Voters file an objection to Trump’s name on the Illinois ballot

Add another one to the list…

https://apnews.com/article/illinois-trump-ballot-objection-a2c41835e9a1ece34290719c24a718e4

“The petition, similar to those filed in more than a dozen other states, relies on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits anyone from holding office who previously has taken an oath to defend the Constitution and then later “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the country or given “aid or comfort” to its enemies. “

While I find this growing trend quite amusing, it would be far more tactically significant if these appeals were occurring in red/purple states. Being removed from the ballot in states he can’t win should mean little to The Stain and it just increases the likelihood of third party campaigns as a protest vote…

 

The states who do know how the constitution works aren't following the idiots who don't.
Federal Judge dismisses 14th Amendment lawsuit against Trump, rules plaintiffs lack standing. Jacksonville Florida
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story...-against-trump-on-florida-ballot/70726059007/

Minnesota Supreme Court dismisses ‘insurrection clause’ challenge and allows Trump on 2024 ballot
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...use-challenge-and-allows-trump-on-2024-ballot

Trump can stay on the presidential ballot in Colorado, judge rules
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-whit...ntial-ballot-ruling-14th-amendment-rcna125493

Federal judge dismisses lawsuit seeking to keep Trump off Rhode Island’s 2024 ballot
https://rhodeislandcurrent.com/brie...-seeking-to-keep-trump-off-r-i-s-2024-ballot/

Nebraska secretary of state says rationale in Colorado to keep Trump off ballot ‘not persuasive
https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/1...rado-to-keep-trump-off-ballot-not-persuasive/

Judge dismisses candidate’s lawsuit to keep Trump off New Hampshire primary ballot
https://www.wmur.com/article/new-hampshire-donald-trump-ballot-lawsuit-dismiss/45682757

 

Note that, in each of those rulings, there is a general acceptance that The Stain did “engage” in the insurrection. The sticking point seems to mainly concern standing…that the plaintiff cannot establish a direct, personal harm…

 

Jesus, dude. Has anyone charged Trump with an insurrection? Did you notice the insurrection in the CA legislature today?

 

The final bell has not rung on this yet so I would not do any chicken counting

 

He was found by a court to have committed insurrection remembering the the 14th says NOTHING about “found guilty of”

 

Fascists file an objection to someones name on the list they wont vote for.

Lol.

 

They were republicans lol, lol, lol,

 

lol....what? Based on what charges? And the 14h says nothing about a president.

 

Republicans are capable of being fascists as well.

It just usually happens to be when some of the RINO's ally with the left.

 

Sad that it takes a comedian to explain it to some



Titus even has clips of Trump swearing in as an “officer” of the US. And that argument has already been overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court

(BTW did you realise that US also spells us?? Apparently that was news to Dementia Don the other day)

 

It talks about any officer who has previously sworn an oath being ineligible. Given the origin of this amendment, let’s get something straight…

Are you really suggesting that this amendment was framed to prevent any former Confederate from taking up positions in the federal government (Attorney General, Secretary of Defence, Secretary of State, etc), but that it would have been just fine for him to become President….??

Just think for a moment how stupid that would sound…

 

Soooooo - how does bring a court challenge equal “fascism”?? Waits with bated breath for explanation that excludes all those people born in another country

 

Sad that you need a comedian to explain our constitution to you. have you tried any legal experts, preferably in this country? Wait, why dont your have your comedian call Jack Smith?

 

So the Colorado Supreme Court overturned a SCOTUS ruling on who officers of the US are? You really think they can do that?

 

Please see post #12…

 

Does not invalidate SCOTUS decisions on who officers of the US are.

1888- they are people who are appointed by the president, or a few other positions as determined by congress.(since the president is not appointed…..)

2010- they are not elected(the president IS elected).

Both of those are the determinations of an officer of the US as ruled by SCOTUS.

So again, I’ll ask, the Colorado Supreme Court can overturn a SCOTUS decision?(the correct answer is no).

 

Semantic bullshit… an insurrectionist will be barred from office, unless he/she runs for President/VP, in which case they’d be fine….??!

 

You call it semantic bs, I call it law. Ignoring SCOTUS determinations by dismissing them as “semantic bullshit”… not a great look, I’ll give you that, but a look none the less.

 

The final bell rung when the SCOTUS kicked this to the curb back in October.

 

Nope

West Virginia
https://www.newsandsentinel.com/new...suit-to-keep-trump-off-w-va-ballot-dismissed/
“This is a big win for the integrity of our elections,” said Attorney General Patrick Morrisey in a statement Thursday evening. “This lawsuit was frivolous to begin with and without merit – it had no basis in either law or fact. Any eligible candidate has the right to be on the ballot unless legally disqualified, and we will defend the laws of West Virginia and the right of voters and candidates to the fullest.”

Michigan
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/14/politics/michigan-judge-trump-14th-amendment/index.html
A Michigan judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit that tried to use the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” to remove Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot.

The judge separately ruled that Michigan’s secretary of state doesn’t have the power under state law to determine the former president’s eligibility for office based on the 14th Amendment, which says anyone who took an oath to uphold the US Constitution is banned from office if they “engaged in insurrection.”

Minnesota
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...use-challenge-and-allows-trump-on-2024-ballot

The plaintiffs in the cases contend that Section Three is simply another qualification for the presidency, just like the Constitution’s requirement that a president be at least 35 years old. They filed in Minnesota because the state has a quick process to challenge ballot qualifications, with the case heard directly by the state’s highest court.

Trump’s attorneys argued that Section Three has no power without Congress laying out the criteria and procedures for applying it, that the Jan. 6 attack doesn’t meet the definition of insurrection and that the former president was simply using his free speech rights. They also argued that the clause doesn’t apply to the office of the presidency, which is not mentioned in the text.

Colorado
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-whit...ntial-ballot-ruling-14th-amendment-rcna125493

Judge Wallace agreed with the intervenors in finding that the drafters of the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause “did not intend to include the President as ‘an officer of the United States.’”

What's more, the judge wrote, it appears that for “whatever reason” the drafters also “did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”

“As a result, the Court holds that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to Trump,” the judge wrote.

Rhode Island
https://rhodeislandcurrent.com/brie...-seeking-to-keep-trump-off-r-i-s-2024-ballot/

Rhode Island is the latest state where a federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit that would have prevented former president Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 presidential ballot.

Nebraska
https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/1...rado-to-keep-trump-off-ballot-not-persuasive/

Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen said Wednesday that the decision in Colorado to deny former President Donald Trump a place on the 2024 primary ballot was “not persuasive.”

New Hampshire
https://www.wmur.com/article/new-hampshire-donald-trump-ballot-lawsuit-dismiss/45682757
It sets an “extremely dangerous” precedent to have judges decide who can appear on a ballot, said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, who co-authored a paper that argued the insurrection clause does not apply to Trump because he is not an “officer of the United States,” as the language of the 14th Amendment reads.

“What we’re talking about here is telling people that you can’t vote for the candidate of your choice,” he told Stateline. “This would be the single biggest disenfranchisement in modern history.”

 

You guys are so laughable. Trump was acquitted of insurrection in his second impeachment.
What other straws will you grasp for. lol

 

Yep…

Instead, Rosenberg ruled that the plaintiffs, Boynton Beach attorney Lawrence Caplan and two others, lacked "standing" to bring the challenge.

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story...-against-trump-on-florida-ballot/70726059007/

Castro lacked standing to bring the claim because his candidacy was not a real challenge.

https://rhodeislandcurrent.com/brie...-seeking-to-keep-trump-off-r-i-s-2024-ballot/

 

Amazing that foreigners still have to explain to you how your own system works…!

Impeachment is a POLITICAL process…it has little connection to the CONSTITUTIONAL process of determining eligibility and no connection to the CRIMINAL process of laying the charge of insurrection…

Goid grief…

 

It's not just a court challenge, it'd a fascist attempt to change the outcome of an election by barring candidates you don't like