Being Banned From A States Ballot

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: network dude
What were the people participating in the riot rioting about?

Perhaps they recalled all the riots and protests that occured through out the country after the Democrats lost the 2016 presidential election and wanted to take their turn.

Anti-Trump protests, some violent, erupt for 3rd night nationwide

Anti-Trump protesters march for 3rd night; Portland police call it a 'riot'

Monkey See Monkey Do.

a reply to: JinMI

OJ could have been sued for murder even if no criminal case was ever held.

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: network dude

Trump’s lawyers are trying to call it a riot instead of an insurrection.

What were the people participating in the riot rioting about?

An insurgency orchestrated by Pelosi in collusion to steal an election from a duly elected President.
He scared them that much.
And still does.
So if anything the counter electors and the peaceful protest as per 1st amendment rights that sought remedy for the theft could be accurately assigned as a counter insurgency considering D.C. is a foreign entity.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

OJ was found not guilty of murder in the criminal trial against him but found liable of murder in the civil trial against him.

This is a civil trial. It does not require criminal charges to have been brought forth and convicted.

Actually he was found guilty of wrongful death in the civil suit.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

OJ could have been sued for murder even if no criminal case was ever held.

And Trump could be tried for insurrection.....

And yet?

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: JinMI

I already told you the 14th Amendment just requires engaging in insurrection to be shown. It doesn’t require the court to charge anybody with insurrection.

Loophole or not, is the Supreme Court not bound by the 14th Amendment?

And, since there has been no evidence found that Biden lost, how does this contesting of the election result qualify as anything other than an insurrection.

But first they have to prove an insurrection happened.

a reply to: JinMI

And yet lawsuits are being filed at the state level to prevent him from appearing on the primary ballot and every judge has acknowledged his actions amount to insurrection.

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: network dude

Even one death takes peaceful protest off the table.

Except when you join the side the murdering cop is on, murdering a civilian in cold blood that all on the left supported the murderer and defended him to advance the "insurrection agenda".

Absolutely pathetic. Your lies just don't fly.

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
a reply to: Xtrozero

By the same standards used by the Maine sos...it could be argued that government officials personally posting bail and paying for the defense of BLM/ANTIFA 'mostly peaceful' arsonists and rioters...is ALSO encouraging felonies.

Wouldn't that include Kamala Harris? She supported BLM rioters and even paid bail for some.

She needs to be removed from ballots.

Indeed, she did.
I believe there's a wonderful Venn diagram somewhere, which illustrates the point.

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
It can’t be called a peaceful protest if a protester was shot and killed. Smashing windows doesn’t help either.

Who called it a peaceful protest? The killing of the protester was unfortunate and not needed. There were two capital police standing right behind her when she was shot. I also didn't say smashing windows was peaceful. You need to reread my post.

The crowd was not successful in their contest of the election result because no convincing evidence was found showing Biden lost.

Therefore it seems like a stretch to qualify this as anything other than engaging in insurrection.

That makes zero sense... Go watch the tapes and then say they tried to take over the government. Also, with what?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

And yet lawsuits are being filed at the state level to prevent him from appearing on the primary ballot and every judge has acknowledged his actions amount to insurrection.

Again..

Not in Maine.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

And yet lawsuits are being filed at the state level to prevent him from appearing on the primary ballot and every judge has acknowledged his actions amount to insurrection.

Again..

Not in Maine.

Really don’t see how a Soros bought and paid for, Liberal cult SOS can make that decision on her own.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I’m not joining any side.

I’m interpreting 14th Amendment.

Here is the 14th Amendment in case you are unfamiliar with it.

“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.”

Again, it is a stretch to qualify 1/6/21 as not being an act of insurrection or rebellion against the constitution without being able to show evidence of election fraud. The results of the election were clear. Show me the fraud and I will change my forecast.

So I will be surprised if the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor.

a reply to: IgorMartinez

Don't forget to interpret section 1 and 5 as well since you're clearly concerned about following the 14th amendment.....

a reply to: JinMI

Again, she stayed her order pending rulings from the court.

Are you aware that in the other cases Trump is not the respondent? Those lawsuits are against the SoS of those states with the intent of having the courts rule they must not include Trump on the primary ballot.

In the Maine case, the complaint was made directly to the SoS. But she is still deferring to the courts. Now, if Trump refuses to sue the SoS to overturn her decision then the decision will stand.

a reply to: RazorV66

The SOS is the ultimate authority on elections in their state. They have the final say on whether or not someone has met the qualifications to appear on a ballot.

That said, we live in a three branch government world. If someone doesn't like a decision an SOS makes it can be brought before the judiciary. Or the legislature can amend the state constitution and give the powers bestowed to the SOS to someone else.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Again, she stayed her order pending rulings from the court.

Irrelevant.

You claimed they used the courts, that's not true as is the case in Maine.

I know you're smart enough to see how tyrannical this is.

I also know you don't care because it's Trump....

a reply to: JinMI

If her order is unconstitutional the courts can overrule it. If the people of Maine disagree with her order they can pressure their legislature to pass a new amendment that limits the powers of the SOS. If the numbers aren't there to pass such an amendment, the people of Maine can elect new representatives that align with their desires.

Such is the nature of our form of government.

Unlike Trump, she at least acknowledged her order would be controversial and challenged in court and issued an immediate stay.

a reply to: Threadbarer

You made my point.

You know whats up, you just don't care.

..because Trump.

a reply to: JinMI

So you suddenly hate states' rights?