Is Trump constitutionally barred from being POTUS again?

#127
#127
#128
#128
luthervol said:
Are you saying they abuse it equally?

Because no one in their right mind would claim that.
Click to expand...

Yes, the democrats invented it.

Democrats created gerrymandering—they must own it | The Hill

The so-called attempt to disenfranchise minorities through gerrymandering has the Democrats’ DNA all over it, and if you know your history, you’d understand this statement. Full stop, a non-political assertion, the Democrats invented gerrymandering. Have you ever wondered where the name gerrymandering originated? Unfortunately, the answer does not live in textbook materials in your middle school civics book; however, it does live in a multitude of literature that is easily accessible courtesy of the internet.

The word “gerrymander” originated when the Boston Gazette published a political cartoon depicting a newly drawn serpent-like district in Massachusetts by Jeffersonian Republicans, formally known today as the Democrat Party. The man who signed off on this politicalized map (although admittedly reluctant) was the then governor of the commonwealth and future fifth vice president of the United States, a man by the name Eldridge Gerry. Oppositionists in the press quickly reacted and labeled the political move “The Gerry Mander,” a play on the governor’s last name and the shape of the newly created district that resembled a salamander. This name lives on till this day.

Democrats decry gerrymandering — unless they control the maps | The Hill
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
#129
#129
luthervol said:
LOL......Did you bother to read it?

New York Is Ordered by Appeals Court to Redraw House Map
The decision, if upheld, could allow Democrats to shift as many as six G.O.P.-held seats in their direction. Republicans vowed to appeal.

The repubs even abused it in NY.
Click to expand...

Dem controlled house, senate and courts in NY, but the R's are the problem you tribal putz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, norrislakevol, hog88 and 2 others
#130
#130
CobbVol said:
Yes, the democrats invented it.

Democrats created gerrymandering—they must own it | The Hill

The so-called attempt to disenfranchise minorities through gerrymandering has the Democrats’ DNA all over it, and if you know your history, you’d understand this statement. Full stop, a non-political assertion, the Democrats invented gerrymandering. Have you ever wondered where the name gerrymandering originated? Unfortunately, the answer does not live in textbook materials in your middle school civics book; however, it does live in a multitude of literature that is easily accessible courtesy of the internet.

The word “gerrymander” originated when the Boston Gazette published a political cartoon depicting a newly drawn serpent-like district in Massachusetts by Jeffersonian Republicans, formally known today as the Democrat Party. The man who signed off on this politicalized map (although admittedly reluctant) was the then governor of the commonwealth and future fifth vice president of the United States, a man by the name Eldridge Gerry. Oppositionists in the press quickly reacted and labeled the political move “The Gerry Mander,” a play on the governor’s last name and the shape of the newly created district that resembled a salamander. This name lives on till this day.

Democrats decry gerrymandering — unless they control the maps | The Hill
Click to expand...
So you're not in your right mind?

You realize you just proved my point........right?
 
#133
#133
Sudden Impact said:
It appears that way. I wonder where that idea came from? We wouldn't even be in the conversation if there had not been an objection to the people's vote in 2020. Yet here we are and some are still claiming the vote was stolen in 5-6 states... Geez. Pot/kettle = Black.
Click to expand...
You know Dems objected to electors after the 2016 election too right? VP Biden rightfully said no just like VP Pence rightfully said no to Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
#134
#134
evillawyer said:
The way this would play out is some federal official would simply bar Trump in some way, by claiming he was disqualified. An official would refuse to put him on the ballot, perhaps. Then Trump would sue. Alternatively, a federal official could seek a declaratory judgment that Trump can be barred from the ballot. There are probably other ways it could be teed up, but these are two pretty obvious ways.

This is not a whole lot different than if a non-citizen tried to get on the ballot. The federal official could make the decision he's not qualified, and bar him from the ballot, leaving the candidate to sue, or the federal official could seek a declaratory judgment from the court declaring the candidate not qualified and permitting the exclusion
Click to expand...

So there's no official sanctioning body that vets candidates for the precious few qualifiers like age, citizenship, and certainly not for a security clearance before the name goes on the ballot; but somehow there should be someone somewhere willing to disqualify Trump on a specious charge so you can sleep better at night? You realize there's been no official clarification or definition regarding what "citizen" vs "natural born citizen" means? "Natural born citizen" wasn't an unknown or unambiguous term to the Founding Fathers, but today there's a lot of latitude regarding the meaning, so rather than face the issue, we just wing it every election.
 
#135
#135
Thunder Good-Oil said:
This is exactly why the Dems call it an “insurrection” rather than the correct term. It was a “riot” by an extreme minority of the protestors.
Click to expand...

Considering the mostly peaceful demonstrations that went on and on the preceding couple of years and weren't considered riots, then it's hard to even classify 1/6 as a riot much less an insurrection. Honestly it was time that congress heard from the outside world for a change ... in fact, time that they heard there actually is a world outside their lair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
#136
#136
BernardKingGOAT said:
It was a fake dossier, but there was no hoax."Hoax" is another term no one used before Trump told them so. Law enforcement agencies have always implemented "fake" dossiers to catch career criminals who have evaded prosecution by creating insulated shells. Is it lawful? By the constitution? A firm NO! BUT career criminals have also looped through laws to evade prosecution. The former happens as a result of the latter
Click to expand...
So are you saying you accept the government providing false info as long as it go against someone you think in guilty of something that isn't illegal and can't be proven.......
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol and AM64
#138
#138
No attorney here, but this part of The Atlantic article makes no sense:

"... [violators of Section 3 of the Constitution] are automatically disqualified from holding future office and must therefore be barred from election to any office."

How exactly does "automatic disqualification" occur? Does the US Constitution, itself, stand up and point a vellum finger at the perp?

Seems to me that some arbiter of fact would be required to determine disqualification, right? Otherwise, couldn't my neighbor, for instance, point a finger at me and claim I'm automatically disqualified - free from material facts?

Last I checked, such arbiters of fact are called "courtrooms". As such, a judge and/or jury would determine guilt, not some non-existent "automatic disqualification" posited by the authors. This exercise in legal theory looks like pure ivory tower bullsh*t to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and AM64
#146
#146
MontyPython said:
No attorney here, but this part of The Atlantic article makes no sense:

"... [violators of Section 3 of the Constitution] are automatically disqualified from holding future office and must therefore be barred from election to any office."

How exactly does "automatic disqualification" occur? Does the US Constitution, itself, stand up and point a vellum finger at the perp?

Seems to me that some arbiter of fact would be required to determine disqualification, right? Otherwise, couldn't my neighbor, for instance, point a finger at me and claim I'm automatically disqualified - free from material facts?

Last I checked, such arbiters of fact are called "courtrooms". As such, a judge and/or jury would determine guilt, not some non-existent "automatic disqualification" posited by the authors. This exercise in legal theory looks like pure ivory tower bullsh*t to me.
Click to expand...
Your point was brought up on page one. To my knowledge, no one has refuted your thoughts or named the arbiter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#147
#147
hUTch2002 said:
You know Dems objected to electors after the 2016 election too right? VP Biden rightfully said no just like VP Pence rightfully said no to Trump.
Click to expand...
And the only reason the we are still talking about it is that you just brought it up. It has happen to the Dem's twice and they have moved on. So who is acting like the Adult in the Room.
Trump is the problem because he can't admit he lost to a bunch of low life blue collared liberals. He loss to a group of people and he feels they are not worthy of him. That is the problem.

The only reason the Republican Party is contesting the election is because Trump controls it.

You would think that Trump would have given up on his story about rigged elections for the good of the Party and all his co-conspirators but see where we are now. Mental Illness.
 
Last edited:
#148
#148
McDad said:
Your point was brought up on page one. To my knowledge, no one has refuted your thoughts or named the arbiter.
Click to expand...
This is not hard. Some official says "Mr. Trump, you're not qualified to be on the ballot pursuant to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment." That official doesn't put Trump on the ballot. Trump then needs to sue to get on the ballot (probably through a mandamus action). Alternatively, that official could say "I don't believe Trump is qualified under Section 3, but I need a court to agree with my interpretation. So, I'll file a declaratory judgment action to make sure I'm in the right before I act."

mandamus
declaratory judgment
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact
#149
#149
evillawyer said:
This is not hard. Some official says "Mr. Trump, you're not qualified to be on the ballot pursuant to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment." That official doesn't put Trump on the ballot. Trump then needs to sue to get on the ballot (probably through a mandamus action). Alternatively, that official could say "I don't believe Trump is qualified under Section 3, but I need a court to agree with my interpretation. So, I'll file a declaratory judgment action to make sure I'm in the right before I act."

mandamus
declaratory judgment
Click to expand...

Nothing more democratic than unelected officials deciding who we can/can’t vote for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, AM64, whodeycin85 and 1 other person
#150
#150
hog88 said:
Nothing more democratic than unelected officials deciding who we can/can’t vote for.
Click to expand...
You realize this happens EVERY election, right. Are we all voting to see if Trump can get on the ballot because we believe he satisfies the requirements to run for office?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top