Fu*%face Von Clownstick


Maine’s top election official on Thursday barred Donald J. Trump from the state’s primary election ballot, the second state to block the former president’s bid for re-election based on claims that his efforts to remain in power after the 2020 election rendered him ineligible.

In a written decision, the official, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, said that Mr. Trump did not qualify for the ballot because of his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, agreeing with a handful of citizens who claimed that he had incited an insurrection and was thus barred from seeking the presidency again under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

“I am mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
 
Daniel said:

Maine’s top election official on Thursday barred Donald J. Trump from the state’s primary election ballot, the second state to block the former president’s bid for re-election based on claims that his efforts to remain in power after the 2020 election rendered him ineligible.

In a written decision, the official, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, said that Mr. Trump did not qualify for the ballot because of his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, agreeing with a handful of citizens who claimed that he had incited an insurrection and was thus barred from seeking the presidency again under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

“I am mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...
If you read article 14 it says nothing about being barred from running for office, but it is crystal clear about HOLDING office...
 
Daniel said:
And my new favorite tree climber

Click to expand...
He’s a nut job but it’s by far the best option presented.

Dem resorting to judges barring a candidate from running speaks volumes to the weakness of their platform and especially the weakness of Biden. The fact that ol man don has a chance speaks more to the failings on the left than anything.

I say this as a very leftist progressive.
 
Stumpsprouts said:
He’s a nut job but it’s by far the best option presented.

Dem resorting to judges barring a candidate from running speaks volumes to the weakness of their platform and especially the weakness of Biden. The fact that ol man don has a chance speaks more to the failings on the left than anything.

I say this as a very leftist progressive.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the plaintiffs in the Colorado case were republicans...And yea, Biden is a fucking horrible candidate, and should be ditch immediately.
 
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...
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

Dershowitz made some reference to the fact that it is up to Congress to enforce and that no judge should have that right, so there may be more to it that just the above post.
 
There is nobody running that I want as president. But Biden is the lesser of the evils. He at least is not trying to drag us back 200 years. Next choice would be Christy as he is the only Republican calling Trump what he is, a whack job. The rest of that line up will be jockeying for political positions when Trump gets the nomination. Bunch of two face dip shits, just like Lindsey Graham. Kennedy is so out of touch with reality he scares me. He would get along with MTG and her Jewish space lasers.
 
Daniel said:
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

Dershowitz made some reference to the fact that it is up to Congress to enforce and that no judge should have that right, so there may be more to it that just the above post.
Click to expand...
That is just someone's opinion. Same as mine or yours, and hold the same amount of weight.
 
Daniel said:
Showing your true colors... that's a quote from thev14th ammendment... sorry . i would have thought any informed person would recognize it by now...
Click to expand...
I wasn't referring to that part of your statement. I would have thought that anybody with half a brain would have figured that one out. But, I should have taken you into account.
And I notice you don't seem to be in agreement with NY revoking Trump's business license for committing fraud. Could it be that it is too similar you stating on your web site you are a certified ISA arborist? PA should pull your license as well. Two peas in a pod.
And there is being informed, and then there is believing a bunch of crazy people doing basement pod casts that you seem to gravitate toward.
 
Last edited:
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom