Colorado and Maine continue to stand as outliers which will lead to defeat

It's her JOB. She can't turn down doing her job... An applicant wants to be on the ballot, she has to determine if he's eligible. Just like if you apply for Social Security benefits, a public servant will make the determination of whether or not you qualify. A public servant might make the wrong determination. But that's no reason to put crosshairs on them and accuse them of taking it upon themselves to make the determination. They do THEIR part of the job.

This is where MAGA extremism has taken a part of this country.

 

There are about 17 challenges or so, underway, so let's see what the final stats are on this. The problem with this, as 'proof' is that it's a major hot potato, and the judges know that ruling against Trump, especially on something like denying him the ballot in a primary, it results in a barrage of hate from Trump supporters, death threats, which might influence judges on denying Trump the ballot. But, it won't matter, because we know SCOTUS won't kick Trump off of the ballot, though I believe they should.

Excuse me for not trusting your source (in general), given that zerohedge shows an excessively high rate of failed fact checks

(each link to source).

• Says China “stole Coronavirus from Canada and weaponized it into a Bioweapon.” – False
• Craigslist ad proof counterprotesters at a white nationalist rally “paid to make chaos”? – False
• It’s now against the law in California to shower and do laundry on the same day. – Mostly False
• A “newly uncovered” photograph reveals Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was crying over an empty parking lot, not detained migrant children, at a protest in Texas. – False
• “The Ukrainian government just indicted the Burisma gas company & named Hunter Biden for accepting millions of dollars from a slush fund.” – False
• During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was 0.01°C. – Incorrect
• New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars – Inaccurate
• This coronavirus genome contained sequences of another virus […] the HIV virus (AIDS virus) – Inaccurate
• Coronavirus contains ‘HIV insertions’ – Inaccurate
• Fabricated genetic sequences used to support the hypothesis the virus arose naturally – False
• ”Pfizer launches final study for COVID drug that’s suspiciously similar to ‘horse paste’” ivermectin. – False
• A preprint of an ivermectin study in the Brazilian city of Itajaí found that prophylactic ivermectin reduced COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality by half. – Unsupported
• A new report estimates that 26.6 million people were injured, 1.36 million disabled, and 300,000 excess deaths can be attributed to COVID-19 vaccine damages in 2022 alone, which cost the economy nearly $150 billion. – False

 

Winner-take-all is undemocratic. All electors gained should be earned. To take an elector from another candidate who earned it, is tyranny, in my view.

 

How one rules does not equate to 'integrity'. You are asserting that if she ruled in a way with which you disagree, she is therefore ''lacking integrity'. That's flawed reasoning. Hell, using your logic, I could apply that standard to you or anyone who disagrees with me. What makes someone who disagrees with you, as 'lacking integrity' but not someone who disagrees with me? Why are you so special? You are not, nor am I, which goes to the flaw in your reasoning.

She is doing her job. She is following the laws of her state, which the constitution allows. If they don't like how she does her job, then they should vote her out of office, that's democracy.

 

What federal law are you referring to? (I couldn't find anything in the Constitution or federal law that conflicts with Maine's law on the implementation of Section 3, or Maine's process of qualifying someone on the primary ballot)

As I understand it, She was following the law as it is written in her state, which, regarding elections, the US Constitution allows.

If folks in Maine don't like it, they can vote her out of office, vote for legislators to write the law differently.

 

As has been pointed out in the debate, Section 5 authorized Congress to deal with insurrection and they created a federal statute to charge it. Once that statute was made, it became federal law and not state law(and it's not even germane per se to elections. It can activate at any time an insurrection happens.)

This DOJ has not charged Donald Trump or any criminal defendant with insurrection, therefore the States cannot do the Feds' job for them. This was settled in Texas VS USA after the civil war. Federalism> States.

And so to reiterate it back to you: If these States have a problem, they should petition Merrick Garland and the DOJ on why they didn't charge insurrection.

 

Allow me to dissect the points you've made and correct you on legal principles and historical precedents:

1. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and Federal Law: The claim is that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment authorized Congress to deal with insurrections and that they created a federal statute for this purpose. Indeed, Section 5 empowers Congress to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment through appropriate legislation. However, this does not inherently preclude states from taking actions within their own legal frameworks, especially in matters pertaining to their own electoral processes.
   
   
2. Federal vs. State Law in Elections: While federal law can indeed supersede state law in certain areas, the administration of elections has traditionally been a power reserved for the states. The U.S. Constitution grants states the authority to manage their own electoral processes, including setting qualifications for candidates in state and federal elections. This principle is reinforced by the Tenth Amendment.
   
   
3. Charges of Insurrection and State Actions: The argument that states cannot act because the Department of Justice (DOJ) has not charged Donald Trump with insurrection overlooks the principle of federalism. States have their own set of laws and regulations governing the conduct of elections. A state may determine that certain actions, even if not criminally prosecuted by the federal government, are sufficient to disqualify a candidate under state law.
   
   
4. Texas vs. USA and Federalism: The reference to Texas vs. USA (I think you meant Texas v. White [1869]) after the Civil War touches on issues of states' rights and federalism. However, this case dealt with the legality of secession and the status of Confederate state governments, not with the nuances of election law and candidate qualifications. The principle of federalism indeed balances state and federal powers, but it doesn't categorically prevent states from making decisions about their electoral processes.
   
   
5. Petitioning the DOJ: Your suggestion that states should petition the DOJ if they have concerns about a candidate's qualifications reflects a misunderstanding of the roles and responsibilities in the U.S. electoral system. States have their own mechanisms and authorities to determine candidate eligibility for ballots.
   

So, it's like this; while federal law, including statutes related to insurrection, is paramount in many areas, states retain the constitutional authority to manage their own elections, including setting qualifications for candidates. The absence of federal criminal charges does not automatically invalidate a state's decision regarding candidate eligibility for its ballots.

Now, I'm a layman just like most of you, so I will caveat this with a 'IANAL' and this is my lay understanding of the law.

You are, too, but I am confident you got it wrong. Feel free to dispute my corrections.

 

Frankly I do think he's disqualified. I agree with this article. The Character to Lead: Republicans’ Fork in the Road Between Trump and the Constitution’s Eligibility Requirements for President (justsecurity.org)

I don't think number of rulings tell us how scotus will rule, but they have plenty of legal room to disqualify him. If they have decided they don't want to disqualify him, they could find reasons for that too. It's quite clear they often fail to sufficiently analyze a topic, but they have a better shot at fairly evaluating historical context (this case) than, say, medical ethics (overturning RvW).

 

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment: Congress has the explicit authority to use the 14th Amendment, and did so by way of legislating a criminal statute. It is then incumbent upon the DOJ to act. As of now, Merrick Garland has not acted.

Since it is federal law, only the federal government may be involved. Not secretaries of States, not litigants to a civil suit. Only the Federal Government.

That is why this case has been so thoroughly beaten by most federal courts, it's also why SCOTUS will easily vote with the 8 states that chose not to embark on this. Simply put, litigants lack standing.

 

Here's the problem with using the 10th Amendment to argue that the States could do this: The 14th clearly identified who could(hell, the 5th section was basically written with that in mind, because the question back then as well was: Who the hell enforces this? If we put ourselves back in the smoldering times of reconstruction, the idea of the states policing their own insurrectionists was out of the question for two main reasons.

1) So shortly after a civil war, the victorious North did not trust the South(hence the reason for this amendment to begin with). The idea of Southerners outing their own was completely unlikely. They had already freed the slaves, the idea of the turning Southern states against themselves(and given Lincoln's death), had a bunch of negative consequences.

2) It would plant the seeds of a future uprising. For this, we need only look at isolated Gaza to see what would have happened to a secluded Southern plank of States, living under constant suspicion. The States, if prevented representation in the federal government, as well as social outcasting, we would have faced potentially a second civil war.

Given those two points, the idea of the States enforcing the 14th, was a bad idea. There was no positive outcome in the late 1800's that suggested it would have been anything but miserable for the badly battered union.

So they knew they had to designate some authority, and they chose the federal government. Precisely to enforce the idea that it's not Northern States or Southern States, but it is the United States of America.

They wrote the 5th section, because they knew something like this might happen. And knew it needed to be a unianimous decision, not a contentious one where we disagree on the extent to which the line was crossed.

 

Well, it is clear that the Supreme Court has to settle this dispute.

Section 5 does not say 'states are not allowed to enforce'. Moreover, Congress is limited to legislation, and legislation is always applied broadly, and to make it an enforcement body of singular occurrences is, in my view, a misunderstanding of section 5 as Congress is not structured for that kind of enforcement.

Regarding the 10th amendment; the enforcement of Section 3 does not inherently conflict with the 10th Amendment. While the 14th Amendment does grant Congress the power to enforce its provisions, including Section 3, through appropriate legislation, this does not preclude states from taking initial actions to implement the amendment within their jurisdictions. In fact, historical evidence suggests that states did play a role in the initial enforcement of Section 3, as they were involved in the broad restructuring of state government during the Reconstruction Era, which included disenfranchising ex-Confederates. To wit:

Section Three began as a broad restructuring of state government that was given effect before the Fourteenth Amendment was even ratified by supplying the standard for disenfranchising ex-Confederates in elections for their state ratifying conventions. Section Three was then the first part of the Fourteenth Amendment construed by the courts.” The same source also states that “Section Three was for the most part used only for the short period between its ratification and the 1872 enactment of the Amnesty Act. The Amnesty Act removed the disqualification from most Confederates and their sympathizers and was enacted by a two-thirds majority of Congress in accordance with the terms of Section 3.” Therefore, it is clear that states did play a role in the initial enforcement of Section 3 during the Reconstruction Era.

There is historical precedent for state level judicial enforcement of section 3.

This article also dispels the notion that enforcement of section 3 equals 'punishment', i.e., a criminal sanction (requiring criminal due process), that some are arguing.

https://constitutionalcommentary.li...nd-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/

Jefferson Davis contended in 1868 that Section Three was self-executing and barred his treason prosecution, and Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase agreed with those arguments as a circuit judge presiding over the proceedings in Virginia.

 

Anti-Republican Democrats want T**** on the ballots to throw the Republican convention ballots in disarray.
Let's say Trump stays on the ballots and wins what happens when
A: He is convicted, repeatedly, in courts and at least one of them says "Off to prison"? He won't spend a day in jail and will flee the country and live off his PAC money.
B: He goes bankrupt and can't pay his fines. Again, off to living off his PAC fund and perhaps fleeing the country depending upon if it's pay the fine or do time.

In either case he won't be a candidate for president anymore. By forcing people to vote someone, anyone else the Republican voters will get to choose their next candidate. Unfortunately too few candidates are left after his constant assaults and Republican leaders have demonstrated their savvy by naming possibly the worst speaker ever. It's better that the voters choose.

 

So there's actually judicial statements inside of this article that back up the reading of the 5th section. Specifically, the States needed prosecutors to enforce it. Gee, I wonder why? Could it because it needed to be enforced by federal law?(especially given the nationalist sentiment echoed in this article)

The amnesty granted by Congress in several occasions also points stronger to the federalists exercising power. The States complying with such, was for admission into the union. IE: With permission of the Federal Government.

But this article was eye opening, the detail it went into helped to show the tragedy of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was a tragedy in response to a tragedy, and I would argue that the 14th Amendment led directly to the rise of bitter resentment, which is why both sides discarded it.

The 14th Amendment stands alone in being a fundamentally un American amendment, reading both those who were in favor and against it becomes clear that if not for the fog of the civil war, the 14th had no chance in hell of passing.(Like the Patriot Act of 2001)

They all but killed the 14th, and we actually have an opportunity to put the 14th to bed, along with the civil war.

 

But that's just it. Congress could legislate which would have a univeral application, but for singular occurrences, as long as therei no confict, states can enforce section 3. Each has their respective spheres, one does not preclude the other, as long as the concept of 'supremacy' is not conflicted.

Ah, but the 14th is alive and well. I'll show you another analysis that points this out.