Laniakea
Not of this world
Better than you coming up with proof that it was real.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Yeah. I avoid Needles so I don't have to deal with it, or the wait that comes with it.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
All three of the above are easily provable to be false, but you obviously are not interested in facts or truth.
This just in -- SCOTUS has allowed Trump onto the Colorado ballot. The decision was unanimous and applies (I think) to all states.
Last edited:
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
You beat me to it.
Here's an article on it for others who might be curious:
Supreme Court rules states can't kick Trump off the ballot
The decision swiftly ended the legal fight over whether states can bar Trump from their ballots based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
www.nbcnews.com
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
This was in regard to a PRIMARY ballot. Does this ruling apply to general elections?
You beat me to it.
Here's an article on it for others who might be curious:
Supreme Court rules states can't kick Trump off the ballot
The decision swiftly ended the legal fight over whether states can bar Trump from their ballots based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
Kind of both a win and a loss for Trump, eh?
The Supreme Court basically ruled that state governments don't have the power to disqualify federal candidates under the 14th Amendment, but was pretty clear that Congress does... and didn't say anything to dispute the idea that Trump could be disqualified for engaging in insurrection.
This only applies in the fantasy world where Congress can actually do anything.
Maybe the next insurrection.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
I am not sure why it wouldn't. Their reasoning would still be the same.
Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse," the court decision concluded.
That's the thing: they already did something. The ruling mentions that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the rest of the Amendment by legislation, and then notes that Congress did this with the 1870 Enforcement Act. Well... here's what the Enforcement Act has to say on the issue:
Enforcement Act of 1870 - Wikisource, the free online library
What this says to me is that:
- nothing happens unless Trump actually holds the office of President.
- if that happens, when it happens, the US District Attorney is required to start proceedings to remove Trump from office. No discretion is allowed (other parts of the Act go into penalties for federal officers who fail to perform the duties required under the Act).
So depending what happens in November, January may get interesting.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
**** them for letting a traitor run and making it clear states rights regarding elections are for Red States.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
What it means is Congress will need to take a formal vote for insurrection. If that vote reaches the standard of the needed votes, Congress will declared that Trump engaged in an insurrection. At that point, the 14th Amendment may apply.
The Democrats have not been able to get the votes in Congress needed to reach a formal insurrection charge, so Trump is still on the ballot, since he was never formally charged by Congress. Now it is the cart before the horse, with no formal vote or declaration of insurrection to do part two; 14th Amendment.
This is similar to an impeachment. We can go through a false process of impeachment, and even say Trump was impeached twice, but unless there are enough votes in the Senate, to make the impeachment stick, it is only an asterisk. It carries nothing legal, but can have some political weight for propaganda.
You can game the impeachment and the insurrection clauses, to get a fake news and propaganda boosts, as the DNC has demonstrated. The RNC is going slower with Biden Impeachment, dotting the i's, since this is not just for a quickly propaganda boost by doing damage to Biden. fThey take this very serious, since it is not a dirty game, for the RNC.
Reparations is also based on using propaganda hype and hope for free black votes. It has no reality, unless Congress OK's the funds. It is mostly political used car salesmanship. This appears to fool and give hope to various groups within the Democrat party base. They buy into these propaganda and swamp land schemes, too easy. The problem is they are not taught Civics in the DNC controlled Public Schools, where you could learn these simple differences. The DNC knows that such knowledge could mess up is much of the DNC propaganda effectiveness.
No, it won't.
I touched on this a few posts back (though after the one you replied to, so you might not have seen it). Congress did pass legislation on this: the 1870 Enforcement Act.
Under this rule, the trigger for action would be Trump actually holding the office of President. If that happens, the US District Attorney would be required to start court proceedings to have Trump removed.
I suppose Congress could amend or repeal this law if they wanted to (and if they could get enough votes to do it), but I don't see this as likely.
As the Supreme Court has just pointed out, Congress doesn't need to.
Enforcement Act of 1870 - Wikisource, the free online library
Of all the possible scenarios of how this could go, the idea that a President could be elected and then Congress could undo that is the most horrific. I hope that isn't going to happen. That is exactly what Trump and the Republicans tried to do.
No, I don't want Congress to have anything to do with this.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
The fact that it existed and we could see it. Also the chanting of "Hang Mike Pence" by the mob.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
That's what trials are for.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
As he should. There is a bipartisan bill sitting there that the Republicans could vote on today, that has pretty much everything they want in it. Biden said he'd sign it immediately after it passed through Congress.
They're not doing it because Trump told them not to, so they have something to run on this election cycle.
That means it's the Republicans who apparently don't care about open borders, so long as they can use it to their own advantage.
The ball's in the Republicans' court. They own this now.
That's the thing: they already did something. The ruling mentions that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the rest of the Amendment by legislation, and then notes that Congress did this with the 1870 Enforcement Act. Well... here's what the Enforcement Act has to say on the issue:
Enforcement Act of 1870 - Wikisource, the free online library
en.m.wikisource.org
What this says to me is that:
- nothing happens unless Trump actually holds the office of President.
- if that happens, when it happens, the US District Attorney is required to start proceedings to remove Trump from office. No discretion is allowed (other parts of the Act go into penalties for federal officers who fail to perform the duties required under the Act).
So depending what happens in November, January may get interesting.
I wouldn't hold your breath. If by "US District Attorney" you mean the federal Attorney General, I suppose you could make the case that this law applies analogously to that person for federal office holders. But the AG is appointed by the President. So if Trump becomes President, he'll appoint a MAGA yes-man to that position. Which means likely nothing will happen internally at the US DoJ to threaten Trump's Presidency at that point.