Being Banned From A States Ballot

a reply to: RazorV66

A recently surfaced video demonstrating (further) that President Trump tried to calm the crowd.

Source: www.thegatewaypundit.com...

BTW..His Secret Service was in on the Jan 6th govt-run riot.

originally posted by: elevatedone
Not taking either side here.

I just saw the breaking news that Donald Trump has been banned from appearing on Maine's Presidential Ballot.

I think this is wrong. For any candidate, Republican, Democrat, no matter the party. This is just wrong, In my opinion.

So a question popped into my tiny little brain...

Even if a person is banned from appearing on a ballot, could you still write them in? Could they win by write in votes?

I have no idea and wanted to bring it up to the great minds here on ATS.

I totally agree with you, I feel the same. I was never a big Trump supporter before, but the amount of agency resources being dumped into smiting a political opponent, and the fact that Biden is clearly allowing (or causing) it in order to try to get re-elected or even for the sake of pure pettiness -- is revolting.

Tens of thousands of migrants coming in feels like he wants to dilute the vote count, have opportunities to cause more chaos, and picking fights with 3 major world super powers while simultaneously selling out our security and infrastructure really looks like he's trying to find a loophole in yet another constitutional process (if there is such a thing anymore) in which he's defaulted to another term due to war.

"Biden" his time, so to speak.

a reply to: WeMustCare

According to Constitutional Lawyer Alan Morton Dershowitz , Only Congress has the Lawful Authority to Remove a Candidate from ANY National Election States Ballot . States DO NOT Have that Authority.


" Dershowitz: Maine Ruling Like Letting Ex-Confederate States Decide Who Can Run "


www.breitbart.com...

originally posted by: elevatedone
a reply to: Threadbarer

Not saying that.

If you meet all the requirements to be president, you should be allowed on the ballot.

Agree.

originally posted by: elevatedoneThis is nothing but more attacks from one party to prevent another party from becoming president. IMO.

A requirement to be eligible for federal office is to never have engaged in insurrection. While we may all disagree about whether Trump's activities on January 6, 2020 constituted insurrection, I hope we can agree that that question is something for the courts to decide.

originally posted by: liberalskeptic

originally posted by: elevatedone
a reply to: Threadbarer

Not saying that.

If you meet all the requirements to be president, you should be allowed on the ballot.

Agree.

originally posted by: elevatedoneThis is nothing but more attacks from one party to prevent another party from becoming president. IMO.

A requirement to be eligible for federal office is to never have engaged in insurrection. While we may all disagree about whether Trump's activities on January 6, 2020 constituted insurrection, I hope we can agree that that question is something for the courts to decide.

On the question of whether Trump should be punished for engaging in insurrection the courts should throw out any claims brought within seconds, not consider it.
No charge and no conviction.

As to a case on whether he was actually involved in insurrection, there isn't even a pending case.

As of January 3, 2024

WAY MORE STATES have assured citizens that Donald Trump will be on the state ballot, than states who say Trump might not be allowed on the state's ballot.

Here is where each state stands: ny1.com...

California says he is a go....

Link

District Judge David O. Carter granted the motion to dismiss the case with prejudice on Wednesday, meaning it cannot be brought before the court again. The ruling stated that the "Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress" claim was outside the "2-year statute of limitations."

The plaintiff who brought the suit said they had suffered "severe emotional stress" because of Trump in January 2021, the same month rioters stormed the Capitol in Washington D.C.

Whackos....not the GOP as some have stated.

originally posted by: uktruth2
On the question of whether Trump should be punished for engaging in insurrection the courts should throw out any claims brought within seconds, not consider it.
No charge and no conviction.

As to a case on whether he was actually involved in insurrection, there isn't even a pending case.

Are you serious? The courts do not work that way. They are an independent branch of government (in the US) that interprets the law and Constitution. They don't dismiss anything without careful review, certainly not something of this magnitude.

I'm not a Trump supporter by a long stretch but I'm not necessarily convinced he engaged in insurrection according the meaning in the 14th Amendment. But no one can answer that question definitively except the US Supreme Court. I believe there were politicians barred from office after the Civil War that had never actually took up arms so it's pretty clear that actually engaging in violence against the US is not required.

A rebellion is a violent uprising against your government. An insurrection is an armed rebellion. Now can anyone say with a straight face that January 6th, 2021 was not a violent uprising? Can anyone say that no one was armed? So there pretty clearly was an insurrection. (BTW, I admit to using dictionary definition rather than what might be in a law dictionary.)

Merely encouraging a rebellion can be insurrection. Did Trump encourage a rebellion? I don't know. I will leave that to the courts. But anyone dumb enough to not see his dog-whistling for what it is will likely be in for rude shock when the courts rule. As you should have noticed repeatedly lately, judges, even ones he appointed, see through his crap and are not afraid to hold him accountable.

Personally I would rather see him be on the ballot in all 50 states so we can see the moron publicly humiliated once again when he loses in November. But I suspect SCOTUS will disqualify him and he will not be on the ballot in any state.

originally posted by: liberalskeptic

originally posted by: uktruth2
On the question of whether Trump should be punished for engaging in insurrection the courts should throw out any claims brought within seconds, not consider it.
No charge and no conviction.

As to a case on whether he was actually involved in insurrection, there isn't even a pending case.

Are you serious? The courts do not work that way. They are an independent branch of government (in the US) that interprets the law and Constitution. They don't dismiss anything without careful review, certainly not something of this magnitude.

. . . that is, until they get bought-off and become willfully biased and blackmailed. Especially with election fraud cases that actually may have merit. 😃

This is extremely simple. I am not American, let's just say i am outside looking in with an outsider's perspective.
If he was accused, a trial and conviction must ensure, or are we, from now on, just accusing people of anything and they are instantly guilty? Accusations are not convictions. It goes without saying that he must be found guilt of the accusations before he is barred from running. Any other way and your precious way of life is gone... Does not matter if its a rep or dem, white or black, due process must be followed and everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt.

originally posted by: Andromerius

If he was accused, a trial and conviction must ensure, or are we, from now on, just accusing people of anything and they are instantly guilty?

Yes

When it comes to the left going after Trump, he is guilty until, if ever, proven innocent.

a reply to: liberalskeptic

Actually 50 odd confederates eventually were allowed to run for office, or hold appointed office in the federal govt.

the 14th was specifically written about the confederates, while I am no lawyer I would wager in a fair and impartial setting that would figure into how much weight the 14th actually carries.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: liberalskeptic

Actually 50 odd confederates eventually were allowed to run for office, or hold appointed office in the federal govt.

the 14th was specifically written about the confederates, while I am no lawyer I would wager in a fair and impartial setting that would figure into how much weight the 14th actually carries.

Don't forget that the majority of the Supreme Court are "Originalists" who look at the original and literal meaning of laws when they were written and passed. There is nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it specifically applies to confederates. This SCOTUS has not been very friendly to Trump. They see through his BS. And all 9 are smart jurists, conservatives and liberals alike. They have no reason to sully their reputations and legacies by siding with Trump unless there is a solid legal principal at stake. He will be disappointed with their conclusions of law.

a reply to: liberalskeptic

So the war ends in 1866, the 14th is voted on in 1868... timing I guess is just coincidence.

The guy that writes it, Thadeus stevens gives a speech (summary inc)

In this speech, Stevens called on his colleagues to support the proposed Fourteenth Amendment—arguing that it would help to bring about legal equality for African Americans. However, he also urged colleagues to remember the crimes of the Confederacy.

Must be more coincidence... it was also brought in hand in hand during reconstruction, another coincidence, I guess?

Constitutioncenter.org