Trump kicked off Maine ballot.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems to me that appearing on a ballot is being treated like a privilege like driving, which can be denied or revoked at the pleasure of the appropriate governing authority according to its own laws and procedures.

I wouldn't say that. The electoral process is critical to democracy; having it function properly is certainly not a "privilege."

That being said, the American electoral process is more than a little wacky, and IMO the reason the 14th Amendment provides very little detail on how the ineligibility should be carried out is that most of the details of elections are left to the states.

When the 14th Amendment was written, most states weren't using a popular vote to determine which presidential candidate to support; that decision was made by state legislatures. Same thing for the selection of senators.

It seems to me that the 14th Amendment was written to leave most of the details of implementation (at least for elected positions) to the states, recognizing that under the decentralized American system, this was the proper place for these details to be decided.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Stage don't have the right to interfere with Federal elections.

That's the difference

Under the Constitution, Presidential elections are mostly a state responsibility.

The federal government isn't really involved until electoral college members (along with the documents from the state governors' documents certifying the members) arrive in Washington for the EC vote count.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well with the kind of evidence you're describing, it should be no problem getting a conviction through a proper court of law which is where it should be through. Not through the court of public opinion or a Judge Judy Court with no jury of peers.

Oh my, tell us again that you have no understanding of the US court systems.


Tell me, do you think that it was unfair that in Trump's latest trial in New York state regarding his tax fraud was wrong? In case you forgot that one he was found guilty in that before it even started.

 

[McBell]

Under the Constitution, Presidential elections are mostly a state responsibility.

The federal government isn't really involved until electoral college members (along with the documents from the state governors' documents certifying the members) arrive in Washington for the EC vote count.

Damn them pesky facts!!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Oh my, tell us again that you have no understanding of the US court systems.


Tell me, do you think that it was unfair that in Trump's latest trial in New York state regarding his tax fraud was wrong? In case you forgot that one he was found guilty in that before it even started.

You people are ridiculous. Trump wasn't served due process over a criminal accusation of which he has yet to be convicted and sentenced over, and you cannot just accuse somebody, play a game in a Judge Judy Court, and then say it's good enough and call it a day.

The fact that Insurrection is being cited is actually a criminal offense for what you're trying to do it in a civil court where Trump is not even formerly tried over for it yet.

And no I'm not going to tell you again because all you have to do is start at post one and reread the whole thread. Get to it.

I said everything there is to say about it and of course we're all going to wait and see what the Supreme Court says about the constitutionality of using a civil court for a criminal accusation on somebody that hasn't even been convicted , much less sentenced.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The right wants to turn it into
a Putin style government, with
sham elections & persecution
of political foes.
They should just move to :Russia.

Putin clearly is doing a far better job.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's a consequence of their only window into the world being propaganda troughs like Fox News.

....& Breitbart & fundie preachers on AM radio.
At least OAN is off the air.

 

[Revoltingest]

Putin clearly is doing a far better job.

He has a real knack for success.
The 2-day war to take Ukraine looks
to brilliantly succeed in 2 years.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Trump wasn't served due process

Sure he was, just not the process YOU specified. You insist on a criminal conviction, which apparently is only necessary to officially label him a felon and to fine and/or incarcerate him. THAT process requires indictments, arraignments, and if no plea deal is reached, trials and jurors. But not this process, or so it seems.

Trump wasn't served due process over a criminal accusation of which he has yet to be convicted and sentenced over, and you cannot just accuse somebody, play a game in a Judge Judy Court, and then say it's good enough and call it a day.

Apparently, at least two states disagree with you.

You remind me of all these badly behaved citizens encountering police and making legal judgments about their rights and what's illegal or unconstitutional. I used to like watching them, until they all started being alike and I realized that I had gleaned all I could from them. They can be traffic stops or answering 911 calls or attending to a trespassing or shoplifting complaint.

Especially interesting is the so-called Sovereign Citizens movements, where these people have their own very incorrect ideas of what the law says about driving. They say that they are not subject to traffic law, don't need a license, registration, or proof of insurance to drive if it's not for a commercial purpose, and don't consider operating a motor vehicle driving if its not. They generally end up arrested and having their vehicles towed and impounded.

The other group like them were the anti-mask people, who made all sorts of false claims about their rights, producing meaningless papers to assert that they had a medical exception and similar nonexistent laws and rights that they say exempt them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sure he was, just not the process YOU specified. You insist on a criminal conviction, which apparently is only necessary to officially label him a felon and to fine and/or incarcerate him. THAT process requires indictments, arraignments, and if no plea deal is reached, trials and jurors. But not this process, or so it seems.

Trump's not even a convicted felon yet, so where the hell do you get these charges from?

Civil courts can't determine criminal outcomes. They come after that.

Just show me one time where a civil court proceeded a criminal charge and sentencing of somebody who isn't even convicted of said criminal offense to begin with.

Where does that come from? Out of people's asses?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Trump's not even a convicted felon yet, so where the hell do you get these charges from?

Civil courts can't determine criminal outcomes. They come after that.

Ineligibility for elected office isn't a criminal outcome.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ineligibility for elected office isn't a criminal outcome.

Not with you people it isn't. All you got to do is accuse somebody of something and call it a day with Judge Judy presiding and Bingo!

Got to love those Banana Republic mentalities.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not with you people it isn't.

Do you know any criminal punishment that lets Congress just waive it?

All you got to do is accuse somebody of something and call it a day with Judge Judy presiding and Bingo!

Sounds like you haven't been paying attention.

Got to love those Banana Republic mentalities.

"Banana Republic" is usually used to describe a country where the law doesn't matter... i.e. what you're arguing for.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you know any criminal punishment that lets Congress just waive it?


Sounds like you haven't been paying attention.



"Banana Republic" is usually used to describe a country where the law doesn't matter... i.e. what you're arguing for.

Good lord your hopeless with this.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Trump's not even a convicted felon yet

That's coming.

where the hell do you get these charges from?

What charges? The indictments come from grand juries at the behest of prosecutors.

It really doesn't matter what you and I think the law is or ought to be. You don't seem to understand that.

Where does that come from? Out of people's asses?

Your position is ex culo. You simply declare what due process is or must be in this case with no legal understanding. You demand a criminal trial and a jury conviction before acting, but it doesn't matter that you do.

You must think that these states are trolling Trump and acting just to get a rise out of him. I doubt that, but I can't say that they're not. Nor would I mind if that was their only purpose, nor to tarnish his legacy further with a very public rebuke. He really hates those two impeachments even though they didn't lead to convictions. He hates all rejection. He's pretty upset at having had his cameo in Home Alone 2 removed, nobody wants his name on their buildings anymore, and there's a movement to get his Hollywood star removed and his honorary Bristish title rescinded.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You people are ridiculous. Trump wasn't served due process over a criminal accusation of which he has yet to be convicted and sentenced over, and you cannot just accuse somebody, play a game in a Judge Judy Court, and then say it's good enough and call it a day.

It can be punished as a crime. But look at the Amendment, there is no such trial required. One can object and there will be a bench trial, which is how it should be. You cannot seem to understand the this is a qualification issue. That is not a crime. It is a mater for a judge since judges understand laws and the constitution better than a jury would. Tell me, would Arnold need to be convicted of not being born in the US to keep him off of the ballot? It is the same issue.

The fact that Insurrection is being cited is actually a criminal offense for what you're trying to do it in a civil court where Trump is not even formerly tried over for it yet.

This amendment also recognizes jury nullification. That is less likely to happen with a judge. Once again, since the man is not being threatened with prison over this a jury is not required. Juries are involved when punishment is a possibility. Otherwise they are not required to be offered.

And no I'm not going to tell you again because all you have to do is start at post one and reread the whole thread. Get to it.

That is because no matter how many times you repeat something that is fallacious it will still be fallacious.

I said everything there is to say about it and of course we're all going to wait and see what the Supreme Court says about the constitutionality of using a civil court for a criminal accusation on somebody that hasn't even been convicted , much less sentenced.

But they did not do that. This is a strawman argument on your part. Once again, do you want to see the legal precedent that shows that you are wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good lord your hopeless with this.

His hopeless with this??

I do not think so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good lord your hopeless with this.

It's going to be hard for you to change minds when the Constitution is right there for anyone to look it up, see what it says, and realize that your claims (I wouldn't really call them arguments, just claims) are crap.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's going to be hard for you to change minds when the Constitution is right there for anyone to look it up, see what it says, and realize that your claims (I wouldn't really call them arguments, just claims) are crap.

So is the due process clause, so look in a mirror.

Interpretation: The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

So is the due process clause, so look in a mirror.

Interpretation: The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Due process was followed. You are trying to say that they need to follow your interpretation of due process. Case law disagrees with you:

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.

www.citizensforethics.org

Let's see how the example of J.D. Watkins works with a copy and paste:

Name	Took oath in what public position?	"Engaged" in insurrection how?	Public position when disqualified	Mechanism of disqualification	Deciding body	Court Review	Convicted of a crime?	Year	Notes
Kenneth H. Worthy	County Sheriff	Held local office in a Confederate state. Worthy was not accused of engaging in violence.	County Sherriff	Mandamus action by Worthy to challenge his disqualification by county commissioners under state law implementing Section 3.	North Carolina Supreme Court	Yes. Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N.C. 199 (1869), appeal dismissed, 76 U.S. 611 (1869)	No	1869	“The oath to support the Constitution is the test. The idea being that one who had taken an oath to support the Constitution and violated it, ought to be excluded from taking it again, until relieved by Congress.”
William L. Tate	County Attorney	Served as an officer in the Confederate Army	State Solicitor	Mandamus action by Tate challenging his Section 3 disqualification by state judge.	North Carolina Supreme Court	Yes. In re Tate, 63 N.C. 308, 309 (1869)	No	1869
J.D. Watkins	District Attorney	“Engaged in the late rebellion” (unclear precisely what Watkins did)	State Judge	Quo warranto action filed against Watkins under state law and Section 3.	Louisiana Supreme Court	Yes. Louisiana ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631 (La. 1869).	No	1869	Court confirmed state courts can enforce Section 3 and that Section 3 is not a criminal punishment but a qualification for office.

Oh, excellent! It copied more than I thought that it did. Read the last example.

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.

www.citizensforethics.org