Okay. What was his INGO screen name?
Okay. What was his INGO screen name?
msn does not load. Can you post the link from the source itself?
That's why they do stuff like this, to get a reaction.
Thats why Trumpers/Conservatives are so dangerous and need to be locked up, watched, red flagged, etc. They have guns and will kill everyone if they dont get their way.Could be a false flag. Could be legit.
Never would have guessed that! *purple*Looks like the strings to keep Trump off the ballot are being pulled by Soros…
The IDF seems to be pretty proficient at eliminating people. Can we contract with them to take care of Soros, Schwab, et al?Looks like the strings to keep Trump off the ballot are being pulled by Soros…
And, as has been discussed in this thread and others: Congress did do their job. The House impeached Trump. The Senate failed to convict.The Supreme Court’s Silver-Bullet Solution to the 14th Amendment Problem
Colorado and Maine have taken Trump off the ballot. The Court wants to put an end to this, now.nymag.com
Interesting take here about how SCOTUS might rule. The author surmises that SCOTUS will look to put an end to the constant barrage of legal challenges based upon a political patchwork of the States regarding disqualification by deciding that the question of if Trump can run for president should ultimately be made by Congress, not the States and not the courts,
The Supreme Court could rule that under Section 5 only Congress has the authority to set procedures for application of the 14th Amendment Sec. 3.
"While Section 3 of the 14th Amendment contains the insurrection clause, Section 5 provides that “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
The author goes on to give his prediction on how SCOTUS might choose to handle it. In my non legal expert opinion, it makes the most sense to me. He also has a hunch that SCOTUS will take a pass on the contentious “president is/ is not an officer” argument and stick with the following.
"If I had to guess — and we are all guessing, perhaps cut with some experience and intuition — I’d go with the former one-shot approach (though the Court could do both). The Court can base its ruling on textualist, plain-language principles: When the Constitution says “Congress” decides, it means “Congress” and not “Congress — but also the states, if they feel like it.” It’s legalistic, it’s above the fray, it’s clean, and it’s definitive. Plus, the Court would build itself a neat political heat shield: Don’t like this result? Blame Congress, they’re the ones who haven’t done their jobs."
"With one decision, the Court can reach a defensible legal result and put an end to the ongoing political and electoral chaos."
Indeed, they did and the relevant part is the expedited Democrat impeachment effort was specifically on the grounds of "insurrection." Their goal in doing so was to get a conviction in Congress before he left office in order to prevent Trump from holding office again.And, as has been discussed in this thread and others: Congress did do their job. The House impeached Trump. The Senate failed to convict.
As far as I'm concerned it falls under states rights to do what it pleases.The lingering question is, what happens if it does stand, and a couple more states follow. He wasn't going to win Colorado anyway, but this sets a horrible precedent. Our entire system of government is based on free and open elections. If they take that away, I don't see how we survive as a nation.
The Constitution enumerates authority over federal elections to the federal government, eligibility for POTUS is defined in Article II, and disqualification under 14A is enumerated to the Congress. The matter isn't left up to the States under 9A or 10A.As far as I'm concerned it falls under states rights to do what it pleases.
It's an overreach. The fed shouldn't have that kind of power to tell a state what it's local officials who were elected by the local people can and cannot do in regard to an election whether it be national or stateThe Constitution enumerates authority over federal elections to the federal government, eligibility for POTUS is defined in Article II, and disqualification under 14A is enumerated to the Congress. The matter isn't left up to the States under 9A or 10A.
So, no: for election of POTUS the State doesn't get to "do what it pleases".