Persons are presumed innocent. In case you didn't know. Unless he has been convicted he is presumed innocent.
-
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!
Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am not sure how this will work out. I do not know if each state can decide. If that is the case then He would need to be banned from some of the battleground states. If just the blue states ban him it will not make much of a difference. If some red states and purple states ban him then that would be it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That applies to criminal convictions. This is not a criminal conviction. A judge could ban him from the ballot without convicting him of a crime.
But when the person is filmed being part of a criminal act, well, there's no innocence. Trump has lied about winning in 2020, yet he knows he lost.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
An obvious fact that has already been stated more than once.
Words you heard once but don't really understand.
Presumed innocent is a legal maxim, not a political one. It doesn't apply here.
To run for President you must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older, and you also must be someone who has not “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
For some posters the obvious has to be repeated again and again.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Hah! Trump has not been convicted of being a natural born citizen!!
This could stir up a **** storm.
Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot
"The legal debate about whether or not former President Donald Trump should be allowed to appear on the 2024 ballot has made its way before the Supreme Court.
The court distributed John Castro v. Donald Trump to the justices for conference on Wednesday ahead of the upcoming term, which will begin on October 2. Conference is to take place on September 26 and the case is expected to be decided on or before October 9.
Castro, a tax attorney running for the Republican nomination next year, sent his petition to the Supreme Court last month, asking the justices to answer whether political candidates can challenge the eligibility of another candidate of the same party running for the same nomination "based on a political competitive injury in the form a diminution of votes.
The lawsuit is seeking to argue that Trump should not be allowed to run for the White House based on section three of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals from holding public office if they have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States. While Trump has not been charged with insurrection, Castro is pointing to Trump's role in the January 6 Capitol riot."
Supreme Court to decide whether to kick Trump off ballot
Castro v. Trump, a case challenging Trump's candidacy with the 14th Amendment, is expected to decided by the justices on or before October 9.www-newsweek-com.cdn.ampproject.org
It should be interesting to see how it turns out. I'm kind of surprised nobody thought of this before.
We Never Know
No Slack
In a way I think it will make him more of a Robin Hood than he is now.
We Never Know
No Slack
Its a metaphor. People will rally behind him more.
Those who already support him will likely become even more entrenched and convinced that they're right. But whether it will generate support from the independents and undecideds, that's another thing.
We Never Know
No Slack
Taking him off the ballot will be denying the people of a choice. Is that a good thing?
How is it any different than not allowing a 30 year old to be on the ballot? Or not allowing a recent immigrant? Is that denying the people a choice?
Margot Robbie for President!
We Never Know
No Slack
Uhm.... Because he is on the ballot
Not yet.
Strictly speaking, the Amendment says if he engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, then he cannot serve as President. This would essentially be true no matter if he's on the ballot or not. But it also gives power to Congress to override that if there's a two-third majority.
This essentially puts the Supreme Court in a position of making an official declaration on the role Trump may have played on Jan. 6. As others have pointed out, this proceeding may not necessarily convict him, but I wonder if it could affect any of the other cases against Trump.
We Never Know
No Slack
He is leading in all the polls... So yes he is essentially on the ballot(will be)