, 07:37 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Well, it looks as if the SCOTUS has accepted the case of Trump v. Colorado & Maine, and oral arguments will be heard on February 8, 2023.   Let's see if they take an off-ramp or if they enforce or choose not to enforce the 14th Amendment, Article 3 of the Constitution.

I.e., let's see if they agree with me or if they're horribly partisan judicial activists.

[Belsnickel]

(01-07-2024, 03:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I.e., let's see if they agree with me or if they're horribly partisan judicial activists.

I mean, they are partisan judicial activists, all of them. It will be interesting to see the way this turns out because in all sincerity, the originalist viewpoint of the law would keep Trump off of the ballots. Specifically, Maine's SoS cited a prior ruling from Gorsuch that stated the state would have the authority to make the decision, as well. I fully expect the so called originalists--Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas--to engage in judicial gymnastics to justify keeping Trump on the ballot and taking the power away from the states, but that is just the state of things these days.

FWIW, I don't expect any justice to hold onto any self-proclaimed legal position in the face of such a conundrum. This is just one of those times where it is the originalists that will be faced with the cognitive dissonance they have to resolve.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-07-2024, 03:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, they are partisan judicial activists, all of them. It will be interesting to see the way this turns out because in all sincerity, the originalist viewpoint of the law would keep Trump off of the ballots. Specifically, Maine's SoS cited a prior ruling from Gorsuch that stated the state would have the authority to make the decision, as well. I fully expect the so called originalists--Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas--to engage in judicial gymnastics to justify keeping Trump on the ballot and taking the power away from the states, but that is just the state of things these days.

FWIW, I don't expect any justice to hold onto any self-proclaimed legal position in the face of such a conundrum. This is just one of those times where it is the originalists that will be faced with the cognitive dissonance they have to resolve.

No, no, no Bel.  They're only judicial activists when they disagree with you.  Not you specifically, but generally.