So if Margot Robbie was leading in the polls, you think she could run for President? (she is 33 years old and born in Australia).
Does the constitution no longer matter if someone is leading in the polls?
-
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
Does the constitution no longer matter if someone is leading in the polls?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sort of. Robbing? Yes. Hood? Yes? Take from the rich and give to the poor? Not even close.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Perhaps. But in states where he is not allowed to be on the ballot how many Republicans would write his name in? Would it count if they did?
McBell
Unbound
Honestly, I do not understand what the fuss is all about.
Trump ran for President twice and twice lost the popular vote...
Hopefully enough to split the Republican vote and elect the Democrat.
Nope, if he is ineligible he is ineligible.
We Never Know
No Slack
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
As of now. But in the near future he may be in the same position as Margot Robbie.
That is your opinion. Others believe Trump became inelegable on January 6th 2021.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
To have the highest court decide against a single citizen prior to a conviction can lead to consequences.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
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Conviction is not needed for this. The result will not be incarceration. At least not for trying to run for President. You can already be banned for all sorts of activities because you do not meet certain criteria. Why should running for President be any different?
Friend of Mara
Active Member
Yes. Isn't that the point? The whole point of having a highest court in the land? To have....consequences? A thing that Trump is woefully unfamiliar with I know.
Possibly, although if the Court rules in favor of Trump, then they'd be making an official legal proclamation that Trump had no part of any insurrection or rebellion.
You have substituted your opinion over Law. According to the Law he is innocent. Which means the whole argument of using the XIV Amendment is baseless. Since you think it is so "obvious" he is guilty, go to court. Until then...
Friend of Mara
Active Member
Isn't that what we are doing?
Fine, so let's just follow the process set out in State law to determine who is and who is not eligible to be on the ballot.
Of course it applies to the legal question of whether Trump can legally be excluded from the ballot. Which is what I was discussing. Your mere opinion that Trump has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" isn't legally binding and insufficient to deny everyone else's right to have him on the ballot should they choose to do so. So much so that it isn't worth the time to debate. If you think your case is so strong, take it to court.
As I said in a later post, why don't we just follow the process that is spelled out for determining who is or is not eligible to be on the ballot?
The process varies from State to State, but does not involve a conviction of a crime.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
How is that supposed to work if there is no conviction of a crime?
It works the way the law says it works. Each State spells out a process.
If someone is under 35 years old, they are not eligible to be President. It does not need a criminal conviction.
If someone is not born in the U.S. they are not eligible to be President. It does not need a criminal conviction.
If someone commits an insurrection they are not eligible to be President. It does not need a criminal conviction.
Why is that so hard to understand.