• 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 Maine ballot.

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Due process was followed. You are trying to say that they need to follow your interpretation of due process. Case law disagrees with you:


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

NameTook oath in what public position?"Engaged" in insurrection how?Public position when disqualifiedMechanism of disqualificationDeciding bodyCourt ReviewConvicted of a crime?YearNotes
Kenneth H. WorthyCounty SheriffHeld 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 CourtYes. Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N.C. 199 (1869), appeal dismissed, 76 U.S. 611 (1869)No1869“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. TateCounty AttorneyServed as an officer in the Confederate ArmyState SolicitorMandamus 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)
No1869
J.D. WatkinsDistrict Attorney“Engaged in the late rebellion” (unclear precisely what Watkins did)State JudgeQuo 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).
No1869Court 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.

God your so desperate!

Try using some detective work and note that their positions are all involving state positions , local government kind of positions making a local court sufficient as the states determine with their own mission statements and constitutions.

So is Trump living in Colorado or is he running for an an office in Colorado for something, because the last I had heard , the president of the US is a federal level position.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
So is the due process clause, so look in a mirror.

I think this is the third time I've asked you, so I don't expect you'll reply, but here goes:

Do you think that eligibility for the presidency is:

- life,
- liberty, or
- property?

And why on Earth would you think that "due process" means a criminal trial?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
So is Trump living in Colorado or is he running for an an office in Colorado for something, because the last I had heard , the president of the US is a federal level position.
He is hoping to win the votes of Colorado's electors in the electoral college. This is a state process, run according to state law, that ends up with the state legislature and governor appointing electors based on the state's election results.

Back when the 14th Amendment was passed, most states just had their state legislature decide the presidential candidate that the state would support. The fact that citizens get to vote for president at all is entirely a matter of state law.

It would make much more sense for the president to be elected in a national popular vote administered by the federal government, but that's not how American electoral law works.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
God your so desperate!

Try using some detective work and note that their positions are all involving state positions , local government kind of positions making a local court sufficient as the states determine with their own mission statements and constitutions.

So is Trump living in Colorado or is he running for an an office in Colorado for something, because the last I had heard , the president of the US is a federal level position.
Why does that make a difference? Those were state positions. Are you complaining because this has not happened to the President before? Seriously?

If so you are the desperate one here.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I think this is the third time I've asked you, so I don't expect you'll reply, but here goes:

Do you think that eligibility for the presidency is:

- life,
- liberty, or
- property?

And why on Earth would you think that "due process" means a criminal trial?
I already gave you an answer to that in this thread and you're just going to have to live with it. I'd recommend taking something for your apparently failing memory.

And the reason why due process in this case is revelant is because it involves a criminal charge which requires a criminal trial first, and then the civil Trial can follow afterwards once the criminal charge is official. That's the way it always works. You don't take people convicted of absolutely nothing, then just declare them guilty because a person just feels like it, and do whatever banana republic song and dance , using a Judge Judy Court.

Yet you still keep on ignoring and dismissing the due process clause in the same exact amendment which I can't help you with if you just don't want to listen or pay attention to the due process clause that is in there as plain as day.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
And the reason why due process in this case is revelant is because it involves a criminal charge which requires a criminal trial first, and then the civil Trial can follow afterwards once the criminal charge is official. That's the way it always works.

No, that isn't how it always works.

Civil trials usually follow criminal trials because it's easier. If you're suing the murderer of your loved one for wrongful death, you can do it quicker and with paying lawyers less if you wait until after the criminal conviction, but there's no rule that says you have to.

And similar to Trump's case, a doctor can lose their license for improper conduct even if the improper conduct is criminal before a criminal trial.

And as an example of the due process actually required by the 14th Amendment, you can lose your home through an eminent domain process without any trial before a judge or jury and without having done anything wrong.

You're operating from a fantasy version of how the law works. There's more to it than what you've picked up from Law & Order reruns.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The credibility of the Democratic Party is below zero, right now.
Since nobody has taken a clear stance on that video recorded in the Senate hearing room.
The secrets are popping out like pop corn, I mean...it turns out the sexual activities at the Capitol are frequent.
Why are you so obsessing about sexual stuff and the sexual orientation or macho statements of politicians?

The article in the OP has nothing to do with that.
Nobody is barring Trumpy from ballots for saying you should grab women by the kitten

They are barring him for his criminal involvement in insurrection.

And rightfully so.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I just tell what I perceive: democrats tend to trivialize politics, which is something very serious.

In Brussels, for example, parliamentarians don't speak of politicians' private life. Someone said that during the short four years of Trump's administration, there were zero wars, the situation was improving on so many levels, geopolitically, in the Old Continent.
Let's not forget that the Ukrainian War was the result of very bad diplomatic actions between East and West.
War between Russia and Ukraine has been going on since at least 2014
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Not one single Republican that I have ever presented the fake electors evidence to, has ever responded to it at all.
Nothing. Nada.
Probably because it's technically legal to do so. It's explained how that is the case in the New York Times, and Trump is not the first either.


 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Probably because it's technically legal to do so. It's explained how that is the case in the New York Times, and Trump is not the first either.


No, not even technically legal. Some people lied to themselves to the point that they believed that it was legal, but it appears that you did not even read your own link:

"But it was deemed illegal by Mr. Trump’s own White House Counsel’s Office. "

That some of Trump's hacks convinced themselves that it was legal does not make it "technically legal". In fact many of the false electors are facing charges as a result of the fact that it was illegal. Do you need sources? I will gladly provide them.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Probably because it's technically legal to do so. It's explained how that is the case in the New York Times, and Trump is not the first either.


What's all this about, then?


At least someone finally responded! Thanks for that.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What's all this about, then?

At least someone finally responded! Thanks for that.
Aw Poop! I was hoping that he would demand sources. Thanks a lot:mad:

Kidding of course. Thank you for doing so. Were you just waiting for someone to post that sort of nonsense?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
What's all this about, then?


At least someone finally responded! Thanks for that.
Well you all do need material to continue on with the debate.
 
Top