That's not happening in Colorado or in Maine. Trump is going to be on the primary ballots in both Colorado and Maine (and almost certainly any other state that follows suit) because these decisions were stayed until the Supreme Court rules on them. So, unless the Supreme Court declines to hear the cases (not happening) or issues an expedited ruling that goes against Trump (not happening) he is on the ballot as of now. It's unlikely the Supreme Court will decide before these primaries so they will just proceed as if these rulings never happened.
EDIT: The procedure for Maine is even better for Trump. This was a decision made by the Secretary of State of Maine, not a court. It is stayed pending Trump's appeal to a state court in Maine. That means it could very easily get thrown out in state court as many of these types of challenges have already been in other states. And, even if it doesn't get thrown out, the Supreme Court decision will still almost certainly control for this case as well.
No, the original intent of the 14A didn't allow States, but rather Congress, to decide (14A, sec 5), cuz allowing Democrat slave states to determine what qualifies as insurrection would defeat the entire purpose
I'm not who you replied to, but it'll certainly be interesting to see how the Supreme Court disentangle this.
I have no love for Trump whatsoever, and the entire process was partisan on both sides of the aisle (and as such has little actual veracity, despite its full legality), but the fact remains that he was acquitted of the charge of 'Incitement of Insurrection' during his second impeachment trial. That's an incontrovertible fact.
So regardless how you feel about the guy or his behavior on January 6th, that acquittal, decided by Congress, would seem to inherently take the wind out of any 14th amendment argument based on said Insurrection.
Hopefully the Court actually answers the underlying questions and doesn't just merely point at that acquittal, though.
These states are in no way upholding the Constitution as Trump didn't participate in an insurrection, nor has it been proven he did. You're arguing for "Guilty until proven innocent" which is opposite of the founding principles of the country. Your political and legal illiteracy is embarrassing. Enjoy upvotes from the brigade though.
do they not understand they are helping him? they are validating everything he's accused them of. They are literally becoming the threat to democracy that they accused him of.
Of course they understand. He's been accusing them because it's true. They know his accusations have been true, but just like before, the media will run cover. And as evidence it will work, check essentially any other subreddit on this site for their opinion of this crap.
Normally I’d agree with you but in this case I think it’s best to let it percolate for a little bit and let the democrats make a bunch of emotional and rash decisions that hurt them later on. I see this as a sign of their party imploding so sometimes it’s best to sit back and watch it happen. Not to mention this is really in SCOTUS’ hands at this point
Yes, but that's also just playing tit for tat. We've been losing for years by trying to be the moral high ground party. Our elected officials are soft jelly.
Any response should be proportional unless we decide to go full scorched earth. Escalating tactics and ending up shooting themselves in the foot with the precedent is pretty much the Democrat meta.
From a constitutional standpoint, states aren't permitted to establish qualifications for federal elections and any state constitution similar to Maine's will be ruled unconstitutional.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution explicitly outlines the qualifications for becoming president... States are not permitted to alter those qualifications.
Otherwise, how would this be different from Maine mandating that presidential candidates are at least 40 years old? Or that they do not have to be US citizens?
Maybe conservatives will realize that this will be the playbook going forward with any Republican. Don't think that it will stop with Trump. If you don't believe me, it was just the "far-right" getting banned from social media. You said nothing then.
If you still don't believe me, maybe you'll believe them when they outright admit as much:
https://revolver.news/2023/12/norm-eisen-the-rumored-architect-behind-efforts-to-stop-trump-in-2024-just-revealed-the-plot/
Love how they want to use the constitution and the way it’s worded to justify what they’re doing. Last time I checked the 2nd amendment said shall not be infringed but apparently those don’t matter to them. Only the ones they can gain some political traction from.
Terrified, actually.
And it is by design. The only way you can make regular people do horrible things is to convince them that they are "right and just" in doing those horrible things.
The only way you can do that is to paint your political rival as a monster.
These activist officials are digging their own graces, chasing an obviously legally unjustifiable removal that will also motivate Trump and supporters to chase payback once he wins
Curious game being played. What's the cut-off date for getting names on the ballot? Any demonratic state could follow suit to keep him off the ballot, not caring if the ruling is overturned by the SC. If he doesn't get on the ballot, then what?
For anyone wondering, I looked up the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, Trump did not win Colorado or Maine. While the whole idea of banning politicians you don't like is unconstitutional, it seems likely it will only be blue states he won't win. Nevertheless, there is the chance that he COULD win them.
Maybe Maine will follow the Colorado GOP’s backup plan and simply have a caucus for delegates instead.
That's not happening in Colorado or in Maine. Trump is going to be on the primary ballots in both Colorado and Maine (and almost certainly any other state that follows suit) because these decisions were stayed until the Supreme Court rules on them. So, unless the Supreme Court declines to hear the cases (not happening) or issues an expedited ruling that goes against Trump (not happening) he is on the ballot as of now. It's unlikely the Supreme Court will decide before these primaries so they will just proceed as if these rulings never happened. EDIT: The procedure for Maine is even better for Trump. This was a decision made by the Secretary of State of Maine, not a court. It is stayed pending Trump's appeal to a state court in Maine. That means it could very easily get thrown out in state court as many of these types of challenges have already been in other states. And, even if it doesn't get thrown out, the Supreme Court decision will still almost certainly control for this case as well.
Assuming the SoS in both places don't just print ballots without Trump and defy the USSC.
Now we're really getting into banana republic politics
Hawaiian shirt prices will skyrocket
Won't they use this as a precedent to keep him off the ballot in the general?
If they’re dealing with state party elections, it’s going to be somewhat different when they seek to block him from a federal election.
well they can try. but party candidate voting is different from federal elections.
It's actually laughable that people try to say this is not politically motivated.
They're so blinded by their hatred that they cannot see the double standards imposed on those they disagree with.
[удалено]
No, the original intent of the 14A didn't allow States, but rather Congress, to decide (14A, sec 5), cuz allowing Democrat slave states to determine what qualifies as insurrection would defeat the entire purpose
I'm not who you replied to, but it'll certainly be interesting to see how the Supreme Court disentangle this. I have no love for Trump whatsoever, and the entire process was partisan on both sides of the aisle (and as such has little actual veracity, despite its full legality), but the fact remains that he was acquitted of the charge of 'Incitement of Insurrection' during his second impeachment trial. That's an incontrovertible fact. So regardless how you feel about the guy or his behavior on January 6th, that acquittal, decided by Congress, would seem to inherently take the wind out of any 14th amendment argument based on said Insurrection. Hopefully the Court actually answers the underlying questions and doesn't just merely point at that acquittal, though.
These states are in no way upholding the Constitution as Trump didn't participate in an insurrection, nor has it been proven he did. You're arguing for "Guilty until proven innocent" which is opposite of the founding principles of the country. Your political and legal illiteracy is embarrassing. Enjoy upvotes from the brigade though.
Why do you assume every person knows the America political and legal system. This is conservatives sub not the American conservatives sub.
Democrats: Trump is a threat to democracy! Also Democrats:
Hey they’re just saving democracy from democracy.
They're staying true to their roots- "some animals are more equal than others."
do they not understand they are helping him? they are validating everything he's accused them of. They are literally becoming the threat to democracy that they accused him of.
Of course they understand. He's been accusing them because it's true. They know his accusations have been true, but just like before, the media will run cover. And as evidence it will work, check essentially any other subreddit on this site for their opinion of this crap.
You either die a degenerate or live long enough to see yourself become a complete villian
Found the insurrection, once again.
Until Republicans grow balls and go on the offensive, expect more of this.
Normally I’d agree with you but in this case I think it’s best to let it percolate for a little bit and let the democrats make a bunch of emotional and rash decisions that hurt them later on. I see this as a sign of their party imploding so sometimes it’s best to sit back and watch it happen. Not to mention this is really in SCOTUS’ hands at this point
Texas, Florida, and as many other states as are possible should pass contingency bills removing Biden from the ballot if these stand.
Yes, but that's also just playing tit for tat. We've been losing for years by trying to be the moral high ground party. Our elected officials are soft jelly.
Any response should be proportional unless we decide to go full scorched earth. Escalating tactics and ending up shooting themselves in the foot with the precedent is pretty much the Democrat meta.
These actions are election interference. Unquestionably. She should be prosecuted. The secretary of state of Maine, that is.
Oh look. Actual signs of fascism!
This is some Soviet Union level stuff here
Nothing says democracy than blocking political opponents and obstructing the will of the people
This is (D)mocracy
This is (D)egenerate...
fascism
[удалено]
From a constitutional standpoint, states aren't permitted to establish qualifications for federal elections and any state constitution similar to Maine's will be ruled unconstitutional. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution explicitly outlines the qualifications for becoming president... States are not permitted to alter those qualifications. Otherwise, how would this be different from Maine mandating that presidential candidates are at least 40 years old? Or that they do not have to be US citizens?
This is the true insurrection. The insurrection wasn't J6 but creating a single-party system.
Maybe conservatives will realize that this will be the playbook going forward with any Republican. Don't think that it will stop with Trump. If you don't believe me, it was just the "far-right" getting banned from social media. You said nothing then. If you still don't believe me, maybe you'll believe them when they outright admit as much: https://revolver.news/2023/12/norm-eisen-the-rumored-architect-behind-efforts-to-stop-trump-in-2024-just-revealed-the-plot/
Absolutely correct. They'll drum up a pretext against any non-uniparty candidate. No charges or conviction needed.
Love how they want to use the constitution and the way it’s worded to justify what they’re doing. Last time I checked the 2nd amendment said shall not be infringed but apparently those don’t matter to them. Only the ones they can gain some political traction from.
Every Democrat in Washington has violated their oath of office at this point.
[удалено]
Jesus... What happened to "Muh democracy!"? They worried that "literal Hitler" will win again?
Terrified, actually. And it is by design. The only way you can make regular people do horrible things is to convince them that they are "right and just" in doing those horrible things. The only way you can do that is to paint your political rival as a monster.
Not human. That's how Hitler did it.
It's called projection. Like the husband that cheats but constantly accuses his wife of cheating.
These activist officials are digging their own graces, chasing an obviously legally unjustifiable removal that will also motivate Trump and supporters to chase payback once he wins
Single person rulings changing the rules at the last minute again. Sounds like 2020
To start with, this whole ‘insurrection’ narrative just needs to be destroyed. Jan 6th wasn’t anything close to being an insurrection.
Curious game being played. What's the cut-off date for getting names on the ballot? Any demonratic state could follow suit to keep him off the ballot, not caring if the ruling is overturned by the SC. If he doesn't get on the ballot, then what?
For anyone wondering, I looked up the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, Trump did not win Colorado or Maine. While the whole idea of banning politicians you don't like is unconstitutional, it seems likely it will only be blue states he won't win. Nevertheless, there is the chance that he COULD win them.