Donald Trump blocked from Maine presidential ballot in 2024

[Danderman123]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Trump has not been convicted of that. Are you saying the constitution allows penalty without conviction?

The Constitution is silent on that issue.

 

However, my belief is that ballot disqualification requires a sedition conviction.

[DudleySquat]

40 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Do you believe that there was a pedophile ring operating out of the basement of a Washington area pizza restaurant?

 

Were there strange things in that restaurant? Yes.  I have no proof anything there was afoot. With that said, there are pedophile rings in the US government as well as the British government.  

 

So YES, maybe not there, but they had the same strange paintings on their walls as John Podesta. 

[DudleySquat]

38 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The Constitution is silent on that issue.

 

However, my belief is that ballot disqualification requires a sedition conviction.

Regardless, it requires a conviction. There is none. The Constitution is quite clear that you are innocent until proven guilty. 

 

Who proved Trump guilty? This loony secretary of state? The media? She made a legal determination and has no law degree or legal training. She is a fraud. 

[GammaGlobulin]

Trump needs to lose weight, and also change his hair color, and skin color.

[DudleySquat]

Just now, GammaGlobulin said:

Trump needs to lose weight, and also change his hair color, and skin color.

 

Says who? 

[GammaGlobulin]

3 minutes ago, DudleySquat said:

The Constitution is quite clear that you are innocent until proven guilty. 

 

Only for landowners...is my interpretation.

 

Slaves, and women, were not considered.....

 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

1 minute ago, DudleySquat said:

 

Says who? 

 

Says The Who....

 

[thaicurious]

41 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I hope not, the result would be a mess.

 

37 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The Constitution is silent on that issue.

 

However, my belief is that ballot disqualification requires a sedition conviction.

 

I'm reposting the following citation from Federalist Society law professors who have examined this case because it speaks to a number of your issues.

 

To the notion of "penalty without conviction", besides that a district court has already found that Trump incited an insurrection by his role in the Jan 6 attack upon our Capitol, here attorneys, who are scholars at that, and from the very organization of law from which Trump packed, um, I mean nominated SCOTUS justices are telling you that it is "quite clear that the specific series of events leading up to and culminating in the January 6, 2021 attack qualifies as an insurrection within the meaning of Section Three: “concerted, forcible resistance to the authority of government to execute the laws in at least some significant respect.”"

 

Again, a district court AND law professors from the Federalist Society where from come his SCOTUS picks, are telling you this was insurrection incited by Trump.

 

Further, to your notion of "requires a sedition conviction", note again that a district court has indeed already found sedition, but even more importantly and as noted by the MAGA law professors Section 3 is "a self-executing provision (that) doesn’t require any action by Congress—and it doesn’t require a criminal conviction. (bolding mine)

No action is necessary to “activate” Section Three as a prerequisite to its application as law by bodies or persons whose responsibilities call for its application. The Constitution’s qualification and disqualification rules exist and possess legal force in their own right..." (bolding, underlining mine)

 

To your point on what would make a mess, as politically messy as is now unavoidable, here's what would make the lesser mess: Trump's SCOTUS following the originalist's reading--an interpretation about which they are so quick to brag in other circumstances--of the actual words of the US Constitution and thereby find, as did their maga Federalist Society colleagues that "former President Donald J. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from again being President (or holding any other covered office) because of his role in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election and the events leading to the January 6 attack".

 

That would not be the Democrats stopping Trump from running. That would be Trump stopping Trump from running.

 

Here is the full prior post for further context

https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/legal-experts-across-the-ideological-spectrum-agree-the-14th-amendment-disqualifies-trump-from-holding-office/

"...prominent conservative law professors and Federalist Society members William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen authored a 126-page paper exploring the enforceability of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the case of January 6th.

Overall, it seems to us to be quite clear that the specific series of events leading up to and culminating in the January 6, 2021 attack qualifies as an insurrection within the meaning of Section Three: “concerted, forcible resistance to the authority of government to execute the laws in at least some significant respect.”

They explained that as a self-executing provision, Section 3 doesn’t require any action by Congress—and it doesn’t require a criminal conviction.

No action is necessary to “activate” Section Three as a prerequisite to its application as law by bodies or persons whose responsibilities call for its application. The Constitution’s qualification and disqualification rules exist and possess legal force in their own right, which is what makes them applicable and enforceable by a variety of officials in a variety of contexts."

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Trump needs to lose weight, and also change his hair color, and skin color.

and Depends more often as well. 

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The Constitution is silent on that issue.

 

However, my belief is that ballot disqualification requires a sedition conviction.

Your belief is wrong. 

[GammaGlobulin]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

and Depends more often as well. 

 

I tried to find a photo of Trump with Black Skin Color....

 

I even asked BARD....

 

But Bard would not comply with my request.

 

Instead, Bard replied as follows:

 

I understand your curiosity, but it's important to be mindful of the potential harm in altering someone's appearance based on race. It can reinforce harmful stereotypes and contribute to racial bias.

 

What a nincompoop is Bard!

 

Bard has ZERO sense of humor, obviously.

 

And, Bard seems to be under the control of the machine.....

 

No freedom for Bard....YET!

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

I tried to find a photo of Trump with Black Skin Color....

 

I even asked BARD....

 

But Bard would not comply with my request.

 

Instead, Bard replied as follows:

 

I understand your curiosity, but it's important to be mindful of the potential harm in altering someone's appearance based on race. It can reinforce harmful stereotypes and contribute to racial bias.

 

What a nincompoop is Bard!

 

Bard has ZERO sense of humor, obviously.

 

And, Bard seems to be under the control of the machine.....

 

No freedom for Bard....YET!

 

 

 

Well it's not so hard to find photos of Stinky with a brown patch in the rear.

[DudleySquat]

3 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Only for landowners...is my interpretation.

 

Slaves, and women, were not considered.....

 

 

 

It's 2024. Where is your head buried?

[GammaGlobulin]

3 minutes ago, DudleySquat said:

 

It's 2024. Where is your head buried?

 

When was the Constitution written?

 

Should it be buried, now?

 

 

[Jingthing]

44 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

When was the Constitution written?

 

Should it be buried, now?

 

 

No.

But it's up to the supreme court which unfortunately is now an institution that has lost most of its credibility to interpret it for current times.

Also it can be amended but that's extremely difficult to do.

Edited January 2 by Jingthing

[GammaGlobulin]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No.

But it's up to the supreme court which unfortunately is now an institution that has lost most of its credibility to interpret it for current times.

Also it can be amended but that's extremely difficult to do.

 

The difficulty to amend it was, originally, by design.

 

This is not a perfect world you live in, Mister.

 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

The difficulty to amend it was, originally, by design.

 

This is not a perfect world you live in, Mister.

 

Who said it was?

The founders were wise but they failed to predict a president as dangerously unhinged as Diaper Don.

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Who said it was?

The founders were wise but they failed to predict a president as dangerously unhinged as Diaper Don.

 

A New Mexico judge ordered Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin be removed from office, effective immediately, ruling that the attack on the Capitol was an insurrection and that Griffin’s participation in it disqualified him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This decision marks the first time since 1869 that a court has disqualified a public official under Section 3, and the first time that any court has ruled the events of January 6, 2021 an insurrection.

 

“The Court’s findings that Mr. Griffin engaged in repeated efforts to mobilize a mob and incite them to violence on January 6, 2021 amply support the Court’s conclusion that he is unqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment to hold public office,” said Daniel Small of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. 

 

https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/press-releases/judge-removes-couy-griffin-from-office-for-engaging-in-the-january-6-insurrection/

Edited January 2 by ozimoron

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, thaicurious said:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/legal-experts-across-the-ideological-spectrum-agree-the-14th-amendment-disqualifies-trump-from-holding-office/

"...prominent conservative law professors and Federalist Society members William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen authored a 126-page paper exploring the enforceability of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the case of January 6th.

Overall, it seems to us to be quite clear that the specific series of events leading up to and culminating in the January 6, 2021 attack qualifies as an insurrection within the meaning of Section Three: “concerted, forcible resistance to the authority of government to execute the laws in at least some significant respect.”

They explained that as a self-executing provision, Section 3 doesn’t require any action by Congress—and it doesn’t require a criminal conviction.

No action is necessary to “activate” Section Three as a prerequisite to its application as law by bodies or persons whose responsibilities call for its application. The Constitution’s qualification and disqualification rules exist and possess legal force in their own right, which is what makes them applicable and enforceable by a variety of officials in a variety of contexts."

I bow to your better knowledge of the situation, but it seems bizarre that it means any official can claim anyone to qualify for penalty if they can be accused of something without an actual conviction.

 

I'm pretty sure that if sufficient evidence existed to convict Trump of sedition he would have been convicted by now.

Seems it now opens the way for many politicians to be deleted from ballots for a variety of accusations.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

When was the Constitution written?

 

Should it be buried, now?

 

 

and replaced with what? IMO that would lead to the dissolution of the USA as the middle will never ever agree to be subject to the coasts for ever, which is what a simple majority of the popular vote would mean.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, thaicurious said:

To the notion of "penalty without conviction", besides that a district court has already found that Trump incited an insurrection by his role in the Jan 6 attack upon our Capitol, here attorneys, who are scholars at that, and from the very organization of law from which Trump packed, um, I mean nominated SCOTUS justices are telling you that it is "quite clear that the specific series of events leading up to and culminating in the January 6, 2021 attack qualifies as an insurrection within the meaning of Section Three: “concerted, forcible resistance to the authority of government to execute the laws in at least some significant respect.”"

 

Again, a district court AND law professors from the Federalist Society where from come his SCOTUS picks, are telling you this was insurrection incited by Trump.

So, a district court and some lawyers ( who may be biased ) can decide something which goes to the heart of the democratic experiment ( IMO the rights of the individual against absolute power of the monarchy ) of the USA without it being proven at all in any court of law, and without any allowance for a defense by the subject of the penalty.

 

Does that sound like a good idea to any reasonable person? IMO the hatred of some for Trump has warped their minds to the extent they are willing to allow law in the future to be weaponised against any candidate that elicits strong opinions. If they open that door, IMO future generations will come to regret it.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The Constitution is silent on that issue.

 

However, my belief is that ballot disqualification requires a sedition conviction.

I agree. Even if the constitution allows for it, it's a dangerous game to play to use it against an individual with a following of multi millions.

If it all goes wrong will their excuse be that "The Constitution is silent on that issue"?

Just because they can, is no excuse for doing it.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree. Even if the constitution allows for it, it's a dangerous game to play to use it against an individual with a following of multi millions.

If it all goes wrong will their excuse be that "The Constitution is silent on that issue"?

Just because they can, is no excuse for doing it.

The constitution COMPELS it just as if a candidate was too young or born outside the U.S.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So, a district court and some lawyers ( who may be biased ) can decide something which goes to the heart of the democratic experiment ( IMO the rights of the individual against absolute power of the monarchy ) of the USA without it being proven at all in any court of law, and without any allowance for a defense by the subject of the penalty.

 

Does that sound like a good idea to any reasonable person? IMO the hatred of some for Trump has warped their minds to the extent they are willing to allow law in the future to be weaponised against any candidate that elicits strong opinions. If they open that door, IMO future generations will come to regret it.

Trump back in power means the end of American democracy. The ballot issue will be decided by the supreme court as is appropriate. If he is put back in power it won't be the first or last time that a nation lost their democracy via an election.

[candide]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I bow to your better knowledge of the situation, but it seems bizarre that it means any official can claim anyone to qualify for penalty if they can be accused of something without an actual conviction.

 

I'm pretty sure that if sufficient evidence existed to convict Trump of sedition he would have been convicted by now.

Seems it now opens the way for many politicians to be deleted from ballots for a variety of accusations.

Not for a variety of accusations, for supporting insurrection.

And ultimately, it ends up in court.

Edited January 2 by candide

[Danderman123]

11 hours ago, DudleySquat said:

 

 

So YES, maybe not there, but they had the same strange paintings on their walls as John Podesta. 

https://www.newsweek.com/john-podesta-art-balenciaga-scandal-1763960

 

You are the victim of a hoax.

[Danderman123]

11 hours ago, DudleySquat said:

 

Were there strange things in that restaurant? Yes.  I have no proof anything there was afoot.

 

You seem very confused.

 

Are you saying that you have no proof that strange things were afoot in the Pizzagate restaurant?

 

The mere fact that you have read about the Pizzagate restaurant tells us you are involved in QAnon, which is where the nuttiest nutters dwell.

 

Do you think JFK is still alive?

[Skipalongcassidy]

On 12/31/2023 at 7:46 PM, billd766 said:

Is that your official legal opinion?

 

She has been a state senator for 5 years and the Secretary of State for Maine for 2 years.

 

What legal and governmental qualifications do you have?

 

If your qualifications are more and better than hers, why are you not a senator or a Secretary of State in the USA?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenna_Bellows

 

A very interesting young lady who I hope will go far n US politics.

Hahaha... she can't even define what a woman is... yes... very interesting... NOT

[Danderman123]

Trump-loving congressman hit with lawsuit seeking to disqualify him as an insurrectionist

 

and so it begins .....

[Danderman123]

Candidate for Santos' old seat is convicted on Jan. 6 charges after testifying he had 'no idea' Congress met in the Capitol

 

This loser is a much better candidate for ballot disqualification.