@TID: Mystic BBS 1.12 A49
@MSGID: 1:342/200 89718354
@TZUTC: -0700
https://youtu.be/Mgo_hJbuDNU?si=QoRr-643p6Lpk6Zd
ACLJ filing a brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of several Red States about Colorado's decision to remove Trump for the Ballot for 2024.
Simple easy language that one can easily understand.
So much for states rights?
IB Joe wrote to Mike Miller <=-
Ergo... It's time to move on. What I think is simple... If Biden's policies are so great... let the people chose.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the ovisions of this article.
Based on polling numbers, the Elitists know what will happen there.
And if Trump gets into office, the (rightfully) fear that he will start investigations and many of these Elitists are going to prison.
Congress has already passed a law to enforce the 14th. I have cited to you already multiple times. That section does NOT mean they have to
pass a new law EVERY TIME someone might have violated the 14th. The law is already in place that sets forth the punishment for violating the
14th.
States have the right to interpret, and a duty to follow, the
Constitution so long as their interpretations do not conflict with decisions by the US Supreme Court. We shall soon hopefully find out
what their decision is in this case.
And if Trump gets into office, the (rightfully) fear that he will start
investigations and many of these Elitists are going to prison.
I'm okay with how things turned out... Trump exposed the corruption... well he exposed them a little bit...
Now they have exposed themselves with their T.D.S..
Law-Fare and what not,
IB Joe wrote to Dr. What <=-
I'm okay with how things turned out... Trump exposed the corruption... well he exposed them a little bit... Now they have exposed themselves
with their T.D.S.. David Axelrod was on the news claiming that the Democrats have taken this too far, Law-Fare and what not, and its
having the opposite effect... They should stop what they are doing.
Mike Powell wrote to IB JOE <=-
States have the right to interpret, and a duty to follow, the
Constitution
States have the right to interpret, and a duty to follow, the Constitution so long as their interpretations do not conflict with decisions by the US Supreme Court. We shall soon hopefully find out what their decision is in this case.
No they don't ... It's the US constitution, not the state constitution. Its i
erpretation is done by the Federal lawmakers and the US Supreme Court. This is
hy States who feel that a Federal law is wrong they petition the US Supreme Co
t.... Does any of this sound familiar to you... States just don't do what the
want...
There is a constitutional way to be heard... Trump, though you may not like h
, needs to be afforded due process... The list goes on and on...
Joe Biden needs to be a man and run on his policies...
It will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS does on this. My guess is that they will say that states can remove Trump from the ballot, but only after Due
Process has happened and it's up to the Legislatures of those states - not a partisian Secretary of State.
YES THEY DO. Otherwise, any and every case would wind up in federal
court because any and every defense attorney would claim that their client's civil rights were violated and every case would have to go to federal court.
That does not happen. If states didn't interpret, and follow, the US Constitution (what I said above), states COULD do what they want and get away with it so long as no one appeals it higher.
It will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS does on this. My guess is that they will say that states can remove Trump from the ballot, but
only after Due Process has happened and it's up to the Legislatures of those states - not a partisian Secretary of State.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
In the case of Maine, I certainly think this will be the case. It
sounds like there was no court action there at all. I have not even bothered listening to her reasoning as it cannot be good.
In Colorado, they had a judicial case.
Once the Colorado case happened, IMHO, there was no point in any other states acting until after the SCOTUS reviews the case. I think maybe
the Maine SoS is trying to score points. Maybe she wants a place in
the next D administration in DC, or a sweet press gig like Jen Psaki
got.
In the case of Maine, I certainly think this will be the case. It sounds like there was no court action there at all. I have not even bothered listening to her reasoning as it cannot be good.
Then what she did was unconstitutional and certainly outside of her authority.
But these elitist operatives constantly try to grab more power than they have.
In Colorado, they had a judicial case.
Which was outside of their jurisdiction. If a crime was committed, it was not
committed in Colorado.
Which was outside of their jurisdiction. If a crime was committed, it w not
committed in Colorado.
I do agree with that, and I think it will play into the SCOTUS decision.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
Not sure about the unconsitutional part. In its early days, the 14th
was used without court actions or trial. It was applied with a blanket
to pretty much anyone holding any elected office in a state that had
left the Union. They were removed from office and, until the
mid-1870's, were covered by the "cannot hold office again" bit without court action or conviction of any kind.
I agree, but I don't think any politicians, including Trump, are immune
to the temptation to do so.
Which was outside of their jurisdiction. If a crime was committed, it not
committed in Colorado.
I do agree with that, and I think it will play into the SCOTUS decision.
The SCOTUS ONLY looks at constitutionality of things.... ONLY... The states ha
le the legality of things. Note in Maine the GOP want to move ahead with impe
hment against the SoS... That's how to handle a corrupt partisan hack... They ould do the same with the entire Supreme court in Colorado... I don't know if ey can, but they should.
Not sure about the unconsitutional part. In its early days, the 14th was used without court actions or trial. It was applied with a blanket to pretty much anyone holding any elected office in a state that had left the Union. They were removed from office and, until the
mid-1870's, were covered by the "cannot hold office again" bit without court action or conviction of any kind.
But the purpose of it was to keep the Rebels out of the gov't so that they wouldn't try to subvert the work needed to repair the union.
I would argue that if a person worked for the Conferacy, that's proof that he participated in insurrection. So I can see where a trial would be needed. Th
person, in effect, admitted his crime.
They usually don't have trials when the person freely admits his guilt.
I agree, but I don't think any politicians, including Trump, are immune to the temptation to do so.
The temptation is one thing. The act is another. Most good people practice restraint. The Elitists just do whatever they want and we have to do the work
through the courts to smack them back down.
You do realize that your first sentence there, re: states handle the legality of things, contradicts one of your earlier arguments, right?
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
I don't think it was just "Federal Confederates" or State elected officials we are talking about here. In this instance, I think they
even unseated people like Mayors.
Using your logic - participation is admission of guilt - if a court
case against a 1/6 participant determines there was an insurrection or some other charge of equal weight, that would mean anyone else who participated that day was covered by that blanket, even if they
personally don't go to trial.
The only restraint I see Trump and several of the more vocal "Ultra
MAGA" politicians practicing is because they are forced to. In other words, they are getting to be no better than the Elitists they are supposedly different than. In other words they, too, are proving not
to be good people.
I don't think it was just "Federal Confederates" or State elected officials we are talking about here. In this instance, I think they even unseated people like Mayors.
Interesting. I'm constantly amazed at how LITTLE we were taught about our history in schools. Lately I've been exploring the era around the Revolutionary War in Michigan. Sooooo much stuff going on that was never covered in school - even in a Michigan school.
Using your logic - participation is admission of guilt - if a court
case against a 1/6 participant determines there was an insurrection or some other charge of equal weight, that would mean anyone else who participated that day was covered by that blanket, even if they personally don't go to trial.
Keep in mind, in my vision of this, we have the Governor and many of the Legislature deciding that they don't want to be in the union and going off and
going their own thing - including seizing Federal peoperty in their state.
The idea that there were people, like mayors, using your example, that had no say in the matter and decided it was better for them to stay in their office (assuming for altrustic reasons) never really entered my mind. But, ya, there
would be a bunch of "edge cases" and it's really questionable as to whether they should be held responsible or not.
The only restraint I see Trump and several of the more vocal "Ultra MAGA" politicians practicing is because they are forced to. In other words, they are getting to be no better than the Elitists they are supposedly different than. In other words they, too, are proving not
to be good people.
I don't see this yet. Now that could be because of the extreme abuse that we see from the Elitists in power right now is overshadowing others.
But that does go back to what I said: We are not seeing a fight between the Good Guys and Bad Guys, but rather a fight between different groups of Bad Guy
over who gets to rule the rest of us.
But the evidence shows that life under Trump was so much better than life unde
Biden's Controller.
https://youtu.be/oErYhFABeN4?si=obGOLoTG4bZVML5v
The ACLJ take on the Democrats and Immunity... The guest speaker is Gay so, from the left' perspective, it must be correct.
The Democrats are the ones who think that they are above the law, but they're "smart" enough to blame others of doing it first.
| Sysop: | deepend |
|---|---|
| Location: | Calgary, Alberta |
| Users: | 253 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 14:24:55 |
| Calls: | 1,646 |
| Files: | 3,994 |
| Messages: | 387,903 |