Missouri's SOS is threatening to remove Joe Biden 2024 presidential ballot after CO removed Trump

But that's not how it would work, now is it. It would end up in front of the Supeme's and he would have to prove cause. AS Colorado will on Monday unless the Supreme's decide that it's not within the preview of the States to enforce the 14th. If they uphold the Colorado decision, Colorado will surely have to show cause first. As would the Sec State from Missouri.

 

All your opinion. Nothing in 14th supports the process you think is required. Zero. Ziltch.

 

We'll find out Monday ... won't we?

Or soon thereafter. I don't think we'll have to wait long for their decision. Challenging Colorado is a bold move on the part of tRaitor tRump's lawyers. By the end of the week he could be off the ballot in all States, Territories and Districts.

 

Not sure monday, but yes, we will find out. That I agree with.

Think about this. State election official removes candidate from election 2 weeks prior to election. Supreme court review that in time?
Apply this to every state, and then elections for every position. How does supreme court manage the case load?

 

Challenging Colorado is a bold move on the part of tRaitor tRump's lawyers. By the end of the week he could be off the ballot in all States, Territories and Districts.

I don't think the Supreme's will put themselves in that bind. IF they rule in favor of Colorado it will be plain that it applies to all States, Territories and DC.

 

I think you are setting yourself up for some extreme disappointment.

 

Nope, I fully expect the Supreme's to rule against Colorado. Not that tRaitor tRump did not meet the test of the 14th but that States don't get to enforce the 14th.

I think it's a chickenshit move that kicks the can down the road. But that's what I think they will do ... or something like it.

They will avoid ruling on whether or not tRaitor tRump engaged in insurrection, rebellion or gave aid and comfort. They will do it in some back handed way.

 

OK, so you KNOW it doesn't work that way otherwise you would have some LOGICAL reasoning behind that statement. My opinion was law based, yours is simply BS.

I never said one was needed. WTF are you talking about?

 

That's what's happening now. We'll see how it plays out.

 

Show us the law its based on? Or you going to say "wtf" to this too? All im asking is for you to PROVE your statements.

 

Obviously needs to be addressed and something is going to be needed to do so. No way their is time before nov to finalize anything so the SC HAS to block it or else everyone will do it. Much like mizz right now.

 

Section 3, 14th Amendment.

Read it and give then words their usual meaning. Don't worry what the consequences are...just read and apply the words.

 

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.

Where does it say that a court of law must decide?

 

Damned if I know but it is a certain bet that the US Constitution provides that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine Constitutional disputes, yes?

 

And their legal justification would be what exactly? The famous legal precedent of tit for tat? Something along the lines of 'you called my daddy a smelly poop so I think your daddy is one too?'

The few States that have moved to strike Trump from the poll have certain statements made and actions by Trump that might arguably (repeat might) prove to constitute violations of the 14th Amendment (section 3) relating to insurrection or rebellion. On top of that they have the precedent set by the ban on confederates running for office.

Now I grant you Biden might be just about be old enough to have fought in the Civil War but as far as I am aware he didn't. That leaves his potential involvement in more recent acts of insurrection or rebellion.

And the evidence for that is ...........

 

Read the Colorado SC justices opinions on the subject if you are actually that interested. There were 3 that supported taking him off and 2 that did not.
You posted the law yourself in post 63

 

Sure, they do. Obviously this needs to be addressed or else we end up in the scenarios outlayed earlier.

The problem is, they have two options with out having to create something new or an ammendment.

1. Let states decide . Then mizz decision and other republican states decisions stand just like democrat states.

2. Supreme court will review each decision as an individual case. Forever tying up their court and dealing with the likelyhood of this happening two weeks before an election or worse.

 

They dont need to prove anything.

 

They can have their opinion. Mizz can have their own too. One has no bearing on the other.

 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

They obviously won’t rule on tRaitor tRump’s complicity, unless they can come to a consensus that he engaged in insurrection and gave aid and comfort. But with that court’s makeup that’s highly unlikely.

There could be a majority ruling in favor of the Colorado decision. <-period with no explanation. Which would probably result in enough States following suit that it would make it pointless for tRaitor tRump to run. Not likely but could happen.

Or they will rule against Colorado on the grounds that they overstepped their bounds or something to that effect. Most likely.

They AbsaByGodLutely will not decide if tRaitor tRump specifically violated section three of the 14th, one way or the other. IMHO.

 

Not if 'they' don't mind facing potential sedition or other serious criminal charges themselves they don't. To clarify. It's against the law to arbitrarily remove someone from a State ballot without due legal cause.

So how about it? Care to put your name to a petition in your State calling for exactly that to be done with Biden and stating at the same time that you do so in full and certain knowledge that doing so is a violation of the US Constitution. No?

 

Criminal charges ? Lmao. What law would they be breaking?

 

I think you’re wrong on that. IF, <- big - big IF, they decide in favor of Colorado they will do it in such a way that it opens the doors for ALL States to follow suit without their further involvement.

 

It's very different because the 14th Amendment is federal law. Federal law can't be invoked just because a State wants to. Hell, let's take a separately related issue to this: The border. Then Pres-Obama argued that federal law should preside over the border(Basically, the Obama Administration was not in favor of the states policy at the border)

We saw a similar situation play out with sanctuary cities. Trump threatened to remove funding, but ultimately did not. I wish he did. It would've nipped this whole thing in the bud.

Right now, States are playing fast and loose with the law, and this is the loosest. I'm hopeful the SCOTUS slams the door here, and takes some creative liberties to further strengthen federal law.