We have been discussing the nationwide effort to disqualify former President Donald Trump from ballots in key states under a novel theory using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Yesterday, a Michigan judge was the latest to dismiss the effort to prevent voters from being able to vote for Trump.
As many of you know, I have been a vocal critic of the theory as unfounded and dangerous. While figures like Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe have assured the public that Trump is clearly disqualified under the theory, it is based on unsustainable historical and legal interpretations in my view. For that reason, I have welcomed rulings to allow these claims to be reviewed on appeal. It has not fared well. While some have misrepresented past rulings, Tribe and others are still seeking a favorable judge.
State Judge James Robert Redford rejected the challenge and found that the courts lack the claimed authority under the theory. Judge Redford also rejected the effort of Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) under state law to remove candidates from the ballot based on that provision.
An appeal is now expected to proceed and the matter could well end up in front of the Supreme Court.
Last week, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in a similar case that Trump could not be removed from the primary ballot in that state. Another ruling is expected soon out of Colorado.
I have previously addressed the constitutional basis for this claim. It is, in my view, wildly out of sync with the purpose of the amendment, which followed an actual rebellion, the Civil War.
As previously discussed, the 14th Amendment bars those who took the oath and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.” It then adds that that disqualification can extend to those who have “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” According to these experts, Jan. 6 was an “insurrection” and Trump gave “aid and comfort” to those who engaged in it by spreading election fraud claims and not immediately denouncing the violence.
But even the view that it was an “insurrection” is by no means a consensus. Polls have shown that most of the public view Jan. 6 for what it was: a protest that became a riot. One year after the riot, CBS News mostly downplayed and ignored the result of its own poll showing that 76 percent viewed it for what it was, as a “protest gone too far.” The view that it was an actual “insurrection” was far less settled, with almost half rejecting the claim, a division breaking along partisan lines.
Advocates of this theory like Benson are arguing that they are protecting democracy by denying the ability of tens of millions of Americans to vote for their preferred candidate. Nothing says democracy like barring the choice of voters. It is a practice that is common in nations like Iran where the government scrubs the ballots of unacceptable candidates.
Hopefully, these courts will expedite these rulings to allow the matter to reach the Supreme Court for a final and definitive ruling. These challenges are spreading uncertainty on the choices that will be allowed for voters — a dangerous and dysfunctional effort.
Here are the opinions:
Turley: it’s been fun seeing you try to divide and conquer on the fact trump attempted insurrection by focusing on just the last aspect of his attempt to overthrow the governmant: January 6th. That riot was the last gasp of his insurrection, just part of a sweeping effort. And just because trump wasn’t able to start a hot Civil War in no way means he didn’t try. Trump fully deserves to be taken from the ballot. He is literally the guy the founders tried to protect against…, it’s just they didn’t account for an entire political party to align themselves with authoritarianism.
And yeah, if an entire party gives up on the governing principles in the Constitution, and that party’s spokespeople cooperate with the effort — well we can see where you stand on the issue and where your efforts are focused.
What is most disturbing about all of this is that intelligent people like Lawrence Tribe have bought this garbage.
If you think J6 was an insurection, then you will be pefectly fine With Trump locking up Clinton, and Strzok, and Mueller for their part in the Crossfire Huricane Coup.
J6 and the rest of Trump’s conduct was not the abandoment of the constitution – it was conformance with it.
The first amendment includes the right to free speech, the right to assembly and the right to petition government.
There is no exception for for speaking out against left wing election fraud.
The constitution specifies that congress will make the final determination of the validity of the election – there are no cermimonial powers in the constitution. Citizens are as constitutionally free to march into the capitol and demand that congress refuse to validate ANY election as they are to march into the capitol to demand that congress refuse to confirm Kavanaugh or refuse to provide aide to Israel. Both protests were more violent.
Turley keeps refering to polls as determinations of fact – such as whether J6 was an insurrection.
Facts are not determined by peoples opinion – even when the majority in this case is correct.
Had the J6 protestors been intent on Insurection – they would have suceeded.
Had 100,000 or 10,000, or 100 protestors with AR-15’s showed up at the capitol – They would have gotten what they wanted.
But then you leave in the unreality where Bidenomics is working. Where plant food is poison. Where Hamas is peaceful protestors.
Every individual component of trump’s insurrection was anti Constitutional. Trying to override state electors, tampering with voting machines, intimidating witnesses, inciting a riot…, all run against the Constitution and can only be made to appear otherwise through a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance.
Has he been convicted under 18 USC 2383? Charged even???
Then every word you said is a lie.
It is constitutional for state legislatures to apoint their own slates of electors – it has been done int he past and the federal courts long ago have explicitly noted that is the constitutional means by which state legislatures can respond to election misconduct by the executive.
The only voting machine tampering was by the left. Republicans in several instances – with the permission of locial election officials made copies of the data from election equipment usually months after the election.
Why are you so afraid of sunlight ? Why did democrats fight tooth and nail to prevent observation of ballot counting or review of the data in election tabulators ? or access to security camera covering ballot boxes or counting fascilities ?
If the election was conducted properly why are you trying to hide everything ?
Any election that is not completely open to public scrutiny is fraudulent by definition.
It is democrats that threatened any State or County prosecutor that investigated election fraud claims with disbarment.
That was the only intimidation in 2020. Wisconsin was an absolute mess. Sherifs had hundreds of instances of people in nursing homes who had died who voted, who were incompetent who voted, wven ones in coma who voted. The number of people in WI nrusing homes who voted in 2020 was more than 15 times what it had been previously. In WI shutins can vote absentee – they request absentee voting and the county sends an election official with a ballot to oversee their voting – this is because WI has a constitutional requirement for secret balloting.
Yet that is not what happened in WI in 2020. NH staff, or outside political operatives were requesting ballots for residents. They were voting for residents. This was being done without the knowledge of the residents, or their families.
WI Sherifs found thousands of instances of this type of fraud. They could not get a DA to prosecute – because even staunch replican DA’s in republican counties had been told by State Bar associations that if they brought election fraud cases – they would be disbarred.
That is the intmidation that took place in 2020.
And those of you on the left are STILL engaged in it.
Like it or no0t the conduct of Trump and his lawyers was legal and constitutional – and you have spent millions and forced them to spend illions defending themselves against spurilous charges.
The purpose of all this is to intimidate – not merely to intimidate Trump lawyers – but to make it clear to ANYONE who would in the future claim that Democrats cheat that they will be destroyed.
You hate Sydney Powell because she exposed the corrption of democrats in the Flynn case – not just the corrption of the FBI – but the corruption of the Mueller prosecutors and the corruption of the DC courts. So Powell must be destroyed.
Powell plead guilty to copying election data from a GA tabulotor under the supervision and with the permission of the chair of the county board of elections – a LEGAL ACT.
This is how immoral and disgusting those of you on the left are.
Stopped reading when you couldn’t even acknowledge Sidney Powell has pled, and been convicted of an effort to tamper with voting machines in Georgia.
Johnny, you sound like a guy having real problems accepting reality.
The FACT is that Powell did not “tamper” with a voting machine – her prosecution and plea is just further proof of the abuse of power of the left.
Powell made a sopy of the data from voting machines with the explicit permission of the county head of elections.
In what world is it that you beleive it is legitimate to HIDE anything about the conduct of an election.
This is really simple – if the data from voting machines is not subject to public scrutiny, then those machines can not be legitimately used in elections.
As to guilty pleas – There are over 1000 people on the exonerated list. These are people who plead guilty or were convicted of crimes who were later PROVEN to be 100% completely innocent.
Every single on of those 1000+ people CONFESSED to the crime they did not commit.
Powel struck a sweetheart deal that allows her to get on with her life rather than waste the next several years and millions of dollars fighting an illegal and unconstitutional prosecution.
There is ZERO question what Powell actually did.
There is ZERO question that her actions do not meet the definition of a crime – the illegitimate use of FORCE to cause harm to another.
Whether you like it or not – the social contract cedes to government the power to initiate the use of force in return for the protection by government of the people from the illegitimate use of force by others.
You can get a legislature to write any law you please. You can get a prosecutor to bend any law to claim a crime.
That does not change the FACT that government does not exist and can not legitimately control everything we do.
Law or legal interpretations that criminalize conduct that does not involve force, the threat of force to cause harm to others
violates the constitution, and violates the social contract.
You are litterally channeling Levanti Beria.
But then you left wing nuts are all marxist nutcases.
Confession through projections.
“If you think J6 was an insurection,…”
There is no crime without a criminal. Period.
Denny the self proclaimed legal scholar, attempted to define “insurrection” and “rebellion” above. No need. They are defined in 18 USC 2383. They are criminal acts commited by CRIMINALS. Until there are CRIMINALS who committed crimes under 18 USC 2383, then there was no insurrection or rebellion. The rest is moot.
So it’s sort of like the Seinfeld TV series where George gets fired from his job for sleeping with the cleaning lady.
Jason Alexander’s character “George Costanza” in a very lawyerly fashion, points out to his boss that there is nothing written in the employee handbook that makes boinking the cleaning lady a firing offense. George claims he did nothing wrong.
The difference is Trump’s employee rulebook explicitly makes supporting sedition and violating the U.S. Constitution a disqualification from government employment.
George had a stronger legal case than Donnie!
@Anon_11:04: You’re absolutely right that the “employee rulebook explicitly makes supporting sedition and violating the U.S. Constitution a disqualification from government employment,” so it’s good thing for the country, including Mr. Trump, that he did neither. Out of the current 65, 482 charges against him I don’t recall hearing about any of them being sedition.
Typical unbelivably idiotic word games from the left.
Sedition has a meaning.
Violating the constitution has a meaning.
The actions of Trump and Trump’s supporters and attorney’s were legal and constitutional.
Election challenges are legal and constitutional – right up to and including legislature appointed slates of electors, and congress refusing to certify and election.
If you are so stupid as to beleive the 2020 election was conducted perfectly and lawfully – then allow that debate.
Do not – as you have been caught doing repeatedly, call the positions of your oponents debunked rightwing conspiracy theories and russian disinformation – only to be caught in lies later.
Present YOUR evidence and review the evidence of those who disagree.
Do so publicly.
Lets bring it all out in the open.
Instead at every turn you FIGHT bitterly against every effort to bring anything to light.
It took 6 years to expose what the FBI knew from Day one – that the Collusion Delusion was a deliberate HOAX by Clinton.
It has taken nearly a decade to bring the corrupt conduct of Joe Biden to light.
In instance after instance it has taken massive effort, a small fortune to bring the truth to light – with Democrats fighting tooth and nail every step of the way.
You should not be surprised that no one beleives you.
You should not be surprised that more and more people assume that what you fight vigorously to hide, is damning to you.
Regardless, it is too late to bring much of the truth of the 2020 election too light. records have been destoryed.
Outside of a few issues real inquiry is no longer possible.
But on those issues where inquiry is possible -t the results are damning for the left.
This is a very strange argument.
What has a fictitious character in a sitcome and facts and arguments constructed for the purpose of a TV show go to do with reality ?
George has ZERO legal case. Boinking the cleaning lady is not illegal.
Conversely there is no right to a job.
President John Adams with misgivings signed a law against sedition. it was one of the most repugnant laws in US history and was never enforced, withdrawn shortly after by Jefferson and was blatantly unconstitutional.
It is laughable hearing “unconstitutional” from those on the left – have you read the constitution ? Do you have a clue what it actually says ?
What part of the constitution did Trump violate ?
Congress has the last word on federal elections. Trump and J6 protestors exercised their 1st amendment – i.e. CONSTITUTIONAL right to speak, to assemble to petition government to get congress to excercise that right.
That is not sedition or insurection, any more than left wing nuts invading the capitol to coerce senators to refuse to confirm Kavanaugh or more recently pro-hamas protestors seeking to thwart congress from funding Israel.
In this country people are free to speak their mind.
They are free to do so even when you do not like what they say.
They are free to assemble to do so.
They are free to petition government.
Jonathan: I think you have misinterpreted Judge Redford’s ruling in the Michigan challenge. He simply ruled the case to disqualify DJT is not ripe for adjudication at this time. If and when DJT is selected as the GOP nominee on the primary ballot in Michigan plaintiffs can then refile their case. So the case is not over.
As to your interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment you say the theory of Lawrence Tribe is “unfounded and dangerous”. But you don’t explain how. And it’s not just Tribe’s view. His interpretation is shared by 3 other conservative constitutional scholars–including J. Michael Luttig.
Whether Jan. 6 was an “insurrection” or “rebellion” is a subject of continuing controversy. The Jan. 6 House Special Committee concluded it was. But you continue to bizarrely claim Jan. 6 was just a “protest that became a riot”. On what basis do you make this claim? The polls. Hardly the basis for a constitutional analysis. You won’t find reliance on polls anywhere in Judge Redford’s decision.
Reliance on polls won’t get you very far in a class on constitutional law at GWLS. Picture this. The law professor asks the class: “Was Jan. 6 an ‘insurrection’ under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?” A student jumps up and argues: “The polls show half of Americans say it was just a ‘protest that became a riot'”. I can imagine the response. Probably some laughter with the professor responding: “Sorry, but polls don’t count in this class. You are going to come up with a better constitutional analysis of Section 3”. This is probably whey you don’t teach constitutional law at GWLS.
When it comes to a constitutional analysis of Section 3 you have to start with a definition of “insurrection” or “rebellion”. “Insurrection” is defined as an attempt to overturn the government by force or violence–to prevent the orderly transfer of power. When DJT sent his supporters to break into the Capitol he had one purpose. To stop the certification of the electoral college vote so he could stay in power. That’s the very meaning of an “insurrection”!
“Judge James Robert Redford issued rulings in three separate cases, saying in each that Michigan law requires Benson to list on the primary ballot anyone seen nationally as running and so recognized by the media or held out to her as such by the major state parties absent the candidates’ request that their names be removed.”
Dennis the liar
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Oops
Sorry Denny, you lose.
Where is the legislation that enforces the section 3 provision, Denny?
“While many have been convicted of other crimes related to the riots, none have been charged under 18 U.S.C. 2383.”
If no one has been charged with insurrection or rebellion, there was no such thing. Priod. You can’t have one without the other.
Stand up in law class and try to claim otherwise, clown.
“Whether Jan. 6 was an “insurrection” or “rebellion” is a subject of continuing controversy. The Jan. 6 House Special Committee concluded it was. But you continue to bizarrely claim Jan. 6 was just a “protest that became a riot”.”
They had no authority to make such a claim. The Executive would make the claim that criminal acts were comitted that day (insurrection or rebellion) and the Juduiciary would decide if there was guilt under 18 USC 2383. Thats how it works, Denny. Even in your night school law class. Ironically, no one has been charged with either. Isn’t that strange?
“Insurrection” and “rebellion” are not nebulous terms with no perpetrator, nincompoop. They are defined in 18 USC 2383. In order for there to be either, someone had to have committed it. There is no controversy. When someone is convicted of either, then it can even be settled in your small mind.
“When DJT sent his supporters to break into the Capitol he had one purpose. To stop the certification of the electoral college vote so he could stay in power.”
Childish, spurious claims like this are exactly why you enjoy ZERO respect here, Denny. You really believe Trump expected people to break into the Capitol, and even if they did, that somehow that would keep him in the White House???
If so, YOU are the delusional one. I would expect better from a grown man, even you.
As to your interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment you say the theory of Lawrence Tribe is “unfounded and dangerous”. But you don’t explain how.
I’ll explain the simple things to the retard.
The Amendment carefully enumerates, those subject to being barred. The list excludes the President of the United States
Dennis – You say: “When DJT sent his supporters to break into the Capitol he had one purpose.” How can you make this ridiculous, obviously false statement? Trump told the crowd to proceed peacefully TO THE CAPITOL, where space had been reserved on the grounds for a protest. The fact that you are willing to make such a false statement shows how desperate and deranged the Left has become. You will say anything.
Dennis – did you read these opinions? Judge Redford clearly states on p. 25 (first paragraph) of the Trump opinion: “In summary, the question of whether the plaintiff is precluded from holding the office of President because of a Section 3 disqualification presents a nonjusticiable political question that is left to Congress to decide.” That is not a “ripeness” decision.
“Dennis – did you read these opinions?”
Of course he didn’t. What he did was what he always does, cut and paste someone elses thoughts as though they were his own.
Did you read the opinion ? According to the decision Trump can NEVER be barred from the ballot.
The 14th amendment issue will ONLY become ripe if an when Trump is elected and congress has to certify the vote.
At that time – and not any time before only the members of congress can determine whether he is eligible to hold the office of president under the 14th amendment.
While you are correct that the judge decided the issue is not ripe. He also decided that it will not be ripe for the general election.
He went as far as to say that no challenge to Trump’s eligability for president can occur prior to congress determining whether to certify him as the winner of the election.
I would note that the judge is following significant constitutional case law on elections.
The same constitutional law is what would bar the conviction of state representatives for presenting alternate slates of electors.
Only congress can decide what electors to accept.
It is also why the Eastman efforts to challenge the 2020 election are constitutional.
Congress has the power to “overturn” an election – while they can specifically do so because of allegations of Fraud – and have actually done so in the past. They can also do so if the election winner does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president.
I am not certain, but I suspect the challenges to McCain and Obama’s eligability were rejected for the same reasons.
Only congress can determine if someone is eligable to be president.
If you wish to argue the judge was wrong – please, I would like to here your argument.
But it is likely that the challenge in Michigan is over. You are correct the issue is not “ripe”, it is also not going to be ripe in michigan ever.
I am not a relative of *that* Benson.
That’s a huge relief – Whewwwww close one! 😟
Is it true, out of desperation of the multi charges hurled at President Trump they were considering the ultimate of charges?
Moping with the intent to Gawk.
A full revelation of the facts surrounding the days leading up to Jan 6th still awaits. The biggest cover-up yet to be broken was the “war room” at the Willard Hotel meeting Jan 2-6th. We know some of the principals….Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, Bernie Kerik. What were they working on? If it was coordinating with armed militia groups to Stop the Steal at the Capitol, or a larger plan to invoke a national emergency where these groups would be deputized, and the Inuaguration postponed or cancelled — then there will be proof of Trump’s plotting an insurrection to impede the Constitutional transition of Presidential power.
Mark Meadows is the key witness, as he spent those days leading up to Jan 6th at the WH during the day, and over at the Willard in the evenings. Let’s let the legal process proceed, and not decide about “insurrection” prematurely. Let’s get all the facts, then decide. I think we’re getting close.
“or a larger plan to invoke a national emergency where these groups would be deputized, and the Inuaguration postponed or cancelled”
Or even a larger plan to use the nuclear codes and drop a Trident D5 on Biden’s Rehobeth Beach property…
F-ing just makin’ sh!t up…the modern marxist way!
@pbinCA: What a fantastical, fruitful imagination you have! Have you considered becoming a writer? If the so-called principles you list were in fact “coordinating with armed militia groups,” then the only thing they’re guilty of is incompetence. It would seem all of your hypothetical militia groups failed to get the memo that they should arrive armed. Further, I don’t recall any national emergencies granting Supreme Chancellor Palpatine power to enact Order 66. I do, however, recall a peaceful transition of power on January 20th that was as unremarkable as it has been the previous 45 times.
Unarmed people walking around with signs and taking selfies does not an insurrection make. Even if a portion morph into illegal rioters — who should be prosecuted as rioters, not enemies of the State. Please try to turn off MSNBC for an hour or two a day. That will go a long way towards treating your anxiety/depression in a non-medical fashion. Sadly, I don’t know anything that will lessen (much less cure) the projection that is a hallmark of leftists.
If it was coordinating with armed militia groups to Stop the Steal at the Capitol,
There’s a statement void of facts. The only guns that day were police and undercover government provocateurs. And Militia groups are constitutionally recognized as vital to the Nation.
Any law or constitution that is unenforced or enforced selectively is meaningless.
Turley should write an entire piece on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment – if enforced – since the Civil War would have disqualified 100% of local, state and federal officials practicing unconstitutional “Jim Crow” laws/practices used to harm and murder African-Americans, Jewish-Americans, LGBT-Americans, Catholic-Americans and other minority groups.
A small town sheriff, mayor, governor, state legislator or members of Congress enacting Jim Crow practices would be disqualified from governing authority for life.
Background:
Following the American Civil War, in order to unite the nation and prevent a potential 100 year guerrilla war in America. The United States essentially offered an “Amnesty Deal” to the losers of the Civil War.
If the losers of the Civil War swore supreme and superseding loyalty (in their job authority) to the then newly-amended U.S. Constitution (which now included the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments granting African-Americans equal rights).
Any former confederate could serve as a sheriff, police officer, mayor, governor, state legislator, member of Congress or even president – with one condition – they swore supreme loyalty to the then newly-amended U.S. Constitution.
America’s solution was unique in the world. Instead of executing and imprisoning the losers of a civil war, they were forgiven and could even serve in government – with conditions.
Instead of being executed and imprisoned, former confederates accepted the amnesty deal, then immediately reneged on that employment contract – enacting Jim Crow laws violating the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Immediately betraying their own Oath of Office.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was designed to prevent Jim Crow abuses from happening, those officials were disqualified from government authority, but America rarely enforced Section 3 for over 100 years.
On the Confederate Monument issue. Does anyone know why Lee’s favorite general, General Longstreet, has virtually no statues built in his honor? Longstreet was actually loyal to his Oath of Office following the Civil War and even defended African-Americans when he joined the unity government. Racists (not qualified to govern under Section 3) did not like that.
In 2023, General Mark Miley’s retirement speech explaining the American Oath of Office loyalty oath is precisely what this loyalty means, and what General Longstreet was following.
Today even though Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is totally legitimate to use against enemies of the U.S. Constitution (like Trump coup supporters). The problem is roughly 50% of voters support a foreign model of government, not American constitutional rule of law.
Maybe vote for American Civics education this election?
Prosecutorial discretion is a feature of our justice system. Do you get pulled over every time you speed?
The only “coup” here is the attempt of Democrats to ELIMINATE Trump from winning the next election. This is a preemptive coup, and more sinister than anything that happened on January 6th.
Edwardmahl,
I call it election interference.
Wasn’t the “Birther Movement” trying to keep Obama off the ballot?
The difference is the Birther Movement was constitutionally-subversive. Subversives trying trying to bypass our constitutional rule of law system.
Probably many of these same subversives then supported the January 6 coup attempt. The most disloyal act of any American.
By contrast, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (disqualifying disloyal Americans like Trump) is non-subversive since it follows constitutional due process.
Trump previously swore a supreme loyalty oath to follow constitutional due process, then gave aid & comfort to enemies of the U.S. Constitution. That’s precisely what Section 3 says.
Having said that, since about 50% of voters support a foreign model of government, citing Section 3 might backfire – since these supporters don’t support American laws or constitution.
By contrast, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (disqualifying disloyal Americans like Trump) is non-subversive since it follows constitutional due process.
The President is excluded from the 14th amendment.
A great use for AI would be to flag politicians for projection and hypocrisy. And so much more.
Remember Democrat Fascists are fighting a Civil War…and Republicans continue to FUND IT!
who knew fascists Democrats can be stopped?
The absolute tenacity with which the prog/left pursues this reminds me of Tomás de Torquemada, a fanatic who would stop at nothing to gain his goal of eradicating all who did not comply. When will the average person realize the dire situation when the governments, media/education industries, and religious institutions have all been overtaken by such fanatics. At least islamic jihadists are willing to offer their lives for their fanatic desires, while the prog/left would rather offer up the lives of their enemies (that would be regular Americans of the traditional mode) and stay safe behind the doors of government, media, academia and dubious religious institutions.
The real constitutional crisis is roughly 50% of voters support a foreign model of government. Millions of voters in 2023 believe we elect a dictator every 4 years – unless it’s a Democrat!
If it’s a Democrat, they are required to follow the non-dictator rules! Only Republicans benefit from this foreign view of governing.
In addition to strong education in American Civics, we probably need a constitutional-amendment to correct this severe weakness in the American system.
There is nothing novel or illegitimate about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (Disqualification Clause) that correctly bans Trump and his coup supporters from ever governing again. The only problem with Section 3 is it hasn’t been enforced for over 100 years.
Is Trump even on the ballot? I thought that it was a slate of electors that was being chosen by the voters.
Keyboard diarrhea. Note that no one is even bothering to respond to your drivel, and maybe stop repeating it. It’s no truer the third or 4th time than the first.
“The only problem with Section 3 is it hasn’t been enforced for over 100 years.”
Because there is no legislation, per section 5, enacted to enforce it.
How ironic that the marxist dreamers want to use the due process amendment to invoke a remedy without due process. LMAO
Interesting.
Cancel culture, by any means necessary, selective censorship, anti-semetic language similar to what the Nazis used and “. . . a practice that is common in nations like Iran where the government scrubs the ballots of unacceptable candidates.”
I am beginning to see a trend here.
@Upstate Farmer,
No trend.
Its simpler.
Orange man bad.
Its ok do to anything and everything to stop him from running/winning.
Trump was right in a lot of things albeit he was not a likable man.
Don’t get me wrong. I’d gladly sit down and drink some diet cokes w the guy, but I don’t think he’d be a speed dial on my phone.
(Or invite him to my slack channel)
The problem is that people believe the rhetoric and not listen to what he says.
-G
Benson did not argue for removal.
“On Monday, Benson — a Democrat who agreed she had no authority to keep Trump off the ballot”
https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/11/14/judge-says-neither-courts-nor-benson-can-keep-trump-off-michigan-ballot/71583494007/
The events of January 6th, while certainly regrettable, wouldn’t even be a slow night during Mardi Gras and pales in comparison with the months of rioting by BLS and ANTIFA during the summer of 2020. To define it as an “insurrection” is laughable. Amazing though, what you can pull off with a mainstream media obediently following your every command.
As an Ohio State supporter, I may have to revise my opinion of at least something out of Michigan.
Poor Anon.
As a born and bred Buckeye all I can say is that a broken clock is right at least 2 times a day.
But lets not talk about Hairball and that team up North…
Lets talk about the fact that there are no legal issues where you could keep Trump off the ballot.
(Assuming he wins the GOP primary)
-G
The team up north is now known as “America’s Team.”
What these anti-Trump people are trying to do with regards to not letting Trump be on the ballot is PURE ELECTION INTERFERENCE and these people should be held accountable for their actions.
Steve,
Turley wrote another blog post on how you can’t do a citizen arrest of James or the Judge in NYC.
I think that was really meant for you…
While I agree that its wrong to try and keep Trump off the Ballot. (They could if all the Dems were to register as Republicans and then vote for a different candidate…) I don’t agree with your statement that this is election interference.
One of the bad things about Trump is that he talks in Hyperbole and its now become the custom/norm where everyone grossly exaggerates the severity of a situation. (e.g. No matter what I say its always perfect, beautiful and golden. I can do no wrong.)
The court cases against Trump are election interference.
The case in SDNY is a joke.
The case in GA also a joke.
The case in FL… a set up. (Free clue… Biden revoked Trump’s security clearance before the FBI went in on their raid.)
Now Turley would argue that they are not jokes… there is a real danger here along w judicial misconduct.
But I think you know what I mean when I say ‘joke’.
-G
Ian Michael Gumby (Gumby) wrote, “Turley wrote another blog post on how you can’t do a citizen arrest of James or the Judge in NYC. I think that was really meant for you…”
I don’t think anyone can make a citizens arrest of James or the Judge in NYC so why would you think that that post was really meant for me? Are you confusing me with someone else?
Ian Michael Gumby (Gumby) wrote, “While I agree that its wrong to try and keep Trump off the Ballot. (They could if all the Dems were to register as Republicans and then vote for a different candidate…) I don’t agree with your statement that this is election interference.”
You’re welcome to your opinion and so am I.
I base my opinion on the fact that the people that are bringing these cases to remove Trump from ballots are literally and very intentionally b-a-s-t-a-r-d-i-z-i-n-g specific words and the law itself to intentionally remove someone they hate from ballots and that IS election interference, plain and simple. You can’t put lipstick on this pig and make something it’s not.
Personally, I don’t support Trump in the primaries and it would take an unpredictable act of God for me to vote for that narcissist loose cannon mouthed POS Trump in 2024. That doesn’t mean that I think it’s okay to interfere with the election by abusing the legal system to “Get Trump”. I’m right with Alan Dershowitz on this topic, the cult of Trump Derangement Syndrome don’t care what they have to do “Get Trump” including violating his rights and b-a-s-t-a-r-d-i-z-i-n-g every word and law in existence. What’s happening is pure hate driven persecution and it’s wrong.
Saying banning people they dislike from ballots is to protect democracy is an argument made from the same people that had 400 staffers WORKING FOR BIDEN AND HIS OWN AGENCIES “sign” a letter accusing Joe Biden of supporting genocide. I put quotes around the word sign because the letter was…are you ready…”signed anonymously”.
The same little fascists that want to ban the leading Republican from ballots to “save democracy” believe that you can sign something anonymously.
Maybe you should have signed that mortgage anonymously. Some may say they should have signed their marriage license anonymously (not me, I am smart enough to not say that) and some may say that they should have signed their car loans anonymously. But the brave leftists, the same fascists that wear masks at rallies, decided to dissent from their own team ANONYMOUSLY.
Just like on this site, if you sign something anonymously it shouldn’t be read.
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Meaningless words in 2023.
HullBobby,
LOL! AND well said!
“Just like on this site, if you sign something anonymously it shouldn’t be read.”
In fairness, this is a false equivalence. You are anonymous here, regardless of the fact you use a consistent screen name.
Jimmy, I get your point and I actually agree with you. But my larger point is that when I am Hullbobby people know my persona on this site, the same goes for great posters like Upstate, Estovir, Karen S and many other conservative folks that pick a name and stick with it.
I will even say that someone like Svelaz, a guy that I disagree with 100% of the time (since all he really does is take the opposite view of what the vast majority think and then opine on it many times a day) since he at least picked a name and he sticks with it. Of course it makes it easy to ignore his comments and that is exactly what I do.