Fu*%face Von Clownstick

rico said:
If you read article 14 it says nothing about being barred from running for office, but it is crystal clear about HOLDING office...
Click to expand...
Nothing is crystal clear in constitutional law, unfortunately. For example, I think the second amendment is airtight, especially the second clause which is unassailable. I’m fairly certain you disagree.

Of course, this is all madness and would open a Pandora’s box of utter chaos in our electoral system. As a functional matter we simply can’t have 50 separate states determining who shall appear on a national ballot. The SC should and will put this nonsense down. This country doesn’t run on edicts or “conclusions” issued by menial functionaries, or at least it didn’t used to. This would lead to chaos and violence. Some Republican official would reciprocate by removing the dem nominee, and since he or she is judge, jury and executioner (like Bellows) you would have no recourse. No due process, no court to appeal to. Wouldn’t even matter if the allegations were true- if this official determined with his exalted wisdom that Biden or whoever was “guilty”, game over. No charges, no trial, no conviction, still off the ballot. Surely you can see the absurdity of this scenario.
 
Bucknut said:
Nothing is crystal clear in constitutional law, unfortunately. For example, I think the second amendment is airtight, especially the second clause which is unassailable. I’m fairly certain you disagree.

Of course, this is all madness and would open a Pandora’s box of utter chaos in our electoral system. As a functional matter we simply can’t have 50 separate states determining who shall appear on a national ballot. The SC should and will put this nonsense down. This country doesn’t run on edicts or “conclusions” issued by menial functionaries, or at least it didn’t used to. This would lead to chaos and violence. Some Republican official would reciprocate by removing the dem nominee, and since he or she is judge, jury and executioner (like Bellows) you would have no recourse. No due process, no court to appeal to. Wouldn’t even matter if the allegations were true- if this official determined with his exalted wisdom that Biden or whoever was “guilty”, game over. No charges, no trial, no conviction, still off the ballot. Surely you can see the absurdity of this scenario.
Click to expand...
The first clause lays down a requirement prior to the second clause being able to take effect.
Where is your well-regulated militia? Since that doesn't exist, the second clause means nothing.
The only reason I want a gun is to protect myself and family from the idiot who is walking around with a gun. Thus, the cycle continues.
They just need to go. All of them. Unless you are willing to go back to a single shot muzzle loader as a gun.

Odd, seeing as the Republicans want less Federal control and more State control. And they are not deciding who can be on a federal ballot. They are saying who can be on their state ballot.
Why shouldn't a State determine who is allowed on their ballot? Seems the Republicans want more state control and less federal control until it effects the Republican party in the wrong way, then they want it the other way around.
Back and forth, back and forth, depending on what they want in each scenario.

Trump was found guilty, by a court system. But I guess you don't think that counts.
 
Shadowscape said:
The first clause lays down a requirement prior to the second clause being able to take effect.
Where is your well-regulated militia? Since that doesn't exist, the second clause means nothing.
Click to expand...
Not to derail too much, but I suspect you would not be very keen on hundreds of “right wing militias” being established in order to satisfy the first clause.
Shadowscape said:
Why shouldn't a State determine who is allowed on their ballot?
Click to expand...

Because we can’t vote for 50 different presidents.
Shadowscape said:
Trump was found guilty, by a court system. But I guess you don't think that counts.
Click to expand...
What are you referring to? His civil fraud trial?
 
Bucknut said:
Not to derail too much, but I suspect you would not be very keen on hundreds of “right wing militias” being established in order to satisfy the first clause.


Because we can’t vote for 50 different presidents.

What are you referring to? His civil fraud trial?
Click to expand...
The phrasing is "well regulated militias"

We can:
A- vote in 50 separate elections, and have an executive council of presidents, but give Guam, PR, and VI their state hood, and have an requirement of a 65% majority to make an action.

B- have 50 separate elections, which if still run more or less like now, would still have the two most significant players on most of those ballots. States would have to work together to ensure a candidates victory at the national level, and that would likely yield positive results

Or many other ideas could emerge...
 
2a never really made sense to me until I learned about the thousands of military aged men crossing our border everyday. The hordes of destitute, jobless people from ohio made me finally decide to buy the kids some guns for christmas.
 
Bucknut said:
What are you referring to? His civil fraud trial?
Click to expand...
No, the insurrection. He was found to be guilty by a court, that is why Colorado said he couldn't be on their ballot.
Try really hard to follow along, instead of just listening to Trumpers spew bullshit.
The U.S. Supreme Court has no business butting into this issue as long as officials at the state level are adhering to the distinctive laws that are applicable in their respective states while also applying the 14th Amendment as it is written.
States have primary power over administering federal elections with Congress also possessing authority to regulate how the elections are run. The fact that who can run, who can vote and the time place and manner in which voting takes place varies from state to state, and the high court need not concern itself with these issues. That then would become Federalism, which the Republicans are hard set against, except in a case like this where it effects one of theirs. Then they want to jump on the other side.
 
Last edited:
Shadowscape said:
That then would become Federalism, which the Republicans are hard set against, except in a case like this where it effects one of theirs. Then they want to jump on the other side.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the left regarding abortion. Dobbs gave us federalism. Why did you fight it?
L3VI said:
2a never really made sense to me until I learned about the thousands of military aged men crossing our border everyday.
Click to expand...
“Military age men” is a term used in immigration law. Not sure why you’re hung up on it.

Question just for fun: why does every nation on earth have a border (that they vigorously enforce) except one?
 
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

"The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus

Cast in bronze and mounted in the statue of liberty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: evo
L3VI said:
I've been saying that we should close the border with the rust belt for years, tourists included.
Click to expand...
If you want any kind of border, you’re gonna have to vote Republican.
Shadowscape said:
?????? WTF?
Click to expand...
You noted that each state should have the right to decide who’s on their ballot. Called it federalism. Accused repubs of not being consistent on the matter.

I noted that the recent Dobbs abortion decision merely returned the issue to each state. You know, federalism. I can safely assume you were not in favor of the Dobbs decision. Which would make you inconsistent on the matter.
 
Matias said:
Cast in bronze and mounted in the statue of liberty.
Click to expand...
Horrible example. Guess what every single immigrant who passed under the Statue of Liberty did next? Stopped at Ellis Island to be documented and screened (for disease, for skills, for education, etc).

That would be called a FUNCTIONING BORDER. No one is opppsed to controlled immigration. No one. Well, except democrats.
 
Bucknut said:
Horrible example. Guess what every single immigrant who passed under the Statue of Liberty did next? Stopped at Ellis Island to be documented and screened (for disease, for skills, for education, etc).

That would be called a FUNCTIONING BORDER. No one is opppsed to controlled immigration. No one. Well, except democrats.
Click to expand...
And only about 1% were actually turned away, and the sick were given a place to become well, and enter if they did recover.
 
Absolutely agree. Worth noting they were also screened for their likelihood of becoming a “public charge”. But the point is that it was a self-limiting system, since there were only so many ports of entry. Essentially, waiting in line and following our laws works.

Between 1892 and 1954 about 12 million migrants passed thru Ellis. Totally manageable. By contrast, 2.5 million migrants have been “encountered” at the border just this year. This doesn’t even count the “got-aways” or the previous 2 years. Safe to say we’ve let at least 5 million in during this time, precious few of which are screened or documented. Insanity. Unsustainable.
 
Bucknut said:
You noted that each state should have the right to decide who’s on their ballot. Called it federalism. Accused repubs of not being consistent on the matter.

I noted that the recent Dobbs abortion decision merely returned the issue to each state. You know, federalism. I can safely assume you were not in favor of the Dobbs decision. Which would make you inconsistent on the matter.
Click to expand...
I pointed out that each state does have the right to decide, not should have the right.
I didn't call it Federalism. You wanting the Supreme Court of the United States shooting down Colorado's and Maine's decision is what I called Federalism. They have no business butting into states laws.
Why are you dragging abortion into this conversation? Has nothing to do with The Duck.
 
Trump is starting his pre-election if-I-lose BS again. This time all the illegal immigrants are going to vote Left en-masse and steal the election. His massively fragile ego simply cannot grasp that maybe, just maybe, the majority of the American people have a brain that works and can see thru his pathetic posturing.

www.newsweek.com

Former prosecutor predicts Donald Trump's plan if he loses 2024 election

Trump claimed on Saturday that Democrats are allowing undocumented immigrants into the U.S. so they can vote in the 2024 election.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom