Maine strips Trump from the ballot, inflaming legal war over his candidacy

And per our Constitution there is only one way to determine if someone "engaged in" those crimes. Through the Criminal Court system. As per the 5th and 6th Amendments.

 

There is a reason it would be precedent setting. Its because the 14th was created for this and it has to follow the ENTIRE constitution INCLUDING the 6th amendment.

If this was simply some qualifying amendment it would have been used in every state for every election since the beginning of time.

 

I think it's also important to note that Democrats were judge shopping. In Colorado, for example, all of the judges were Democrats. The majority of the judges involved in these cases are extreme leftist judges and they're stilling getting shut down. That's how meritless these legal arguments are.

 

No, it isn't. You've been sucked in by the extreme left and their wonky interpretations taking amendments out of context.
You can't have an amendment that doesn't follow EVERYTHING in the Constitution.
The 6th amendment was made to guarantee no judge or election official can decide for themselves who has committed crimes.
The SCOTUS already looked at this back in October and ruled it a moot point.

 

You do know that there are other parts of the Constitution right? Each part of the Constitution is not its own separate part. It all applies. For example while Congress has the power to regulate foreign and interstate sales, they cannot make it illegal for you to buy and use paper to spread your speech.

 

What is that picture about? And how does it relate to the thread?

 

OR, observing his behavior. As the lower court ruled in Colorado.

 

What crimes? There's no crimes involved.

 

So, do you think this will be challenged an end up before the Suprmes?
How about we let them decide?

 

Yeah, an activist judges rules that an activist judge can rule on criminality without having to worry about the 5th and 6th Amendments. Go figure.

 

Democrats have a unique history of using a magnifying glass to interpret single sentences or phrases of amendments say (X).
While refusing to acknowledge EVERYTHING in the constitution complies with EVERYTHING in the constitution.
There are no amendments that can contradict other amendments. The entire document has to be considered any time an amendment is written or read.

Example, you can't write an amendment that stipulates under (X) conditions a judge can find someone guilty of crimes without a jury, when the 6th amendment already EXPLICITLY states no judge can do that.

Even your Democrat judges who also hate Trump won't pile on because they don't want to look like idiots when the SCOTUS rules on this for a 2nd time. Which is also why thes3e same Colorado justices have put Trump back on the ballot until they hear from the SCOTUS.
If they were so sure in their ruling, they wouldn't reverse their own decision so fast.

So you don't get to read the 14th in a bubble. It HAS to comply with the ENTIRE document which means no judge can determine ANYONE has committed crimes to remove them from ballots.

Which is why the 6th was created to stop these extreme leftist from having the power to make those judgements without a conviction so they don't have this power in other areas as well.

 

Since when is insurrection not considered a crime? Oh right...at no time is it not considered a crime. Except maybe in leftist lala land. But we live in reality. Not leftist lala land.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that the President is not an Officer of the United States. Thus, the 14th Amendment does not apply. This is a fairly recent ruling. The only way to apply the 14th Amendment to Trump is to violate Supreme Court precedent and the Constitution. What do we call other countries who block leading political rivals from running for competing office to the party in power?


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/477/#tab-opinion-1963375
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010)

 

They already did. Where have you been

Its the SCOTUS ruling back in October when they were already approached with removing Trump from ballots for insurrection claims.

 

You mean like the actual ruling SCOTUS already gave when they were approached with removing Trump from ballots for insurrection back in October.
Yeah, I can cite it.

 

Ok.....so....no answer. Moving on.

Like I said, I will leave it at the hands of the Supreme Court, who you will no doubt label "extreme leftists" unless they protect your political leader.

I will respect whatever ruling they come up with.

 

Like the election deniers from 2016 who tried to remove electors, ran adds for electors to illegally change their votes, started impeachments the day he took office, like falsifying claims of Trump being a Russia spy to remove him from office or falsifying documents to federal judges to get illegal FISA warrants to spy on a campaign?
Like that

Keep ignoring the reality about Trump. The 2016 election deniers didn't have anything to do with removing electors. Can't wait to see MAGAs hit the brick wall of reality

Like this that all MAGAs refuse to accept
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov...attacked elections,the Russian attack in 2016.

Or how about this
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN25E1UZ/
U.S. Senate committee concludes Russia used Manafort, WikiLeaks to boost Trump in 2016

Or how about this
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/senate-intelligence-russian-interference-report.html
A sprawling report released Tuesday by a Republican-controlled Senate panel that spent three years investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election laid out an extensive web of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Kremlin officials and other Russians, including at least one intelligence officer and others tied to the country’s spy services.

 

And they no doubt will decide. Until then I have just as much right to point out the flaws leftists are making in their opinions, as they do in their attempts to show the flaws in my opinions. I'm not the one making the argument that the 14th Amendment section 3 somehow exists in a vacuum. This whole argument exists only because of Trump Hate.

 

Do you ever get tired of getting embarrassed by your magical in the bubble claims?
Biden To Democrats Objecting To Electoral College Results: 'It Is Over'
https://www.npr.org/2017/01/06/5085...cting-to-electoral-college-results-it-is-over
More than half a dozen members rose at different points to object to the results of the election, citing Russian hacking, the legitimacy of the election and electors, voting machines, voter suppression and more.

Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election
In the 2016 United States presidential election, ten members of the Electoral College voted or attempted to vote for a candidate different from the ones to whom they were pledged.[1] Three of these votes were invalidated under the faithless elector laws of their respective states, and the elector either subsequently voted for the pledged candidate or was replaced by someone who did

Democratic presidential electors revolt against Trump
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/democrats-electoral-college-faithless-trump-231731
At least a half-dozen Democratic electors have signed onto an attempt to block Donald Trump from winning an Electoral College majority, an effort designed not only to deny Trump the presidency but also to undermine the legitimacy of the institution.

That must be some bubble you like in. lol

Or how about with the embarrassment of not being able to prove Trump was a Russia spy, you just pile on a bunch of claims that are actually Treason, where you can have a president removed, but for some reason fail to do so.
So are you telling us they have all this evidence but Democrats are just too dumb to move it forward?

 

So that was all over your head?
Or are you still plying pretend games?
Not surprising
Or do you normally just claim you didn't get an answer to something you can't dispute so you take the easy way out?

They already did rule
You know about it because I provided it for you.
You know that the Colorado Justices just decided to put Trump back on the ballot
But here you are with another pretend claim.
Seeing a pattern here

 

Not the only thing the 14th amendement deals with.
A crime is not a requirement. No mention of crime or criminal anywhere.
Engaging is all that is required.
...
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

Not really, they just have common sense to know you can't read an amendment in a bubble and that the entire constitution applies.
Something Democrats have had a problem with for decades.
Would you like a list?

 

So who is deciding shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same?
Hence the 6th amendment
Your welcome

 

So? What's your point?

...
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/

 

I don’t even know what fire extinguisher thing you mean….so I doubt it lol