Trump Banned from MAINE's ballot

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

Another domino falls as Donald Trump is banned from the state of Maine's ballot after the Secretary of State found that he violates the 14th Amendment, Article 3 for ENGAGING in an Insurrection in the attack on our Constitution in relation to the events on or around January 6, 2021

www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2023-12-28/maine-bars-trump-from-ballot-as-us-supreme-court-weighs-state-authority-to-block-former-president

[NATI BENGALS]

I am by no means a historian or constitutional scholar.

I have read the text of the 14th amendment. And for the most part I understand the English language. But I really don't get some of these arguments.

From the article you linked.


"The criticism wasn't just along normal partisan lines, though. Rep. Jared Golden, a Democrat who represents Maine's 2nd congressional district that Trump won in 2020, noted on X that he'd voted to impeach Trump for the Jan. 6 attack and doesn't believe he should win next year's election.

“However, we are a nation of laws, and therefore until he is actually found guilty of the crime of insurrection, he should be allowed on the ballot,” Golden wrote."


Does anybody know what charges confederate traitor Jefferson Davis found guilty on? And they wrote the 14th.3 amendment for people like him.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(12-29-2023, 03:45 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I am by no means a historian or constitutional scholar.

I have read the text of the 14th amendment. And for the most part I understand the English language. But I really don't get some of these arguments.

From the article you linked.


"The criticism wasn't just along normal partisan lines, though. Rep. Jared Golden, a Democrat who represents Maine's 2nd congressional district that Trump won in 2020, noted on X that he'd voted to impeach Trump for the Jan. 6 attack and doesn't believe he should win next year's election.

“However, we are a nation of laws, and therefore until he is actually found guilty of the crime of insurrection, he should be allowed on the ballot,” Golden wrote."


Does anybody know what charges confederate traitor Jefferson Davis found guilty on? And they wrote the 14th.3 amendment for people like him.

It's politics, man, and that makes zero sense b/c this is clearly a CIVIL matter.  14A3a clearly says, "ENGAGED not CONVICTION," and he knows this.....BUT.....  Like Joe Manchin, this guy is walking a tightrope in an R district but will still vote for him for whatever reason as long as he still relates to them.  He knows there is no benefit for him to get any more involved.   Many Rs in Congress have become spineless and disavowed the Constitution to the Trump cult.

[NATI BENGALS]

This is like an Outer Limits episode where a bunch of people are totally blind to the person who abused their power, broke their oath, attempted to illegally seize power, overthrow the will of the people, and destroy the democracy.

[M.W.]

(12-29-2023, 04:20 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: This is like an Outer Limits episode where a bunch of people are totally blind to the person who abused their power, broke their oath, attempted to illegally seize power, overthrow the will of the people, and destroy the democracy.

Without a doubt.  The Amendment is very clear and is easy to interpret.  What isn't easy to figure out is why did Charles Manson get locked up while trump runs around free threatening judges and jurors? 

[BigPapaKain]

(12-29-2023, 02:41 PM)M.W. Wrote: Without a doubt.  The Amendment is very clear and is easy to interpret.  What isn't easy to figure out is why did Charles Manson get locked up while trump runs around free threatening judges and jurors? 

That's not that hard to figure out.

$$$$$

[Luvnit2]

For those saying this is clear, I say if so the Supreme Court will agree with your interpretation and allow Trump off the ballot in 2024.

I have a hunch the Supreme Court will take this issue up sooner than later, it will then be decided and we will know who was correct, those who support removing a candidate from the POTUS ballot or those who say let the voter's decide.

As for Maine, anyone else fear allowing 1 person to have the power to potentially remove a future POTUS is a major problem for democracy?

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(12-29-2023, 02:52 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: For those saying this is clear, I say if so the Supreme Court will agree with your interpretation and allow Trump off the ballot in 2024.

I have a  hunch the Supreme Court will take this issue up sooner than later, it will then be decided and we will know who was correct, those who support removing a candidate from the POTUS ballot or those who say let the voter's decide.

As for Maine, anyone else fear allowing 1 person to have the power to potentially remove a future POTUS is a major problem for democracy?

Under Maine's election laws, it's her call to make as the first step.  It can and will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Maine, and then possibly to the SCOTUS.  I don't think the SCOTUS (Although they should) will get involved b/c they'll say under the theory of Federalism it is up to the state's election laws.

[*Nately120*]

Independent candidates are removed all the time. This isn't new.  It's just a travesty because one of the two major parties is seeing how it feels after all these years.  Maybe I'm just someone who wanted to see Gary Johnson get debate space with Clinton and Trump.  God forbid we give the people a chance to decide, eh?

It's also cynically amusing that despite all the Republican effort going into removing Trump from ballots the credit is being entirely given to Biden and a vague concept of "liberals.". Same thing when a bunch of Trump appointed judges were involved in throwing out the rigged election cases....it's against Trump so what I picture to be liberal done did it.

[Arturo Bandini]

(12-29-2023, 03:04 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Independent candidates are removed all the time. This isn't new.  It's just a travesty because one of the two major parties is seeing how it feels after all these years.  Maybe I'm just someone who wanted to see Gary Johnson get debate space with Clinton and Trump.  God forbid we give the people a chance to decide, eh?

It's also cynically amusing that despite all the Republican effort going into removing Trump from ballots the credit is being entirely given to Biden and a vague concept of "liberals.". Same thing when a bunch of Trump appointed judges were involved in throwing out the rigged election cases....it's against Trump so what I picture to be liberal done did it.

That's why voting for Trump is useless. He has no power at all, he is weak. He got fooled by anyone even by people he appoints himself. Joe might not be the best choice all over but actually he doesn't get fooled every day by the deep state, Soros, or his own appointees ... 

I've never seen one man being constantly outplayed in every situation. 

Fauci, Kim, Putin, Biden himself, The FBI, Meadows, dude from Georgia, Antifa, leftists. 

They all got him while he was president. A effing clown. 

Never seen Fauci or Antifa owning Biden or Obama that frequently. 

At least, if you want to vote for a strong guy, find one who is really strong. Not someone who can be tossed around by any district attorney. 

[SunsetBengal]

(12-29-2023, 03:04 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Independent candidates are removed all the time. This isn't new.  It's just a travesty because one of the two major parties is seeing how it feels after all these years.  Maybe I'm just someone who wanted to see Gary Johnson get debate space with Clinton and Trump.  God forbid we give the people a chance to decide, eh?

It's also cynically amusing that despite all the Republican effort going into removing Trump from ballots the credit is being entirely given to Biden and a vague concept of "liberals.". Same thing when a bunch of Trump appointed judges were involved in throwing out the rigged election cases....it's against Trump so what I picture to be liberal done did it.

In a sense, it's the real form of 'being judge by a jury of your peers'.

[Bengalion]

They sure are scared of a guy they swear up and down they defeated handily in 2020. It seems that in Maine it is the Secretary of State is elected by both houses of the legislature. Considering the Dems control both houses, I would not expect him to have any success in this measure. The Dems simply will not abide by the Constitution.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(12-29-2023, 09:14 PM)Bengalion Wrote: They sure are scared of a guy they swear up and down they defeated handily in 2020. It seems that in Maine it is the Secretary of State is elected by both houses of the legislature. Considering the Dems control both houses, I would not expect him to have any success in this measure. The Dems simply will not abide by the Constitution.

Oh my, you must be in the rum and eggnog again to post something as ridiculous as this.  Over 60+ court cases by many Trump-appointed judges confirmed Biden handly won.

Abiding by the letter of the Constitution is exactly what Maine's Secretary of state did with her ruling.  I do realize it may be difficult for the MAGA Neo-Nazi cult folks to want to follow the Constitution since you folks were the ones who attack it on January 6th.

Do you even know what the 14th Amendment Article 3 says? 

[HarleyDog]

(12-29-2023, 03:45 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: “However, we are a nation of laws, and therefore until he is actually found guilty of the crime of insurrection, he should be allowed on the ballot,” Golden wrote."

Brilliant and well respected response. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-29-2023, 10:31 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Brilliant and well respected response. 

What do you think about Jefferson Davis never being found guilty of a crime. Yet the people who wrote the constitution specifically wrote the 14th amendment to make sure him and people like him couldn’t hold office again?

[Belsnickel]

(12-30-2023, 12:39 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What do you think about Jefferson Davis never being found guilty of a crime. Yet the people who wrote the constitution specifically wrote the 14th amendment to make sure him and people like him couldn’t hold office again?

Indeed. In fact, Davis was granted amnesty, along with many other Confederates. However, under the 14th, they could still not hold office. If one takes an originalist viewpoint of the 14th, as conservatives tend to claim that they are in favor of, then the requirement of conviction for insurrection is not in place according to those historical facts. So if we look at this originalist view of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, and we then look at jurisprudence from now-Justice Gorsuch via Hassan v. Colorado where he observes "a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office."

I have to say, when you look at the law on the matter, it seems that the more conservative justices, at least, should be permissive of states to exclude Trump from their ballots based on the textualist and originalist interpretations. If they overturn those decisions by Colorado and Maine it would be judicial activism, inserting themselves in the political process based upon their partisan biases.

[*Nately120*]

How close are we to a situation where Trump is relegated to a 3rd party "spoiler" run due to this then Biden and Haley each fail to reach 240 and the house decides to make Trump the president? I assume he'd still win a few states as a 3rd party candidate, but it'd be something to see a president who got like 25 EC votes.

[*pally*]

(12-29-2023, 09:14 PM)Bengalion Wrote: They sure are scared of a guy they swear up and down they defeated handily in 2020. It seems that in Maine it is the Secretary of State is elected by both houses of the legislature. Considering the Dems control both houses, I would not expect him to have any success in this measure. The Dems simply will not abide by the Constitution.

Really, and what evidence do you have for that statement?  Afterall, it wasn't Democrats who orchestrated a fake elector scheme in an attempt to steal an election it was Republicans. It is Republicans who want government officials to ignore the language in the 14th amendment to the CONSTITUTION.

That kind of extremist language is ridiculous

[GMDino]

I heard the SOS from Maine on the radio yesterday saying her job is to examine each person on the ballot.  She then applies the law.  She added if the legislature wants to change the law and does so she will follow that too.  She also mentioned something about Christy not having enough signatures to be on the ballot also, but I was at work and may have misheard that part.

If he had been a normal human being this isn't even an issue.

As an aside I will never get past the fact that so many people jump to the defense of such an awful human being no matter what.  

He has convinced so many good people that he really is only ever the victim, he has never lost anything and that he actually cares about them and it amazes me that people fell for it in large numbers until I remember all the cults I've read about.  People want to feel good and feel like there is an answer to their problems.  Religion fills that void for most but others need a physical person to follow.

[Luvnit2]

(12-30-2023, 08:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Indeed. In fact, Davis was granted amnesty, along with many other Confederates. However, under the 14th, they could still not hold office. If one takes an originalist viewpoint of the 14th, as conservatives tend to claim that they are in favor of, then the requirement of conviction for insurrection is not in place according to those historical facts. So if we look at this originalist view of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, and we then look at jurisprudence from now-Justice Gorsuch via Hassan v. Colorado where he observes "a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office."

I have to say, when you look at the law on the matter, it seems that the more conservative justices, at least, should be permissive of states to exclude Trump from their ballots based on the textualist and originalist interpretations. If they overturn those decisions by Colorado and Maine it would be judicial activism, inserting themselves in the political process based upon their partisan biases.

You are assuming a 6-3 vote to stop states from allowing Trump on the ballot. What if it is 7-2, 8-1 or 9-0?