Judge rules Trump ineligible to appear on Illinois ballot under 14th Amendment

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here you guys go, the IL ruling.

PAYWALL...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Ok, if you really want it, you'll need to do some foot work.

Take this link:
www.nytimes.com...

Plug it into this site:

archive.org...

Then it will display.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I highly doubt you want to see what an actual insurrection looks like. Jan 6th was far from it.

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: TheTardis2


Yeeh and even the guy who was hired by Trump torches the stolen election claims .


The man Trump 'hired to find fraudulent votes' torches stolen election claims


Trump hired me to find election fraud in Arizona. Here's what I found instead

Are you certain those are not implanted controlled opposition designed to result in exactly what it did result in? 😧

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: PorkChop96

If someone is acquitted of murder, they aren't a murderer.....(no matter how much someone wants them to be)

I give you OJ Simpson. Acqutted in criminal court and found guilty in civil court.

Also, according to Trump's own lawyers, and Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Senate Majority at the time, Trump was acquitted on the technicality that Joe Biden, not Donald Trump, was the current president, and that a private citizen Trump could not be impeached.

Simpson was not found guilty of murder in either court case. 😃

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Trump has the same rights as any citizen to come and go as he pleases and to travel from state to state. Donald Trump doesn't not have the right to the Presidency of the United States.

Again, he has the liberty to run.

You keep trying to skirt this fact to make your laughable position work.

There are all sorts of rules and laws about who can be a US President. If he contravenes any one of them, then he does not have liberty to run as a candidate.

Written and understood as if you were a child. "WhaaH, there are all sorts of rules and laws". And you know none of them.

What a dolt response.

How could you know what I do, or don't know? LOL.

But since you need things spelled out, I present Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Seems to be three stipulations just there; age, residency and citizenship (actually, there are four stipulations within this section, but the fourth is ignored as it would invalidate the clause at times other than at the adoption of the Constitution).

Not to mention that this topic thread is about legislation from Illinois that disqualifies Trump from the ballot in that state. Or the other states that have also sought to disqualify Trump, Obama and other Presidential candidates.

A dolt response, indeed!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheTardis2

Oh sweety, this isn't about me. This is about Republican voters from the states of Colorada, Maine and now Illinois petitioning their courts to have an insurrectionist removed from their states' ballot, and winning in the courts, all the way up to the US Supreme Court, where it now sits, as we all speculate and wait for them to issue their ruling.

It's a handful of "voters" in each case. They need to have a balloted referendum !!!! 🤓

But millions of petition signatures says he should be on the ballots. 😃

a reply to: xuenchen

OJ didn't do it. He was not smart enough to pull that off.

a reply to: xuenchen

So everyone is now implanted controlled opposition..

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

And the answer lies within your provided source:

The burden of proof in the criminal case was much higher than the burden of proof in the personal injury wrongful death case, a civil case.

What answer?

OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder in criminal court, and found liable for wrongful death in civil court.

2 different deaths too right? Each case was a different set of victims. 😃

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

OJ juror admits the jury let him off because of the Rodney king verdict

And...Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader at the time, admitted that Trump was responsible for what happened on Jan 6th, but that he couldn't be impeached because he was no longer the sitting POTUS, and they can't impeach a private citizen.

Yet McConnell proved nothing either. 🤓

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: xuenchen

Question - As a Registered Voter in the State of New Jersey , can I Sue the State of Illinois for Attempting to Denying me my Lawful Right to Vote for My Candidate of Choice in the Next Presidential Election due to this Ruling ? Or Sue Any other State that would be Foolish enough to Follow Suit ? Do people see where this is Heading ? The SCOTUS does to , and will Address the Issue Soon .

I bet you can sue. Worth looking into, especially because more states have overturned "The 14th" argument than have upheld it. Good Point. 👍

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FlyersFan

That's not ME saying anything. I quoted the law. And the law says Trump has a right to run for POTUS. He meets the qualifications and doesn't meet the disqualifications.

If it were that cut and dry, we wouldn't have constitutional scholars arguing their cases before the US Supreme Court.

The fact that we have courts attempting to remove certified candidates from ballots is actually the real insurrection. ⚠️

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha

What legal difference would it make if petitioners are Republicans or Democrats, or any other "Party"? 😃

Since we're talking about Republican Primary ballots, Democrats wouldn't have legal standing.

ETA: But don't worry, I'm betting that SCOTUS will kick this back to Congress and the Democrats will have their chance on Jan 6th 2025, should Trump be reelected.

What Law(s) confirm Democrats would have no standing? You know some states allow multiple party voters to vote in primary elections for other parties. 😃

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FlyersFan

And yet, 2 state Supreme Courts and one state's district court has ruled that Trump is disqualified based on the 14th A, S3, and the US Supreme Court is currently considering the arguments they heard from both sides.

and more than a dozen states have said he's not disqualified based on the same arguments 🤤

originally posted by: xuenchen

The fact that we have courts attempting to remove certified candidates from ballots is actually the real insurrection. ⚠️

Absolutely 100%. The fact that the left is so blind they cannot see this is astonishing. The double standard in this country amazes me every day.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: xuenchen

Lets Review this Again shall We ?


Jan. 6th - WE THE PEOPLE go to Washington D.C. to Voice Our Grievances and Concerns as is Our Constitutional Right being Lawful American Citizens over Evident Peculiarities Observed in the 2020 Election Vote Counts , and in an Effort to Petition Government Representatives for an Explanation as to Why these Peculiarities in the 2020 Presidential Election took place were Denied an Audience by Our Elected Representatives , and where our Concerns were Refused to be Addressed by them thus causing Mass Confusion .

As Apposed To ..........

Jan. 6th - An Insurrection Perpetrated by Violent Extreme Anarchists Storm the Capitol in Washington D.C. in an attempt to Violently Overthrow the Federal Government of the United States without the Use of Deadly Force .


In Retrospect , which in your Opinion Actually took Place ?

Your first scenario is accurate for what actually took place. AND, it's possible constitutional rights were violated by the government because they failed to address the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 🦊

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here you guys go, the IL ruling.

Yup, they want him off the Nov 5th General Election Ballots too !!! Jeeeeezzzzus ☢️

Looks like they automatically allowed the hearsay BS rulings from the CO case too! 🥶️

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Court Ruling pdf

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: xuenchen

OJ didn't do it. He was not smart enough to pull that off.

I agree. 😎