Destroying the Rule of Law to Get Trump

[Hellbilly]

Interesting theory, and the CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS Joe had scattered in his garage from DECADES BEFORE OBAMA when he was in the Senate? How about those ILLEGAL CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT hmmm.

Lock them both up. Problem solved.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Interesting theory, and the CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS Joe had scattered in his garage from DECADES BEFORE OBAMA when he was in the Senate? How about those ILLEGAL CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT hmmm.

Biden didn't lie.
Biden didn't claim they were his.
Biden welcomed the investigators.

Your dear leader?

 

[Fiero425]

Biden didn't lie.
Biden didn't claim they were his.
Biden welcomed the investigators.

Your dear leader?

Conservatives only hear what they want to hear! They're like children & misrepresent facts to save face!

 

[BluesLegend]

Biden didn't lie.
Biden didn't claim they were his.
Biden welcomed the investigators.

Your dear leader?

Not lying about robbing a bank doesn't get you off scott free idiot.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Not lying about robbing a bank doesn't get you off scott free idiot.

But lying about one does............MORON.

 

[BluesLegend]

But lying about one does............MORON.

You are truly incapable of rational thought. Joe Biden broke the law, FACT! Dems refuse to hold him accountable, also FACT! Because Dems are first order ASSHOLES!

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You are truly incapable of rational thought. Joe Biden broke the law, FACT! Dems refuse to hold him accountable, also FACT! Because Dems are first order ASSHOLES!

OK................If a teabagger says so. "FACT"!

 

[berg80]

It comes down to maintaining normal relations vs undercutting the Commander in Chief. "How are the wife and kids?" vs "Don't worry about the crackpot in the Oval Office, we have him under control".

Did you feel the same way when Mike Flynn spoke with Russian ambassador Kislyak about undercutting Obama's policy before Trump took office?

 

[OKTexas]

The precedent case for Colorado, the only case that tested this set of laws and the courts made a decision on, applies.

Hassan v. Colorado, 495 F. App'x 947 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Hassan v. Colorado, 495 F. App'x 947, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

The fellow in question was not qualified according to the Constitution. He was not a Natural Born Citizen. Colorado ruled he was ineligible in a similar court case. Hassan appealed and argued that his eligibility came into question later, it shouldn’t prevent him from being on the ballot.


But, as the magistrate judge's opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, 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. See generally Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, 193-95 (1986); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145(1972).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant's motion for publication is denied.

Entered for the Court

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

So as Justice Gorsuch wrote, it is in the legitimate interest of a State to protect the integrity of the Political Process. It wasn’t decided on who could win. The Court didn’t say that Hassan couldn’t win, or that the question should be decided by the voters. The Court ruled that candidates should be excluded if they are ineligible to serve.

Michigan state laws do not permit them to remove a candidate. So if Hassan was on the ballot there, people could vote for him. But Colorado has a section of laws that allow, or even require the Secretary of State to remove ineligible candidates from the ballot. Ineligible according to the Constitution of the United States.

If or when the Supremes consider this issue from Colorado, they’re going to decide partially based upon a decision written by Gorsuch when he was an appeals court judge.

This is a minefield for Trump. Because there are three questions that must be answered in the decision from the Supreme Court. 1) Was the effort to overturn the election an Insurrection? The Colorado Courts decided that at every level. And here the Supreme Court is supposed to decide it based upon the evidence presented in the trial. The Supremes are free to decide it any way they want. But if they say yes to that first question it raises the next.

2) Was Donald Trump a part of the Insurrection? The 14th does not say people convicted of Insurrection. It merely says those who violated the oath to support the Constitution by participating in or providing aide and comfort to participants of an insurrection. If the court rules that yes Trump was involved in violation of the oath, well Trump’s ability to be President now hinges on the third question.

3) Does the Fourteenth apply to the office of the President? The office is not specifically mentioned. But the Executive Branch is mentioned, and the President is the head of the Executive Branch.

A yes answer to that third question means that Trump is ineligible to be President unless the Congress votes by a 2/3 majority to remove the disability.

The case you cited worked completely backwards to the current case. In your case the SOS made the initial determination, in Trump''s case they didn't. A court ordered the SOS to take action based on a suit filed by individual voters who legally had no standing to sue in the first place. Even in a civil suit, the plaintiffs have to demonstrate harm. They couldn't do that.

.

 

[SavannahMann]

The case you cited worked completely backwards to the current case. In your case the SOS made the initial determination, in Trump''s case they didn't. A court ordered the SOS to take action based on a suit filed by individual voters who legally had no standing to sue in the first place. Even in a civil suit, the plaintiffs have to demonstrate harm. They couldn't do that.

.

Read the Colorado Supreme Court decision. And then get back to me. I’m tired of spoon feeding strained carrots to RW Trump Fanboys.

 

[OKTexas]

Read the Colorado Supreme Court decision. And then get back to me. I’m tired of spoon feeding strained carrots to RW Trump Fanboys.

You mean the decision that will ultimately be overturned?

.

 

[BluesLegend]

OK................If a teabagger says so. "FACT"!

The LAW says so you lying lowlife filth vermin Dems.

 

[SavannahMann]

You mean the decision that will ultimately be overturned?

.

Ok. On what grounds? Trump’s motion before the Supreme Court isn’t a great document from either the legal, or political, point of view.

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/9a52ab1adf471cda/dfe18fa1-full.pdf

Now. The 14th Amendment says that a 2/3 majority of Congress is needed to remove the disability. But Trump has decided that only Congress can decide if the President is eligible to serve.

His brief for the Supremes is not very compelling.

So if that is the basis of your faith that the Supremes will overturn I’d like to know why. What part of it was the definitive declaration. What argument is brilliant or devastating to the arguments laid out in the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision?

 

[OKTexas]

Ok. On what grounds? Trump’s motion before the Supreme Court isn’t a great document from either the legal, or political, point of view.

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/9a52ab1adf471cda/dfe18fa1-full.pdf

Now. The 14th Amendment says that a 2/3 majority of Congress is needed to remove the disability. But Trump has decided that only Congress can decide if the President is eligible to serve.

His brief for the Supremes is not very compelling.

So if that is the basis of your faith that the Supremes will overturn I’d like to know why. What part of it was the definitive declaration. What argument is brilliant or devastating to the arguments laid out in the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision?

And it requires a conviction under the laws written by congress to impose the disability. They are the only ones charged with enforcing the provisions of the 14th by passing laws to do so. They passed criminal statutes to do so. States have no authority to unilaterally declare a person guilty of a federal crime when they have never been charged much less convicted by federal authorities. Also individual voters don't have standing to sue a State to compel them to do so.

.

 

[Stryder50]

"fundamental change" happens on both sides

"Hope, not hate" "Make America Great Again", they're the SAME MESSAGE. "I'll change things for the better" "What's "for the the better"? We don't know, just some vague nonsense that it will change.

Handouts happen on both sides too.

Would seem you don't understand concepts involved in "fundamental" or "Hope~hype".

Issue was "Make America Great Again" as in recover a status from the past, or alter America/USA into another failed socialist experiment in economic and social failure.

Your disinformation and delusions noted.

"Handouts" vary per political faction/side and how much is gouged from the taxpayers.

Generally the Left~Regressive~pseudo-liberal tends to take more form the productive side and give such pillage/theft/looting to the non-productive side.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Would seem you don't understand concepts involved in "fundamental" or "Hope~hype".

Issue was "Make America Great Again" as in recover a status from the past, or alter America/USA into another failed socialist experiment in economic and social failure.

Your disinformation and delusions noted.

"Handouts" vary per political faction/side and how much is gouged from the taxpayers.

Generally the Left~Regressive~pseudo-liberal tends to take more form the productive side and give such pillage/theft/looting to the non-productive side.

What?

 

[SavannahMann]

And it requires a conviction under the laws written by congress to impose the disability. They are the only ones charged with enforcing the provisions of the 14th by passing laws to do so. They passed criminal statutes to do so. States have no authority to unilaterally declare a person guilty of a federal crime when they have never been charged much less convicted by federal authorities. Also individual voters don't have standing to sue a State to compel them to do so.

.

Ok. Point to the part of the 14th that says the individual must be convicted of insurrection before they are ineligible.

 

[OKTexas]

Ok. Point to the part of the 14th that says the individual must be convicted of insurrection before they are ineligible.

How about I point to the part that says "Congress shall have the power to enforce", the amendment gives no one else that power. Period, end of story.

.

 

[SavannahMann]

How about I point to the part that says "Congress has the power to enforce", the amendment gives no one else that power. Period, end of story.

.

Does it say only Congress?

 

[OKTexas]

Does it say only Congress?

Feel free to point to any other entity it empowers. Hers's a clue for ya commie, there ain't one. As your dear leader maobama stated :

“Generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the state or federal government must do on your behalf.”​

— Barack Obama

Which means if the Constitution doesn't give you the power, you don't have it.

.