Maine's Secretary of State removes Trump from primary ballot

[69360]

Are you serious with this crap??

This is plain and simple…. The state is using a legal tactic to deny the people the representation they may desire. (I don’t desire it myself, but I can see what’s going on here). The legalese is bull$#@! in this case because it’s the State’s legal system. And they will always find a justification in their papers to do whatever they please.

Yes serious, look at the intention. The 14th, 3rd was after the civil war intended to keep the rebels out of government.

All crimes require a trial and a conviction.
And in this case there was no official declaration of an insurrection, it's all been media hot air.

Confederates weren't convicted of insurrection or treason.

This one stayed her own ruling pending appeal too.

This is all PR, they know it won't hold up.

No, it won't hold up in the current scotus.

Maine is another state that needs to break up.

The Central and Northern regions are 80%+ conservative but with all the liberals moving into the South
they swung the state to being purple to blue, much like NH and before that, VT.

There is a highly controlled covert operation to change the demographics in purple lean red states so that conservatives can never win again.
It is highly funded and organized. They don't care about the deep red states, as long as they don't add up to much. It's all the swing states
that they are concentrating on. Soros money and other globalists pay for it.

Maine already is broken up, the CDs are split, 1 went for Bided, 2 went for Trump.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The problem with this theory is that they're getting everything they want through Biden.

It's just a stretch—the idea that they'd ever want to give up a literal puppet president who will sign-off on anything in exchange for an ice cream cone, and swap him out for a president who is egotistical enough to have the gall to think he has any power as president, doesn't seem like a wise or logical decision, from their angle.

Trump could have (and should have) resisted them more. But the fact that he resisted them at all makes him a less-favorable choice compared to the current one.

I'm sorry, but this current president is TPTB's dream-come-true:

Honestly, this.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[Anti Federalist]

https://twitter.com/GlennJacobsTN/status/1740569882566291744

Always dumpy looking white women...always.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Always dumpy looking white women...always.

You don't say...

https://twitter.com/MonicaCrowley/status/1740729694394425615

 

[Anti Federalist]

You are the one in power.


https://twitter.com/i/status/1740568280207647027

 

[Anti Federalist]

https://twitter.com/classicsgroyp/status/1740752970726465644

 

[Occam's Banana]

Oops!

https://twitter.com/SenatorBrakey/status/1740557307745046919

 

[spudea]

Section 3 of the 14th doesn't require a trial or conviction. The wording is engaged in, not convicted of. Bellows was actually originalist in her ruling.

So you don't care about due process? There's no enforcement mechanism laid out in the amendment at all because it is entirely within congressional power to enforce.

You're suggesting the amendment was intended to empower unelected partisan state officials to unilaterally remove candidates from election ballots?

 

[acptulsa]

But why would they?

You think it couldn't be any worse than it is? Oh, my friend. You should talk to more people who have escaped the Soviets or the Chinese...

 

[Snowball]

It is an open and shut SCOTUS case, easiest ruling EVER.

States do not decide what candidates can run for FEDERAL OFFICES.
States do not get to deprive candidates of their rights as citizens for DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
Rebellion and Insurrection against the United States is a FEDERAL CRIME and is not under the purview of State judiciaries whatsoever.

The only way it happens is if Roberts refuses to take the case.

And if that happens he risks being impeached.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

So you don't care about due process? There's no enforcement mechanism laid out in the amendment at all because it is entirely within congressional power to enforce.

You're suggesting the amendment was intended to empower unelected partisan state officials to unilaterally remove candidates from election ballots?

Exactly right. The Democrats are dumping gasoline on the fire and tossing matches at it - if these rulings stand, or are overturned without the involved parties being impeached, it will forever change the nature of elections in this country. They're playing Russian Roulette with 5 bullets instead of 1.

 

[CaptUSA]

Yes serious, look at the intention. The 14th, 3rd was after the civil war intended to keep the rebels out of government.

Wasn't right then and isn't right now. Maybe some good will come out of this and the SCOTUS will finally rule that unconstitutional.


~~~ Unreal. "Keep rebels out of government" Do you even listen to yourself?!

 

[Madison320]

~~~ Unreal. "Keep rebels out of government" Do you even listen to yourself?!

Ron Paul forums should put an asterisk next to the username of anyone who claims that was an insurrection.

Just so we know.

 

[WarriorLiberty]

The Supreme could actually overturn, considering the Liberals only excuse is the "Insurrection claim"

 

[jct74]

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1740768214840414369

 

[Anti Federalist]

Wasn't right then and isn't right now. Maybe some good will come out of this and the SCOTUS will finally rule that unconstitutional.


~~~ Unreal. "Keep rebels out of government" Do you even listen to yourself?!

 

[Anti Federalist]

https://twitter.com/Indian_Bronson/status/1740721533629386816

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Section 3 of the 14th doesn't require a trial or conviction. The wording is engaged in, not convicted of. Bellows was actually originalist in her ruling.

Oh yeah, this was clearly the original intent of the framers of the Constitution and founders of this nation.

Of course the 14th Amendment occurred about 100 years later, and was originally and specifically created to address participants in a civil war. But hey, the Constitution and it's later Amendments are always open to interpretation, reinterpretation, and much stretching.

This must be your preferred version of Section 3:

Section 3.

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, as determined by each state, at the sole discretion of the Secretary of State of each state. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability, except in the case of Donald Trump.

 

[69360]

Oh yeah, this was clearly the original intent of the framers of the Constitution and founders of this nation.

Of course the 14th Amendment occurred about 100 years later, and was originally and specifically created to address participants in a civil war. But hey, the Constitution and it's later Amendments are always open to interpretation, reinterpretation, and much stretching.

This must be your preferred version of Section 3:

A strong arguement could be made that there is currently a civil war in the US.

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1740552986856767804