Elections; 2024
POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Friday, November 21, 2025 00:12
VIEWED: 206031
PAGE 121 of 514
Quote:
Originally posted by THG: Sunday, July 2, 2023 6:42 PM
THG
T
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
T
Trump removed from Maine's 2024 ballot
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows decided Thursday to remove Donald Trump from the state’s presidential ballot.
Maine’s Shenna Bellows.
Jared Golden, a Democratic congressman from Lewiston who voted to impeach Trump over the January 6th riots, quickly issued a statement:
We are a nation of laws, therefore until he is actually found guilty of the crime of insurrection, he should be allowed on the ballot. ... Is there any way this ends well? - Matt Taibbi
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Signym, you know that the 14th Amendment did NOT require a guilty verdict for any Confederate Rebel to keep all those asshole Rebels out of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. Nobody had to convince a jury that a Confederate rebel was, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty of being an asshole and there is still no Constitutional requirement to convince a jury that Trump is an asshole. In other words, people who support Trump are adding words to the Constitution that are not in the 14th Amendment so that they can show they support Trump.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows decided Thursday to remove Donald Trump from the state’s presidential ballot.
Maine’s Shenna Bellows.
Jared Golden, a Democratic congressman from Lewiston who voted to impeach Trump over the January 6th riots, quickly issued a statement:
We are a nation of laws, therefore until he is actually found guilty of the crime of insurrection, he should be allowed on the ballot. ... Is there any way this ends well? - Matt Taibbi
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
Trump is now 2-2 in the Insurrection Bowl
Maine and Colorado say Trump can't run for president while Michigan and California say he can. It needs a definitive national answer. Supreme Court, here we come.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows decided Thursday to remove Donald Trump from the state’s presidential ballot.
Maine’s Shenna Bellows.
Jared Golden, a Democratic congressman from Lewiston who voted to impeach Trump over the January 6th riots, quickly issued a statement:
We are a nation of laws, therefore until he is actually found guilty of the crime of insurrection, he should be allowed on the ballot. ... Is there any way this ends well? - Matt Taibbi
- SIGNYM
There is nothing in the constitution that even suggests he has to be convicted first. That said, the Colorado courts found he did incite an insurrection.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There's something in our Constitution... perhaps you're not familiar with it, seeing as you apparently hate freedom ... that's called "due process". It's in the Fifth Amendment.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows decided Thursday to remove Donald Trump from the state’s presidential ballot.
Maine’s Shenna Bellows.
Jared Golden, a Democratic congressman from Lewiston who voted to impeach Trump over the January 6th riots, quickly issued a statement:
We are a nation of laws, therefore until he is actually found guilty of the crime of insurrection, he should be allowed on the ballot. ... Is there any way this ends well? - Matt Taibbi
THUGR: There is nothing in the constitution that even suggests he has to be convicted first.
Quote:
The term "innocent until proven guilty" is not in the U.S. Constitution.
The presumption of innocence is recognized as a due process right under the Fifth Amendment.
The prosecutor has the burden of proof to show you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/is-the-presumption-
of-innocence-in-the-consti.html
You CLAIM to love America but you'd trample the freedoms that make my country so great.
Quote:
That said, the Colorado courts found he did incite an insurrection.
The Chief Justice and two other Democrat judges found that Trump's Constitutional rights had been violated.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There is a 126-page article about how that part of the Constitution works. Here are two pages:
Originally posted by THG:
There is nothing in the constitution that even suggests he has to be convicted first. That said, the Colorado courts found he did incite an insurrection.
T
The Sweep and Force of Section Three
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, Forthcoming
126 Pages Posted: 14 Aug 2023 Last revised: 19 Sep 2023
By William Baude, University of Chicago - Law School
Michael Stokes Paulsen, University of St. Thomas School of Law
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
To be sure, Section Three clearly bears the hallmarks of its historical context. It is, for one thing, a radical rule. The sheer sweep of the disqualification from offices that it imposed on former Southern officeholders-turned-rebels was dramatic. Its operation was hugely disruptive of antebellum patterns of elite political leadership, apparently indifferent to inconvenience, and seemingly rather punitive in its consequences. Section Three is harsh. It is categorical. It is insistent. It seems to have been deliberately designed to turn the prior Southern political order upside down. As Eric Foner puts it, "Section 3 aimed to promote a sweeping transformation of Southern public life.”7
In these respects, the disqualification reflects and embodies the distinctive political impulses of the so-called Radical Republican Congress that proposed the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866. If its disqualification had radical policy consequences for the South, so be it.8 It was more important to strip insurrectionists and rebels of governing power completely, to remake Southern political society thoroughly, and to prevent Southern backsliding from the full consequences of Union victory entirely, than to be concerned about such things as seeming harshness, impracticality, or disruptiveness. Section Three is very much a creation and creature of its day.
Yet it is (or should be) basic constitutional law that it is the enduring text of the Constitution that supplies the governing rule, not the ostensible "purpose” or specific historical situation for which the text was written. Constitutional provisions, written into our fundamental law, live beyond the circumstances that prompted their adoption. And many such constitutional provisions are written in broad, or general, terms that obviously extend beyond the specific situation or situations that led to their enactment. Sometimes this is by design: the text’s drafters wrote a general rule, applicable to a broad class of circumstances, as a more general, "neutral,” way of addressing a class of situations of which the specific problem motivating the writing of the text might be just one instance. The thinking might be that if the principle giving rise to the text is a correct one, it should be correct in like circumstances, not just the one situation that provoked the rule’s adoption. And sometimes a text’s breadth and generality might not reflect conscious design: the text’s drafters wrote a general rule that unintentionally went further than the problem they had in mind. Put colloquially, the text sometimes “overshoots” its drafters’ intended purposes. (A text might undershoot the problem its framers had in mind to address, too—or achieve only part of its intended purpose, perhaps because of political compromise.)
The reason does not really matter. It is the rule as drafted and enacted in the written text that counts, whether it goes further than the purposes supposed to have inspired its adoption, or even whether it falls short of fully achieving those purposes. While evidence of intention, usage, purpose, and political context can assist in ascertaining the meaning of the enactment, it is that objective meaning that constitutes the law, not the ostensible purposes o
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Russian egg crisis: What’s behind price hikes?
In a recent Q&A session with Russian President Vladimir Putin at his end-of-year news conference, a woman had a simple request for the government: Bring down the price of eggs.
Her criticism prompted an apology from Putin, who said it was a “failure of the government’s work” that egg prices have soared 40% in 2023.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-egg-crisis-what-s-behind-
price-hikes/ar-AA1me0WM?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=bce80a4c90e64d19a8ba9162200c1713&ei=32
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:There's something in our Constitution... perhaps you're not familiar with it, seeing as you apparently hate freedom ... that's called "due process". It's in the Fifth Amendment.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows decided Thursday to remove Donald Trump from the state’s presidential ballot.
Maine’s Shenna Bellows.
Jared Golden, a Democratic congressman from Lewiston who voted to impeach Trump over the January 6th riots, quickly issued a statement:
We are a nation of laws, therefore until he is actually found guilty of the crime of insurrection, he should be allowed on the ballot. ... Is there any way this ends well? - Matt Taibbi
THUGR: There is nothing in the constitution that even suggests he has to be convicted first.Quote:
The term "innocent until proven guilty" is not in the U.S. Constitution.
The presumption of innocence is recognized as a due process right under the Fifth Amendment.
The prosecutor has the burden of proof to show you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/is-the-presumption-
of-innocence-in-the-consti.html
You CLAIM to love America but you'd trample the freedoms that make my country so great.Quote:
That said, the Colorado courts found he did incite an insurrection.
The Chief Justice and two other Democrat judges found that Trump's Constitutional rights had been violated.
- SIGNYM
Quotes that reference your claims about the chief justice and others are needed comrade. They did not argue Trump did not incite an insurrection. So they agreed he did. They just said they did not know if they had the power to remove him from the ballet. Nothing about his rights being violated.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why Was It So Hard for Nikki Haley to Say ‘Slavery’? History Has the Answer
The presidential candidate’s recent comments about the Civil War helped spread a myth that has warped American history for over a century.
In William Faulkner’s novel, Sartoris, someone asks the title character, Colonel John Sartoris, why he had fought for the Confederacy so many decades before. “Damned if I ever did know,” replied the aging veteran, now a pillar of his community in fictional Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi.
Of course, we know why Colonel Sartoris raised arms against the United States. So does anyone with a high school diploma — assuming they used up-to-date textbooks. And so did Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, who in 1861 famously asserted that the “cornerstone” of the new Southern nation rested “upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
All of which makes it disappointing, though not surprising, that at this late date — almost 160 years after the Civil War — Nikki Haley, a leading contender for the GOP presidential nomination, shares Colonel Sartoris’ selective amnesia on the topic. When asked a softball question this week about the causes of the Civil War, Haley, a former South Carolina governor, flubbed the answer, calling it a “difficult” question and mumbling on about “basically how government was going to run — the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do.”
As Haley must know — after all, as governor of South Carolina, she presided over the removal of Confederate flags from the Statehouse — many Americans do question the fundamental fact that slavery precipitated the Civil War, and her equivocation played into a long-standing agenda to rewrite American history. Haley was effectively parroting the Lost Cause mythology, a revisionist school of thought born in the war’s immediate aftermath, which whitewashed the Confederacy’s cornerstone interest in raising arms to preserve slavery. Instead, a generation of Lost Cause mythologists chalked the war up to a battle over political abstractions like states’ rights.
With red states doing battle with American history, seeking to erase the legacy of violence and inequality that counterbalance the great good also inherent in our national story, it’s worth revisiting the rise of the Lost Cause, not just to remember how damaging it was, but to confront just how damaging it still is.
The Lost Cause painted a picture of Southern chivalry — mint juleps, magnolias and moonlight — that stood in sharp contrast with the North, a region marked by avarice, grinding capitalism and poverty. The rebellion, by this rendering, had been a legal response to the North’s assault on states’ rights — not a violent insurrection to preserve chattel slavery. Even Confederate veterans like Hunter McGuire knew that to admit the war had been about slavery would “hold us degraded rather than worthy of honor … our children, instead of revering their fathers will be secretly, if not openly, ashamed.”
More at https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/28/nikki-haley-civil-wa
r-slavery-history-00133281
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME