Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Obviously you didn't care to read the due process clause in the same amendment.
-
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!
Trump kicked off Colorado ballot
- Thread starter Viker
- Start date
US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2.
That's the clause that spells out the rules around presidential electors, and places most of the authority for this with the states.
AFAICT, this gives each state the authority to oversee how electors are chosen and instructed, which would necessarily have to include the authority around issues like eligibility requirements to be on the state ballot.
That being said, faithless electors are a thing, so if an ineligible presidential candidate got EC votes, it would be up to the joint session of Congress to raise the objection and reject those invalid votes through their process.
Please tell me whether you think that eligibility for the presidency is:
1) life
2) liberty, or
3) property
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You should be telling that to the Democrats.
The people in charge of the least free, least Liberty, with least control over one's own property in the most oppressive and restricted states in the entire country.
God help this country if such people were to grab the presidency.
Is this your way of saying that you don't have a real answer to my question?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Those are the real facts to your question.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
You didn't really expect an honest straight forward answer did you?
I have asked more than one direct question and have only gotten ignored or some out in left field reply.
"What Colorado did is unconstitutional!"
"What part of the Constitution did they violate?"
"The due process clause in the 14th Amendment!"
"That clause doesn't say what you're claiming it does."
"Yeah, well... Democrats suck!"
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The tactic of always asking questions endlessly as if you got a chronic bout of amnesia from the answers people have already given you is getting , if not already pretty monotonous. But you never gave a straight answer anyways, just asking more questions like you can't tell your head from your***.
So I'm not surprised here as well your still doing this stupid tactic you seem to be so fond of using.
My "stupid tactic" was to give you the benefit of the doubt and respond as if you might have a valid point, despite my common sense telling me that you were full of crap.
If it works better for you, I can just not entertain the idea that you have a real point and just go with my gut. That's probably the more reasonable course of action anyway, considering your track record.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I expected you to say something like that.
Thank you for not disappointing here. ;0]
That is all. Have a good day.
Then so be it? They were wrong, **** happens?
I used the source I did because they are a long term conservative justice, who's opinion was cited multiple times by GOP Senators recently in relation to his impeachment ("don't do it while he is out of office").
So I assumed, silly me, that maybe his words meant something to them?
He's one ahead of you. You haven't given any expert opinions at all; just your assurance that lots of unnamed experts agree with you.
No. You’re not making any sense. The Supremes are the ultimate authority on what the Constitution means. Do you deny that?
No. It proves my point. Do you even get the point? I suspect not.
And you agree that ultimately the Supremes get to decide what the constitution means, right?
Why would the Supreme Court rule on what "insurrection" means?
The original Colorado ruling and the state Supreme Court ruling both acknowledged that Trump committed insurrection. The dispute is about other aspects of the law.
Opinion | The Supreme Court Should Overturn the Colorado Ruling Unanimously
Barring Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot would be a mistake.
Opinion: U.S. Supreme Court likely to overturn Colorado ruling that Trump can’t be on ballot
The pressure is now on the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, on which the Colorado court relied, truly does block Trump from the ballot.
www.denverpost.com
Will Supreme Court save Donald Trump? Legal experts give predictions
Trump's campaign is in "major jeopardy" after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that he should be kept off the state's ballot
www.newsweek.com
Now what? Did that magically change your mind? Doubt it, which is why I didn’t post any links to begin with. Ya’ll are so convinced you’re right you put your head in the sand.
Are you aware that other states have refused to apply the 14th in this manner?
This shows your shallow understanding of the issue.
You also didn’t answer my question.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
True that. From what I understand, all seven justices on the Colorado Supreme Court did not dispute the finding of fact that Trump engaged in insurrection.