-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Colorado Supreme Court Disqualifies Trump on the 2024 ballot
- Thread starter IndyGal65
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
msn does not load. Can you post the link from the source itself?
That's why they do stuff like this, to get a reaction.
Idiot is playing into their hands...
Thats why Trumpers/Conservatives are so dangerous and need to be locked up, watched, red flagged, etc. They have guns and will kill everyone if they dont get their way.
The loony liberal left is nothing to fear because they are scared of guns.
Last edited:
I wouldn't put it past the left to have planted this guy and promised to put his family up for life if he did this. If anything, to paint any non-liberal as dangerous. I've been to Denver a few times. Would have never thought there wouldn't be any Trump supporters aloud near the city. Just saying.
NPR and others are reporting that this doesn’t appear to be related to the trump case.
Looks like the strings to keep Trump off the ballot are being pulled by Soros…
Never would have guessed that! *purple*Looks like the strings to keep Trump off the ballot are being pulled by Soros…
The IDF seems to be pretty proficient at eliminating people. Can we contract with them to take care of Soros, Schwab, et al?Looks like the strings to keep Trump off the ballot are being pulled by Soros…
The Supreme Court’s Silver-Bullet Solution to the 14th Amendment Problem
Colorado and Maine have taken Trump off the ballot. The Court wants to put an end to this, now.
nymag.com
Interesting take here about how SCOTUS might rule. The author surmises that SCOTUS will look to put an end to the constant barrage of legal challenges based upon a political patchwork of the States regarding disqualification by deciding that the question of if Trump can run for president should ultimately be made by Congress, not the States and not the courts,
The Supreme Court could rule that under Section 5 only Congress has the authority to set procedures for application of the 14th Amendment Sec. 3.
"While Section 3 of the 14th Amendment contains the insurrection clause, Section 5 provides that “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
The author goes on to give his prediction on how SCOTUS might choose to handle it. In my non legal expert opinion, it makes the most sense to me. He also has a hunch that SCOTUS will take a pass on the contentious “president is/ is not an officer” argument and stick with the following.
"If I had to guess — and we are all guessing, perhaps cut with some experience and intuition — I’d go with the former one-shot approach (though the Court could do both). The Court can base its ruling on textualist, plain-language principles: When the Constitution says “Congress” decides, it means “Congress” and not “Congress — but also the states, if they feel like it.” It’s legalistic, it’s above the fray, it’s clean, and it’s definitive. Plus, the Court would build itself a neat political heat shield: Don’t like this result? Blame Congress, they’re the ones who haven’t done their jobs."
"With one decision, the Court can reach a defensible legal result and put an end to the ongoing political and electoral chaos."
Last edited:
Febuary 8th 10am est.
www.c-span.org
Supreme Court Hears Case on Former President Trump's Colorado Ballot Eligibility
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in [Trump v. Anderson], a case on whether Colorado can exclude former President Donald Trump from its 2024 presidential primary ballot. The state's Supreme Court ruled him ineligible, citing that he violated the Constitution for his role in the January 6...
DragonGunner
Grandmaster
Worried about Robert’s and Amy.
And, as has been discussed in this thread and others: Congress did do their job. The House impeached Trump. The Senate failed to convict.The Supreme Court’s Silver-Bullet Solution to the 14th Amendment Problem
Colorado and Maine have taken Trump off the ballot. The Court wants to put an end to this, now.
Interesting take here about how SCOTUS might rule. The author surmises that SCOTUS will look to put an end to the constant barrage of legal challenges based upon a political patchwork of the States regarding disqualification by deciding that the question of if Trump can run for president should ultimately be made by Congress, not the States and not the courts,
The Supreme Court could rule that under Section 5 only Congress has the authority to set procedures for application of the 14th Amendment Sec. 3.
"While Section 3 of the 14th Amendment contains the insurrection clause, Section 5 provides that “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
The author goes on to give his prediction on how SCOTUS might choose to handle it. In my non legal expert opinion, it makes the most sense to me. He also has a hunch that SCOTUS will take a pass on the contentious “president is/ is not an officer” argument and stick with the following.
"If I had to guess — and we are all guessing, perhaps cut with some experience and intuition — I’d go with the former one-shot approach (though the Court could do both). The Court can base its ruling on textualist, plain-language principles: When the Constitution says “Congress” decides, it means “Congress” and not “Congress — but also the states, if they feel like it.” It’s legalistic, it’s above the fray, it’s clean, and it’s definitive. Plus, the Court would build itself a neat political heat shield: Don’t like this result? Blame Congress, they’re the ones who haven’t done their jobs."
"With one decision, the Court can reach a defensible legal result and put an end to the ongoing political and electoral chaos."
Indeed, they did and the relevant part is the expedited Democrat impeachment effort was specifically on the grounds of "insurrection." Their goal in doing so was to get a conviction in Congress before he left office in order to prevent Trump from holding office again.
Removal from Presidential office and disqualification from holding future office is delegated to Congress through the impeachment process.
They failed to get a conviction on the grounds of "insurrection" and thus their remedy was not fulfilled. That should've been the end of it.
Last edited:
The Constitution enumerates authority over federal elections to the federal government, eligibility for POTUS is defined in Article II, and disqualification under 14A is enumerated to the Congress. The matter isn't left up to the States under 9A or 10A.
So, no: for election of POTUS the State doesn't get to "do what it pleases".
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
KellyinAvonBlue-ID Mafia Consigliere
Members online
- Fordtough25
- ancjr
- dmeadlo
- harvey4
- Keoliver
- Bsgrumpy
- lilop
- chevy2
- ibwaltb
- Indynp1
- ditcherman
- sportsman223
- Bosshoss
- hoosier88
- pharmboy
- Hopper
- melensdad
- POB
- typhoon
- rudyman
- Indy574
- drgnrobo
- jaredj1994
- ridetoslide
- JohnToMyGun
- TheSpookyCat
- thedreamer
- KellyinAvon
- tjones
- ftbstrd
- JHB
- Gunmetalgray
- DangerousDave
- Lee11b
- williamsburg
- Pyro
- shootersix
- singlesix
- boosteds13cc
- RA8
- 15kiserc
- Sdiersing
- klausm
- KG1
- GarrisonsGuns
- stevezx2
- duboismd
- NINJA
- steelhead
- hoosierdaddy1976