That, by itself, should be cause to remove the Texas Lt. Gov from office. He’s literally committing sedition and violating his oath of office.
I’m sure Texas will get right on that, just as soon as they’ve removed accused felon Ken Paxton from office.
I recognize this is not the point of the post, but an accused felon doesn’t really make sense, since a felon is someone who is formally tried and convicted of a felonious crime.
Ok, go to court and do it, or shut the fuck up.
They’re like five year olds…
Most five year olds are far better behaved.
The ones that have faced consequences for their actions, sure.
They’reTheyI see what you did there
They like five year olds?
Yes
If he had any real reason to do so, it would be fine. Their problem is that “retalitation” is not a valid reason according to A14.
Radio hosts are saying failure to secure our border is an insurrection. I wish I was making it up.
That’s just because they don’t understand words with more than three syllables.
The right wingers are truly dumber than dirt, so I’m sure the base eat that nonsense right TF up.
Can a governor do that, though? From my limited knowledge of US political structure, a governor is part of the executive branch, and overruling electoral process can only be done my the judicial branch.
NAL, but almost certainly not. Governors don’t get to decide who gets to appear on a ballot. Trump got removed, because he was found to have participated in an insurrection, a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.
If they want to remove Biden, they’ll have to prove he did something disqualifying.
Lieutenant Governor. But … still no.
Somehow shitheels always find a way to be shit, I’m afraid.
The Republican party is a criminal conspiracy.
Based on what? Donnie stoked an insurrection and plotted a coup. He’s a criminal.
What did Biden do?
They’re trying to water down the word “insurrection” as hard as they can so they can invoke the 14th. They haven’t really thought it through much more than that, much like the current impeachment discussions.
They have been bleating for nearly three years now how “it wasn’t really an insurrection”, and I suppose that has not worked well, because most people continue to ignore them and their nonsense narratives about that. Now they are going to downplay the very term itself. Makes a certain kind of sense.
Loves his son, flaws and all
Yep, the Republicans know the password to get the presidency. Hunter2
No balls, he won’t.
He can’t. Like all conservatives in politics- he knows nothing about the laws he swore to uphold.
There’s a large swath of dumbassery in the current congress, especially the house and especially since maga, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that all cons are dumb. Tons of the senators are lawyers. They aren’t ignorant of the law, they’re evil people using the law to line their pockets and make the world a worse place. Turtle McConnell couldn’t have been grifting in politics for 137 years if he was stupid.
Trump is in politics and worshipped and protected by these people and he’s a complete buffoon. They’re idiots. Period.
So your argument is that bc one stupid populist got elected, none of the evil shit conservatives do is done intelligently?
If a person supports an idiot as a leader, they’re clearly not a smart person. So you can follow this simple rule:
It takes an idiot to elect an idiot.
Generalisations never hold up with even the most cursory of critiques.
States actually have quite a lot of control of who to put on their ballots. The prelude to the First Civil War had quite a lot of slaving garbage states, like Texas, only state to fight a war for slavery twice, not carrying Lincoln on the ballots, for example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas
So let me get this straight:
Colorado had to go through legal challenges and courts to remove a twice impeached rapist that’s hell bent on turning America into his own personal bank, but Texas can just remove people at will?
This is going to lead to a civil war. The Republicans simply cannot accept any consequences for their actions, or any failure of their insane message to win a majority vote, so they resort to insurrection.
Make no mistake — by not waiting for a conviction to remove Trump from the ballot, this is the Pandora’s box that has been opened. Just like impeachment, it will be used and abused.
He was convicted—of participating in an insurrection by incitement. That’s what the judge before SCOCO ruled, and SCOCO finished the groundwork she laid out. He was therefore rightly ejected from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment.
If you mean waiting for a conviction from his other cases, none of them would bar him from running. Felons are allowed to run for president.
But no matter what, Republicans will always use whatever they can to do damage. Justice shouldn’t stop just because you know they’ll continue to abuse the system as they have always done.
deleted by creator
See “felony disenfranchisement” and “presumption of innocence”. Amendment 14 section 3 doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property does require due process of law, which would be a “conviction”.
But, I am failing to see how “running for president” can be considered a constitutionally protected right or privilege. Can you show me how this right or privilege comes into existence?
Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property does require due process of law, which would be a “conviction”.
People are kicked off of voter rolls all the time without being convicted of anything. That’s actually more egregious violation of rights if you ask me.
It’s right there in the constitution. It says anyone over age 35 who is a citizen and has lived here for 14 years.
https://www.usa.gov/requirements-for-presidential-candidates
To take this away from someone should require conviction of a crime. Just as taking away the right to vote does.
Look, I can’t stand Trump. But I also don’t believe in stripping rights from someone without being convicted first. It’s too slippery of a slope, and it could easily be abused otherwise.
The context, though, was in response to the Confederates returning to the Union. They did not need convictions for this to apply (it’s not like they would try and convict every person that participated in the Civil War on the wrong side), so I don’t know why you think it would start applying now.
Yeah I think the historical context and straightforward language make the intent of section 3 pretty clear.
When they wrote the 2nd Amendment there were only muskets. I don’t know why we should start applying it to modern weapons. 😐
This but unironically
It’s right there in the constitution. It says anyone over age 35 who is a citizen and has lived here for 14 years.
The minimum criteria mentioned in the constitution do not strip the power of the state to run their own elections. The existence of those criteria do not negate the powers conveyed to the state. Any individual “rights” conveyed by those requirements are still subject to the powers conveyed to the state.
The constitution empowered the Colorado legislature to enact law declaring how its elections will be run. The Colorado legislature declared that the Colorado courts will be empowered to answer any questions arising under its electoral process.
A question of candidate eligibility was raised. The duly elected and constitutionally empowered legislature enacted law requiring the court to answer that question. Just because Trump doesn’t like that answer does not mean his rights were infringed.
The minimum criteria mentioned in the constitution do not strip the power of the state to run their own elections.
Agreed. The Constitution states minimum requirements to be President. It definitely takes more than that to become President. The ruling out of Colorado doesn’t even forbid him from being President. Obviously he could still win enough states without Colorado and this ruling doesn’t forbid electoral delegates from voting for him either. If a candidate misses a deadline even it could keep them off the ballot. Being listed on one is not a right.
deleted by creator
If the court was not able to find a factual basis for the requested relief then they would simply deny the application/complaint. The court reviewed the facts and granted the requested relief. Why does a different court need to rule on the facts before this court can act?
They did have a trial - that’s how it got appealed
Being ineligible to be president is not a punishment for a crime. No criminal conviction is required.
The insurrection clause was used after the Civil War exactly as intended, to prevent treasonous filth from running for office despite not being convicted in criminal courts.
