Maine strips Trump from the ballot, inflaming legal war over his candidacy

Fearmongering.

 

The voters did decide. They decided when their representatives passed the 14th Amendment and got it ratified.

 

Nope calling him what he IS.

 

Still waiting for the part of the Constitution that shows that the 14th Amendment overrides the 5th & 6th Amendments.

 

Noted

 

You should hold your breath.

 

What YOU think he is.

 

Oh, are you in charge of my thoughts now?

 

Ummm...it’s part of her job...!

 

This whole exercise simply flushes out the idiots. If this continues, free states will cut Biden. SCOTUS will rule that states can't cut national candidates, and if it is not unanimous, we got bigger problems than Biden/Trump.

But it is serving its purpose: it keeps the news cycle on Trump, and off Biden, so if you think Biden's 45% approval rating is bad, wait until this is settled and Biden and his "Boneheadonomics" is back in the news again.
Yes. Stocks are up on deficit spending. And yes the rich are getting richer while everyone else's prices are going up. But hey! It's the banana republic way!

 

No need to. The Constitution is easy to read and understand. There isn't one single part of it that shows that the 14th Amendment overrides the 5th and 6th Amendments. I know it. Judges doing their duty knows it. And you know it. Whether or not you want to admit it is an entirely different, and personal, matter.

 

I love this forum.

There are people here who know the Constitution better than judges.

 

Why ?

 

What about what I said indicates that I was telling you how to think? Oh right...there is nothing that indicates such.

 

And before that, these same people were world experts on virology and immunology. They then became experts in statistics and voter laws.

It's almost criminal that they've denied the world the benefit of their genius by deciding to argue their points on internet discussion forums.

 

How do you interpret the 14th amendment insurrection section, and why you think its taken out of context?

Its not a matter of interpretation, its a matter of judging whether or not Trumps actions amount to "engaging in insurrection". I will leave it at the capable hands of the Supreme Court and accept whatever they rule.

 

The fact that in EVERY state is the Secretary of State who is responsible for the administration of elections in their state.

 

Oh I'm sure these judges know the truth of the matter also. But being the partisan activist judges that they are...well...that's why we get bad rulings. Why do you think that only 4 judges out of over a dozen different courts have ruled differently? (this thing in Maine is a SoS ruling, not a judges ruling) Even the other judges that dissented in Colorado pointed out that the 5th and 6th applied. Do you think all those judges, in all those other cases, are stupider than those 4 judges in Colorado?

 

It seemed like a challenge to my right to have them? So, how did you mean it? What other reason would you have for making that post.

 

Will someone help me to recall when Donald Trump was charged with the crime of insurrection and found guilty of that crime in a court of law...? My memory fails me, but I'm certain someone -- especially among the ranks of devout 'Trump-haters' -- can provide the answer. It's common as one gets older; sometimes I have trouble remembering what I did with my car keys....

 

It's part of the constitution.
Do you disagree with the constitution?
A POTUS especially should abide by the constitution. Why would anyone not want that from the leader of the country?

...
Article II
Section 1 Function and Selection

• Clause 5 Qualifications
• No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
  

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/clause-5/

...
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/

 

Like many of your ilk, it would seem that, just like not remembering where your keys are, you also can’t remember where the 14th Amendment requires any conviction…

 

Take your pick...Giving aid to Afghanistan terrorists or purposefully letting an invasion of millions enter into our country essentially uncontested. Nothing but a "here's your court date, promise to be there?".

 

The 14th Amendment says, “engaged in”, not, “convicted of”.

 

Its no more a challenge to your right to have such an opinion than the moon is made of green cheese. Seems like you're offended that I dare to challenge your opinions though. So much so that you tried to make a strawman argument to act as if I was trying to limit your free speech in some way. Hint: Challenging your opinion =/= limiting your free speech in any way shape or form. If you want to fearmonger then go right ahead. Just don't expect to not be called out on it.