(12-29-2023, 03:45 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I am by no means a historian or constitutional scholar.

I have read the text of the 14th amendment. And for the most part I understand the English language. But I really don't get some of these arguments.

From the article you linked.


"The criticism wasn't just along normal partisan lines, though. Rep. Jared Golden, a Democrat who represents Maine's 2nd congressional district that Trump won in 2020, noted on X that he'd voted to impeach Trump for the Jan. 6 attack and doesn't believe he should win next year's election.

“However, we are a nation of laws, and therefore until he is actually found guilty of the crime of insurrection, he should be allowed on the ballot,” Golden wrote."


Does anybody know what charges confederate traitor Jefferson Davis found guilty on? And they wrote the 14th.3 amendment for people like him.

(12-29-2023, 04:20 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: This is like an Outer Limits episode where a bunch of people are totally blind to the person who abused their power, broke their oath, attempted to illegally seize power, overthrow the will of the people, and destroy the democracy.

(12-29-2023, 02:41 PM)M.W. Wrote: Without a doubt.  The Amendment is very clear and is easy to interpret.  What isn't easy to figure out is why did Charles Manson get locked up while trump runs around free threatening judges and jurors? 

(12-29-2023, 02:52 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: For those saying this is clear, I say if so the Supreme Court will agree with your interpretation and allow Trump off the ballot in 2024.

I have a  hunch the Supreme Court will take this issue up sooner than later, it will then be decided and we will know who was correct, those who support removing a candidate from the POTUS ballot or those who say let the voter's decide.

As for Maine, anyone else fear allowing 1 person to have the power to potentially remove a future POTUS is a major problem for democracy?

(12-29-2023, 03:04 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Independent candidates are removed all the time. This isn't new.  It's just a travesty because one of the two major parties is seeing how it feels after all these years.  Maybe I'm just someone who wanted to see Gary Johnson get debate space with Clinton and Trump.  God forbid we give the people a chance to decide, eh?

It's also cynically amusing that despite all the Republican effort going into removing Trump from ballots the credit is being entirely given to Biden and a vague concept of "liberals.". Same thing when a bunch of Trump appointed judges were involved in throwing out the rigged election cases....it's against Trump so what I picture to be liberal done did it.

(12-29-2023, 03:04 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Independent candidates are removed all the time. This isn't new.  It's just a travesty because one of the two major parties is seeing how it feels after all these years.  Maybe I'm just someone who wanted to see Gary Johnson get debate space with Clinton and Trump.  God forbid we give the people a chance to decide, eh?

It's also cynically amusing that despite all the Republican effort going into removing Trump from ballots the credit is being entirely given to Biden and a vague concept of "liberals.". Same thing when a bunch of Trump appointed judges were involved in throwing out the rigged election cases....it's against Trump so what I picture to be liberal done did it.

(12-29-2023, 09:14 PM)Bengalion Wrote: They sure are scared of a guy they swear up and down they defeated handily in 2020. It seems that in Maine it is the Secretary of State is elected by both houses of the legislature. Considering the Dems control both houses, I would not expect him to have any success in this measure. The Dems simply will not abide by the Constitution.

(12-29-2023, 03:45 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: “However, we are a nation of laws, and therefore until he is actually found guilty of the crime of insurrection, he should be allowed on the ballot,” Golden wrote."

(12-29-2023, 10:31 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Brilliant and well respected response. 

(12-30-2023, 12:39 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What do you think about Jefferson Davis never being found guilty of a crime. Yet the people who wrote the constitution specifically wrote the 14th amendment to make sure him and people like him couldn’t hold office again?

(12-29-2023, 09:14 PM)Bengalion Wrote: They sure are scared of a guy they swear up and down they defeated handily in 2020. It seems that in Maine it is the Secretary of State is elected by both houses of the legislature. Considering the Dems control both houses, I would not expect him to have any success in this measure. The Dems simply will not abide by the Constitution.

(12-30-2023, 08:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Indeed. In fact, Davis was granted amnesty, along with many other Confederates. However, under the 14th, they could still not hold office. If one takes an originalist viewpoint of the 14th, as conservatives tend to claim that they are in favor of, then the requirement of conviction for insurrection is not in place according to those historical facts. So if we look at this originalist view of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, and we then look at jurisprudence from now-Justice Gorsuch via Hassan v. Colorado where he observes "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."

I have to say, when you look at the law on the matter, it seems that the more conservative justices, at least, should be permissive of states to exclude Trump from their ballots based on the textualist and originalist interpretations. If they overturn those decisions by Colorado and Maine it would be judicial activism, inserting themselves in the political process based upon their partisan biases.