Below is my column in the Hill on the Maine decision and how it is illustrative of Justice Louis Brandeis’ warning of the danger of zealots. Shenna Bellows has long embraced extreme political and historical viewpoints, including denouncing the electoral college as a “relic of white supremacy.” Bellows also declared that voter ID laws are “rooted in white supremacy.” Challengers knew that they “had her at hello” in seeking to disqualify former president Donald Trump. The coming week will likely show how the Supreme Court will address the issue.
Here is the column:
“You had me at hello.” That line from the movie “Jerry Maguire” came to mind this week after yet another Democratic secretary of state moved to prevent citizens from voting for former president Donald Trump.
Maine’s Shenna Bellows issued a “decision” that declared Trump an “insurrectionist” and ineligible to be president. She joined an ignoble list of Democratic officials in states such as Colorado who claim to safeguard democracy by denying its exercise to millions of Americans.
Yet the most striking aspect of this poorly crafted decision was not its litany of conclusory findings, but rather Bellow’s implausible suggestion that she struggled over the decision. Bellows was a natural choice for challengers, who have been searching for any officials or courts willing to embrace this dangerous theory under the Fourteenth Amendment that they can unilaterally bar candidates deemed rebellious or insurrectionist.
Challengers knew that they had Bellows at hello. She was one of the first officials to declare the Jan. 6 riot to be an “insurrection” prompted by Trump’s speech.
Bellows previously declared that “the Jan. 6 insurrection was an unlawful attempt to overthrow the results of a free and fair election…The insurrectionists failed, and democracy prevailed.” A year after the riot, Bellows was still denouncing the “violent insurrection.”
Of course, in the 1996 movie, Jerry Maguire reminded Dorothy that ” we live in a cynical world — a cynical, cynical world — and we work in a business of tough competitors.” However, he added “you complete me.”
In our cynical politics, Bellows and Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, among others, have become wildly popular for seeking to complete the effort to defeat Trump by removing him from the ballot. This cynicism is captured in statements from pundits who warn that Democrats can no longer rely on the election process, given Trump’s soaring popularity.
While not calling for legal disqualification, one law professor declared that Trump sought to “overthrow” democracy and his actions “disqualify him.” Thus, he wrote the “first and best start” is for Democrats to switch parties to engineer a defeat in the primary: “Democrats may have to act radically to deny Donald Trump the 2024 Republican nomination. We cannot rely on Republicans to do it…Trump must be defeated. No matter what it takes.”*
Many Democratic jurists and officials have refused to participate in this cynical effort to win the election through the courts. Maine’s Democratic U.S. Rep. Jared Golden denounced Bellows decision. California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) warned Democrats against embracing this legal theory. His state’s secretary of state Shirley Weber (D) had refused to do what Bellows just did.
Yet Democrats know that they need only to remove Trump from the ballots of a couple of key states to make him constitutionally incapable of becoming president, due to the electoral college. Thus, Trump could be the overwhelming choice of the voters but still be effectively barred from assuming office.
To achieve this end, advocates are willing to adopt the type of ballot-cleansing powers long associated with authoritarian countries such as Iran. That is why this theory of disqualification remains one of the most dangerous to arise in our nation’s history.
The U.S. stands as the most successful and stable democratic system in history. In the blind quest to block Trump “at any cost,” these officials have introduced a destabilizing element to our system that could be replicated in tit-for-tat politics for years to come. It has already begun, with Republicans calling to bar President Joe Biden from ballots.
The ballot-cleansing effort is only the latest example of what Justice Louis Brandeis identified as the true threat to our democracy — not the threat from other countries, but from within. “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding,” he said.
Some of these advocates exhibit precisely that zealotry of someone who seems to understand little beyond the next election, as opposed to the next generation.
The Supreme Court should act not only with finality but with unanimity in rejecting this pernicious disqualification theory. But these same advocates are likely to seek to delay or avoid such review. Even on the Colorado Supreme Court composed entirely of Democratically appointed justices, advocates could only eke out a 4-3 ruling, with a vehement dissent rejecting this theory.
There is a real chance that one or more of the liberal justices will show the same fealty to the constitution in rejecting the theory. That would undermine the claims of figures like Joe Scarborough that arguments against barring Trump are “laughable” and should be “mocked.” While the MSNBC host demanded that his interlocutors “spare me the anti-democratic lectures,” advocates are likely worried about getting precisely such a lecture, and a scathing one, from the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, if the court does not rule on the Colorado decision, Colorado may seek to moot the appeal, since the ballot would remain unchanged with Trump’s name on it.
Some justices may prefer this cup to pass from their lips. The divisive opinion in Bush v. Gore from 2000 still reverberates to this day. For an intense institutionalist like Chief Justice John Roberts, there is a tendency to take exit ramps to avoid rulings if these conflicts can be resolved in the lower courts.
However, the court now faces a call of history. After the Maine decision, the justices must realize that neither they nor the country can avoid this moment. Indeed, the court was designed for this moment: to stand between rage and reason; between cynicism and constitutionalism.
Proponents knew exactly whom to call upon for the right answer. Yet, to their credit, other Democrats, from California to Maine, did not say “hello” but “hell no” to this proposal. It is time for the Supreme Court to do the same.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
*NB: The column quotes and links to a column calling for Democrats to do whatever it takes to prevent Trump from taking office. While not named in the column, the author was Professor Bruce Ledewitz, who holds the prestigious Adrian Van Kaam C.S.Sp. Endowed Chair in Scholarly Excellence at Duquesne University’s School of Law.
Professor Ledewitz wrote me to object that the column suggested that he supports the 14th amendment theory to disqualify Trump. He does not and was specifically calling upon fellow Democrats to switch parties to defeat Trump. The reference to his column was specifically meant to highlight his call to stop Trump from returning as president “no matter what it takes” as an example of the zealotry of our times. However, Professor Ledewitz’s opposition to the 14th Amendment theory is commendable and should be noted. He stressed to me that he wants to oppose Trump by whatever means possible so long as it does not violate traditional norms to do so. It is further evidence that many Democrats refuse to adopt this anti-democratic theory to block Trump in the courts. I appreciate his writing to clarify his position on disqualification theory. I tweaked the line above to reflect his views.
“Crazy Abe” Lincoln destroyed the Constitution and America to “SAVE THE UNION.”
Real President Donald J. Trump must pull a full Lincoln, terminate communism with extreme prejudice, and reimplement the Constitution and Bill of Rights to “SAVE THE NATION.”
An officer is one holding an office:
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/officer
David, you are going from bad to worse. Do you realize that the free dictionary is not the Constitution? Are you so committed to the Democratic Party that you have thrown out your ability to think?
S. Meyer, from time out of mind the various sections of organizations have been called offices and are occupied by officers.
David, you are playing in your own room, You screwed up when it came to the Constitution, so you have chosen another toy, the free dictionary. Suck on it while others deal with the real world.
S. Meyer — With internet search you might actually learn something to fill the empty spaces between your ears:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/office
From 12 century on, it seems.
David, you still haven’t learned that when dealing with the Constitution, one is dealing with what was signed in 1787, and what it meant to those that signed it. The Constitution trumps any of your silliness. The rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States, not of Russia, Cuba, or China also trumps your silliness.
If you wish to play word games, go to Barnes and Noble to buy a puzzle book. Get the one for infants and young children.
S. Meyer, the writers of the constitution certainly understood the English language better than it seems you do. Officers are the individuals fulfilling the duties of their respective offices.
I just pointed to where you could learn about it, instead of carping and taking up diversionary matters.
Tch, tch. Ought to have your fingers slapped by the teacher’s ruler, but that isn’t allowed anymore. No wonder you wander so badly, weaving from one irrelevancy to another…
Good night, so have to last but unread word if you want to.
“S. Meyer, the writers of the constitution certainly understood the English language better than it seems you do. “
That is why I listen to lawyers like Turley that follow the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings, while you delve into Fantasy Land at Disneyland. You and Goofy should make good friends.
Wait! You didn’t just say that, “…zealots in our legal system…,” did you?
There has been no greater “zealot in our legal system” than Abraham Lincoln, who unconstitutionally subverted and nullified the legal system and the Constitution, denied unprohibited and fully constitutional secession, seized power, imposed martial law, suspended habeas corpus, denied freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly, started an unconstitutional war against a sovereign foreign nation, razed entire southern States, ultimately killed 1 million Americans, “fundamentally transformed” America as the very definition of insurrection, and launched the progressive and incremental implementation of the patently unconstitutional principles of communism spawned by his fellow traveler, Karl Marx.
American freedom lasted a mere 71 years. Lincoln, his successors, and progressives, are the very reason America is a disintegrating, communist, third-world, banana republic, s—hole country. Zealots in our legal system?
Indeed!
Since JT has used the term “zealot” in the headline, it’s worth exploring what aspects of zealotry make it distinct from mere passion:
• common sense and balanced thinking are replaced by single-mindedness about “the cause”
• perceptions become warped, increasing interpreting events as either advancing or thwarting the cause
• facts that tend to undermine the legitimacy of the cause no longer even register — they cease to exist or are rationalized as being otherwise explained (e.g., by conspiratorial thinking)
• truth becomes subordinate to cherished beliefs; facts are denied, ignored, or reframed to protect core beliefs
• ad-hominem attack supplants meritocratic debate; opponents’ motives are impugned as intending evil
• paranoia snuffs out the ability to perceive people as “neutrals” — they are either allies or enemies — there is no middle ground
• ideation drifts toward militant action — the ends justify the means
• brittle self-righteousness; self-appointment as heroic savior; completely incapable of self-criticism
• dismissive of conflict resolution based on negotiation / compromise
• fantasizes dominance-submission outcome, where opponents are forced into capitulation
• fanatical; socially-isolated; no desire to mix socially with those less invested in cause
• dependent on narrowcast media for self-affirmation
• adopts wartime ethics; lying, cheating, intimidating, fomenting lawlessness can all be justified in order to win
• romanticism; sees oneself as waging good vs. evil battle, where there is no middle ground
Yeah.
Reads like the woke leftists playbook.
Thank you for pointing that out.
Well, as I see it, Colorado and now Maine are doing the proper thing in keeping an insurrectionist (seditionist) off the ballot.
State responsibility for voting matters under states’ rights and that there stuff…
It is disturbing how profound the ignorance of so many is these days. You have no understanding of the actual law, yet are bold enough to disregard that and display your ignorance publicly.
I do my best to ignore the Nony Mice who refuse to stand up and be counted, even by a pseudonym.
The fact you think there was an insurrection or attempt coup shows your cult like TDS zealotry and embrace totalitarian actions like Iran does.
Upstate — Most (sane) individuals reviewing the events in Washington DC on 06 Jan see ‘an insurrection or attempt coup’. Indeed many are in prison on sedition, riot and similar charges and found guilty.
Who incited this insurrection, pray tell?
And review of the recent released videos from Jan6th showed a much different event than what the clown show Jan 6th Committee, the one that hired a ABC producer, read scripted lines and displayed cheery picked video some even edited that this was not an insurrection. Anyone with a degree of critical thinking can see this was a protest that became a riot. Even the good professor agrees.
Who incited this riot? Well, we now have videos of CPD shooting rubber bullets and tear gas in to a peaceful crowd.
We also have FBI officials who refused to say if and how many FBI informants were present that day.
Who indeed? Maybe we’ll find out.
Don’t be surprised if you are shocked SHOCKED when you find out.
In the meantime, we know what msnbcwaponyt and stupid white women say, so spare us, please.
“Most (sane) individuals”
Obviously, David, you don’t know what a sane individual is.
You also need to find out what an insurrection is. People are not revolting when most are taking pictures of themselves. Who was convicted of insurrection? Don’t make yourself sound like a goofball.
S. Meyer — Some were convicted of seditious conspiracy. Look up the definition of sedition to find that it includes insurrection. The storming of the capitol, first time since 1812 by the British, was certainly a (fortunately failed) insurrection.
“sedition to find that it includes insurrection. ”
Logic is not your strong suit. Sedition might include insurrection, but sedition doesn’t = insurrection. How can you teach computers if you need help understanding basic logic?
“first time since 1812 by the British, was certainly a (fortunately failed) insurrection.”
Is a Russian attack on Kyiv an insurrection?
David, it would be best if you doubled your dose of Prevagen.
S. Meyer — Αs should be obvious “sedition” is the more inclusive term so that someone found guilty of seditious conspiracy is, ipso facto, guilty of conspiring to insurrect.
And obvious no, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not an insurrection.
““sedition” is the more inclusive term so that someone found guilty of seditious conspiracy is, ipso facto, guilty of conspiring to insurrect.”
David, you do not know the law and worse, you do not know how to think. Maybe age is getting the best of you so if it is I apologize for being harsh, but then you have to watch your words and recognize that you are not the brightest crayon in the box.
I will make things simple. Insurrection and sedition are treated differently.
18 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection
18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy
Now, take your free dictionary and suck on it some more.
“And obvious no, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not an insurrection.”
Then why did you say this: “The storming of the capitol, first time since 1812 by the British, was certainly a (fortunately failed) insurrection.”
Arrest every viable opposition canditate before the vote is how Yoweri Museveni has been president of Uganda since 1986.
Remember it only counts as “democracy” if the correct result occurs.
Brexit – NOT democracy (we need to keep revoting until we get a different result).
Orban – NOT democracy (tool of the Russians)
Trump – NOT democracy (only elected due to Russian interference)
Obama – DEMOCRACY, double plus good
I am waiting for the first s@@tlib to contort themselves in an attempt to explain why keeping Trump off the ballot is good and necessary; and the inevitable slurs for those who have the temerity to disagree with their moral bettors.
“Democracy” – the g-d that failed.
I do not want to understand, reconcile or compromise with these people. I want a divorce but my abusive boyfriend won’t allow it.
antonio
If you want a divorce, nothing is stopping you from leaving.
We need to call this what it really is: Election Interference.
The Biden admin is polling so poorly they have to resort to the “To save democracy, we have to destroy democracy!” mentality.
They have to as they know full well they cannot win on things like domestic, economic and foreign policy as their policies have been abject failures.
So, they have to cheat. The fact they are resorting to such extremes shows how desperate they are.
Louis Brandeis: “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.”
Generally agree, with a few quibbles to bring it up to date:
–“Men” of zeal is anachronistic. These days there are at least as many of what you could call “zealotresses,” like Bellows, maybe more. Or to put it in more acceptably Woke terms, “zealots of indeterminate gender.”
–The adjective “insidious” no longer applies. “Blatant” is more accurate nowadays.
–“Well meaning” is now indisputably no longer accurate most of the time, as is “without understanding.” The zealots know exactly what their goals are. Perhaps that also explains the near-100% overlap among climate-change zealots, gender zealots, censor zealots, race zealots, war zealots et al.
Birds of a feather flock together. So do authoritarian control freaks, most of whom are concentrated in the extremist wacko wing of the so-called “progressive” political elites in the West,
Actual Americans are men of zeal with the Constitution and Bill of Rights securely tucked under their arms.
Karl Marx’s “Reconstruction Amendments” were improperly ratified and forcibly imposed and, as such, remain illegal, illicit, invalid, illegitimate, and unconstitutional to this day.
Jonathan: As a public service announcement, let’s kick off the New Year with some of DJT’s memorable quotes last year–some of the “ignoble” things he said on the campaign stump.
VERMIN: In New Hampshire DJT said: “We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and radical left thugs that live like vermin within the our country”. Calling people “vermin” was frequently used by Hitler and Mussolini.
POISON: In discussing immigration DJT said: “Nobody has ever seen anything like we’re witnessing right now–It’s poisoning the blood of our country”. DJT thinks all immigrant children should be immediately deported because “Well, they can’t even speak English”. Another echo of Hitler in Mein Kampf and a straight-up white supremacist/neo-Nazi talking point now days in this country.
RETRIBUTION: At the CPAC right-wing conference earlier last year DJY said this: “In 2016, I declared: I am your voice. Today, I add: I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed: I am your retribution”.
DEATH: DJT said of Mark Milley, the then chair of the Joint Chiefs who refused to endorse DJT’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election: “An act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!”. Want more examples? How about DJT’s post showing him holding a baseball bat over the head of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg?
WAR ON DEMOCRACY: In reference to Obama DJT said: “That’s why it was one of the great presidencies, they say. Even the opponents sometimes say he did very well…but we’ve been waging an all-out war on American democracy”.
Just a reminder of what the leading candidate for the GOP nomination is saying about our country and his opponents. And he will continue to make these anti-democratic pronouncements throughout this year!
Hitler and Mussolini both breathed oxygen and drank water. By your logic, anyone who does likewise is a fascist.
Jonathan: The photo you attached to your column–showing a smiling Joe Biden next to Shenna Bellows–says it all. The theme of your columns this year is that Biden is orchestrating all the attempts to keep DJT off the ballots and behind the criminal prosecutions of the leading GOP candidate. It’s DJT’s claim also–that Biden has “weaponized” the DOJ to go after him. Facts don’t matter.
Bellows decision to ban DJT from the ballot in Maine was based on her conclusion the he engaged in an “insurrection” to stay in power. It was not based on “conclusory findings” as you claim. It was the same conclusion reached by the Jan. 6 House Select Committee in their over 300 page report–and the same conclusion reached by ALL the 7 Justices of the Colorado SC. The only difference was in the remedy. Justice Carlos Samour differed because he concluded DJT could not be banned from the ballot unless he was first convicted. The other two Justices felt it was up to Congress to decide the question. In other words, Bellows and the entire Colorado SC agreed that, based on the FACTUAL record, DJT had engaged in “insurrection”–an attempt to use force and violence to stay in power.
So what is SCOTUS likely to do with DJT’s appeal of the Colorado and Maine decisions? It’s any one’s guess. It could adopt its approach in Gore v. Bush. In that case it adopted a clearly political partisan approach. It stepped in, stopped the FL recount, and gave the 2000 win to Bush–despite the fact that Gore had 543,895 more popular votes nationwide than Bush–making Gore the first candidate since Grover Cleveland in 1888 to win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College vote. DJT engaged in his own mischief in 2020 when he tried to put up fake electors to change the vote count. A primary reason why the Electoral College should be abolished in favor of the popular vote. The big Q is whether SCOTUS will ignore the FACTUAL record of all the lower courts–that despite being ruled an “insurrectionist”, he should not be denied a place on the ballot. That would mean ignoring the plain language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
What is “ignoble” about this whole process is that Bellows and the Justices on Colorado SC have received death threats for carrying out their duties under the Constitution. Death threats encouraged by DJT. That is the “destabilizing element in our system”, to use your own words–not the rulings of the courts and Secretaries of State.
same conclusion reached by the Jan. 6 House Select . . . . yada yada yada, etc etc etc.
One official body looked at the events of Jan 6 and President Trump. They indicted and failed to indict. Innocent until proven Guilty. The DoJ is constitutionally enabled to bring the Charge of insurrection. Hundreds of times they could have. Hundreds of times the failed to find the elements needed to press such charges.
The rest of your comment is a flury of words going nowhere.
yada yada yada, etc etc etc.
It stepped in, stopped the FL recount,
Dennis, Tell all your fans out there, Who exactly asked for that state wide recount? Something you believed should have been completed. Maybe that had a bearing on the SCOTUS decision?
By FL law, when the difference is small enough, it triggers a statewide recount without anyone having to ask.
By FL law, when the difference is small enough, it triggers a statewide recount,
More pathetic irrelevance. FSC ordered a state wide recount. How exactly did that happen? Not because an automatic recount was already ongoing.
I know it strains your intellect, but try to keep up.
They ordered a statewide recount because that’s what FL law requires, as I pointed out. Try to keep up yourself.
Why do you hate our judicial system so much?
Me? When did I say i hate the judicial system?
The zealots are those who threaten school boards, city councils, libraries, state officials, federal government officials who dare to uphold the law on a proven documented liar like Donald Trump. Zealots stormed state and the federal capital to over turn a election based on lies and propaganda. So to please the Trump cult here on his blog, he calls those that are following law, zealots? Turley has and will feed the zealots to fuel the rage, because they have no evidence, facts, or even law to back up their claims.
What cities have been burned down by the zealots you refer to?
Edwardmahl,
I seem to recall a zealot teachers union’s written statement to paint parents who spoke at school boards as “domestic terrorists.”
Then there was the zealot DOJ sending a FBI SWAT team to arrest a pro-life priest at gun point in front of his family.
Then there was the zealot insurrection at the Tennessee capitol.
Then there was another one at the Capitol in support of Hamas.
And what about all those zealots staging protests in various cities, attempts to disrupt air travel as they chant, “From river to sea.” More than a few have been violent with injury to people passing by, counter protesters and even the police.
Fish Brain, remember 2020 and all the fires that THE LEFT started? Remember the billions in damage and the many people killed? None of that was Trump or right wingers.
From Matt Taibbi: Democracy Dies in Daylight
“Eight years ago the Washington Post pledged to save democracy, but now argues we need to be saved from it”
https://www.racket.news/p/listen-to-this-article-democracy?utm_source=podcast-email%2Csubstack&publication_id=1042&post_id=140266787&play_audio=true&utm_campaign=email-play-on-substack&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxODY3NTQ5MiwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTQwMjY2Nzg3LCJpYXQiOjE3MDQyMDM4OTIsImV4cCI6MTcwNjc5NTg5MiwiaXNzIjoicHViLTEwNDIiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.8bPyQD977ot5-WF5dXgqDBSqEMtWak-L0pEiXHvekKc&utm_medium=email&r=b4a3o
Upstate, what a coincidence. Only this morning I looked up the source of the phrase, Democracy dies in darkness. Of course it’s the Washington Post. Progressives were doing just fine killing democracy in darkness, right up to the point Trump began his political career in 2015. The Clinton loss was the moment the Regime abandoned any pretense of constitutional order as they openly embarked on their mission to castrate President Trump and his administration. The Regime is so openly committed to doing anything and everything they can to secure their power, it would not be a surprise if something far more “permanent” was attempted to prevent Trump from becoming President again.
“Below is my column in the Hill on the Maine decision and how it is illustrative of Justice Louis Brandeis’ warning of the danger of zealots. Shenna Bellows has long embraced extreme political and historical viewpoints, including denouncing the electoral college as a “relic of white supremacy.”
******************************************************
Thanks for calling them what they are though I prefer calling them the “New Puritans” given their outright religious zeal to lead us directly over the cliff.
Thank you for spelling “eke” correctly. There is an Italian proverb: “If it didn’t exist, it would have to be invented.” This is true of Trump. He is testing all our institutions, merely by existing, and revealing the cracks (and crackpots). I believe the end result will be a stronger America but it sure is a rough ride.
So says General Secretary and Dear Leader Aninny, the gatekeeper of the eminently unconstitutional, communist, American welfare state.
Say hello to Karl, won’t you?
Every time I see a mug shot or TV interview of Shenna Bellows, 1 thing is consistent, that childless smirk she makes.
I think it is interesting those zealots are putting their cult like behavior on display for all to see.
Meanwhile, those Democrats who have not fallen into woke leftism zealots cult, like those on the CO SC dissenting Democrats, other Democrat law makers and governors and of course the good professor all see the danger of this course of action.
There are those in the Democrat party, the woke leftists, the zealots, who seem to be pushing for a civil war.
The United States of Amnesia! How convenient we forget.
Remember trying to “disqualify” Obama for his birth certificate?
Remember when Conservatives attacked Obama’s Christian minister in Chicago?
When those lies failed, Conservatives defamed Obama as a Muslim. When that lie failed, Conservatives invented the “Kenyan Witch Doctor” line.
Then (oath-sworn) Republicans in Congress denied Obama about 100 federal judges and a U.S. Supreme Court pick.
How did oath-sworn Republicans justify rejecting about 100 judges? Because Democrats rejected “1” judge in the 1980’s because this judge was disloyal to his oath of office during Nixon’s criminal activities. This judge obstructed Justice.
That’s right rejecting just “1” judge legitimately unfit for governing, Republicans retaliated by rejecting about 100 judges that were fit for governing.
Trump supporters made their bed and are now reaping what they sowed!
Elections have consequences
Stop your whining and thank Harry Reid
That is the whole point. Elections don’t have consequences if the loser tries a coup.
What ballot was Obama removed from? What state Republican UNILATERALLY took Obama off a ballot? Straw men are easy to beuld and easy to destroy.
He wasn’t removed from any ballot because he’s a natural born citizen, multiple legal challenges notwithstanding.
He is not a natural born citizen, his dad was never a US citizen and certainly was not at the time of Obama’s birth.
Thus, Obama does not and did not qualify to be a POTUS.
Our system of course was far off the rails by the time Hussy was installed.
Any demoncrat supporting it pretty much has to be an insane hypocrite. Those same demoncrats told us for the prior decades that a child’s formative years are the most important and stay with them their entire lives, and thus barky’s long portion of childhood in Indonesia should have made the demoncrat libturds know and understand as they had claimed for a long time Seotoro was NOT faithful or loyal to the USA.
It’s the REASON the Founder’s made it law in the Constitution that a POTUS must have BOTH PARENTS USA Citizens at the time of birth.
Everyone understands if one of your parents belongs to another nation, you as the child will be split as to your own loyalty – this was argued over in a POTUS election in the USA many decades ago – the POTUS had a “Canadian Dad” at the time of his birth. He tried to argue that was incorrect and thus he was eligible, he tried to claim it was a rumor, and then the home burned down and all the “paper records” were lost to ashes. THIS IS HOW WE KNOW OBAMA NEVER QUALIFIED.
Of course the demoncrats will just say the Constitution means whatever they want it to, it’s living and breathing the demoncrats claim.
A SCOTUS justice at the time of the eligibility controversy publicly noted and said flat out their are entirely avoiding the controversy as to the traitor’s eligibility. Same thing the courts did with most of the election theft in 2020, using the tarnished and ridiculous claim of “no standing”, which is always a fraud they use to duck and cover or destroy justice by letting injustice stand, unaccounted for and fully criminal, a sort of equivalent to the DA’s or police’s “discretion to not prosecute or pursue”.
“IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE”
Barack Obama will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.
Barack Obama’s father was a foreign citizen at the time of the candidate’s birth.
– A mere “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after – Barack Obama was a “citizen,” not a “natural born citizen.”
– The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”
– Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”
– “The importance of The Law of Nations, therefore, resides both in its systematic derivation of international law from natural law and in its compelling synthesis of the modern discourse of natural jurisprudence with the even newer language of political economy. The features help to explain the continuing appeal of this text well into the nineteenth century among politicians, international lawyers and political theorists of every complexion.”
– Law of Nations Editors Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore.
– The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.
– Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.
– The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define esoteric words or phrases, while the Law of Nations, 1758, did and does.
– The Law of Nations is referenced in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, of the U.S. Constitution: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758
Book 1, Ch. 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay
New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d
Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore
Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,
which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief
of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect
Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere
I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay
You can believe the garbage that you believe, but your delusions aren’t true.
Facts and the cold hard truth can be tough for some to swallow.
You go right ahead and swallow the facts above deeply, my friend.
I am reading a book about our involvement in WWI and the comparisons of Wilson to Biden are scary.
Wilson had his stroke and was kept away from EVERYONE for months, Wilson pushed the Sedition Act and the Espionage Act arresting people in the same way that J6 folks were arrested and he was also the nastiest piece of work to grace the WH.
Wilson also would never compromise and that caused the treaty and League to not be ratified. Sound familiar? All of this is just like Biden.
Riddled with dementia, arresting opponents and nasty as all get out. All the while we are being told that he is some magnanimous gentleman. Biden will not even compromise on the border as millions and millions of illegals come here every year he is in office.
Bellows looks like someone on Libs of Tic Toc being shown saying that she has the right to teach your 7 year old child about gender.
Imagine a partisan hack being shown beaming with Biden and Obama then taking it upon herself to remove the leading Republican from a state ballot. It is mind bogglingly corrupt, disgustingly partisan and frighteningly fascist only to be made worse by idiots like Svalaz and some “Anonymous” paid hack pushing it like it is all fine.
Remember norms? Little girls like Bellows are destroying our norms daily. We have Harvard gone, the military being ruined, the FBI destroyed, our border in tatters and our country going down the tubes faster than I ever imagined possible.
HullBobby,
Well said and I agree.
Ah, yes! The DNC ran on “bringing aback norms,” and “adults back in the room.”
The Biden admin looks anything but ‘norms,’ or ‘adults back in the room.’
Actions like the CO SC, this flunky Bellows and others are the real threat to democracy.
Upstate, it really is amazing how badly the left wants to ruin our country. If anyone questions my saying this I will just point to the border. Biden is polling at about 28% at the border, a number never seen in any poll against a president ever, and yet he will not reverse course???? Why? Because they want to bring in 10 million people before 2024 and then grant them amnesty in some deal with weak-kneed Republicans. Then it is all over.
At noon, Biden took the oath to “faithfully execute” the laws and in the afternoon he signed an executive order to stop deportations. So much for rule of law in the U.S.
HullBobby,
Give this a read: https://www.thefp.com/p/bill-barr-banning-trump-from-the
That photo at the top is like “separated at birth” — same chrome dome, same long nose, same weak chin. Ashley has a long-lost half-sister. Dr. Jill should hang another stocking.