This is a bit confusing to me. The Colorado republican party is
considering switching from a primary to caucus system to get around
the State Supreme Court ruling that Trump is ineligible to be on the
primary ballot due to presumed 14th Amendment violations. The idea is
that if the US Supreme Court upholds the state SC decision, it would
at least be a way to get Trump on the ballot in November if he wins
the caucus.
But this is what confuses me. If the US Supreme Court upholds the
finding that Trump is ineligible to be on the primary ballot, wouldn't
that ruling also apply to the November ballot? I realize that the
lawsuit filed was specifically for the primary, but in the event the
US Supreme Court upholds the ruling, isn't the logical next step that Colorado would ask the Court to apply it to the general election as
well? And is there any reason the Court would uphold blocking him
from the primary but not the general?
Note - I'm not convinced the US SC will actually uphold the Colorado decision. It just seems that whichever way they decide, there's
really not much point in the Colorado GOP switching from primary to
caucus.
This is a bit confusing to me. The Colorado republican party is
considering switching from a primary to caucus system to get around the
State Supreme Court ruling that Trump is ineligible to be on the primary >ballot due to presumed 14th Amendment violations. The idea is that if the
US Supreme Court upholds the state SC decision, it would at least be a way
to get Trump on the ballot in November if he wins the caucus.
But this is what confuses me. If the US Supreme Court upholds the finding >that Trump is ineligible to be on the primary ballot, wouldn't that ruling >also apply to the November ballot? I realize that the lawsuit filed was >specifically for the primary, but in the event the US Supreme Court upholds >the ruling, isn't the logical next step that Colorado would ask the Court to >apply it to the general election as well?
And is there any reason the
Court would uphold blocking him from the primary but not the general?
Note - I'm not convinced the US SC will actually uphold the Colorado >decision. It just seems that whichever way they decide, there's really not >much point in the Colorado GOP switching from primary to caucus.
I've also heard that if in the end trump is off the Colorado ballot it
will have a big effect on other states,
but I don't think so. I think no
legal effect. Encouragement for other lawsuits maybe but Colorado's law
is more specific than other states'. Don't remember how but I would
think ??????? that means it specifies the remedy, removal from the
ballot.
I've also heard that if in the end trump is off the Colorado ballot it
will have a big effect on other states, but I don't think so. I think no legal effect.
If the US Supreme Court upholds the finding
that Trump is ineligible to be on the primary ballot, wouldn't that ruling also apply to the November ballot?
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 22:15:30 -0800 (PST), micky wrote:
I've also heard that if in the end trump is off the Colorado ballot it
will have a big effect on other states, but I don't think so. I think no
legal effect.
I think you're mistaken.
As long as the case stays in the Colorado court system, any ruling
applies only to Colorado. (Even so, state courts traditionally pay
attention to rulings in similar cases in other states, particularly
rulings by a state's highest court, even though they are not legally
bound to follow them.)
But when the Supreme Court rules, that's it. Unless it's something
that by its very nature applies only to one particular case -- and
the Supreme Court tends not to accept that sort of case -- the ruling
applies nationwide, and all state and Federal courts are bound by it.
If Trump had more intelligence than a radish, he would _not_ appeal
the Colorado ruling to the Federal courts, to prevent a nationwide
ruling against him. But of course he's constitutionally incapable of
thinking that he might lose.
(Normally an appeal would go to a
circuit court of appeals, and the decision would be binding only in
that circuit, but since a state is a party the appeal would go direct
to the Supreme Court. Even so, if I'm not mistaken, the Supreme Court
has discretion to decline to take the appeal, in which case the
ruling would stand in Colorado but not be a legally binding precedent
elsewhere.)
The Colorado republican party is
considering switching from a primary to caucus system to get around
the State Supreme Court ruling that Trump is ineligible to be on the
primary ballot due to presumed 14th Amendment violations.
But this is what confuses me. If the US Supreme Court upholds the
finding that Trump is ineligible to be on the primary ballot, wouldn't
that ruling also apply to the November ballot?
The legal issue wasn't about the primary per se, but about whether Trump
is eligible to serve as President again. If he can't serve, then it's a
waste of time and paper to put him on either the primary ballot or the Presidential one next November. If the decision is upheld, that is what
it will be about.
The Repubs are a private organization. Â They can nominate whoever they please. Â If they nominate someone who can't assume office, too bad, they threw away their votes.
The Colorado judge's decision is an abuse of authority, a power grab.
The Constitution says nothing about who may RUN for office.
(*) In the specific case of the presidency, the Constitution does say
who takes office: "... if the President elect shall have failed to
qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified ..." (20th Amendment, section 3) But
you still have the problem of everyone who voted for the ineligible
person having their votes wasted.
Of course not; it doesn't need to. Can a 33-year-old run for President? Obviously not, because they won't be 35 by Inauguration Day.
(*) In the specific case of the presidency, the Constitution does say
who takes office:
"... if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President
elect shall act as President until a  President shall have qualified ..." >> (20th Amendment, section 3)
But you still have the problem of everyone who
voted for the ineligible  person having their votes wasted.
No. They knew that the person was ineligible, and decided to vote for him anyway. That makes it
either a protest vote (against the decision that he was ineligible) or a
vote for the person's running mate. The VP-elect is automatically
promoted to President-Elect.
On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 13:27:18 -0800, Stan Brown wrote:
Of course not; it doesn't need to. Can a 33-year-old run for
President? Obviously not, because they won't be 35 by Inauguration
Day.
Only today I am reading of a Turkish born US citizen who wants to sue
the US for discriminating against him in refusing to let him run for
POTUS.
https://www.rawstory.com/2-presidential-candidates-tossed-off-sc-ballot
s- sue-and-one-wants-trump-off-too/
In November 2024, the Second Coming appears, to save America from Biden/Trump. Â He looks to be a lock. Â However... per his birth certificate, he turns 35 on July 15, 2025. A federal judge, reading the PLAIN MEANING
of the 14th amendment, DQs him from every state ballot, as unable to assume office on January 21.
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 13:27:18 -0800, Stan Brown wrote:
Of course not; it doesn't need to. Can a 33-year-old run for
President? Obviously not, because they won't be 35 by Inauguration
Day.
Only today I am reading of a Turkish born US citizen who wants to sue
the US for discriminating against him in refusing to let him run for
POTUS.
https://www.rawstory.com/2-presidential-candidates-tossed-off-sc-ballot
s- sue-and-one-wants-trump-off-too/
By definition the Constitution can't be unconstitutional.
On 1/8/2024 9:31 PM, RichD wrote:
In November 2024, the Second Coming appears, to save America from
Biden/Trump. He looks to be a lock. However... per his birth
certificate,
he turns 35 on July 15, 2025. A federal judge, reading the PLAIN MEANING
of the 14th amendment, DQs him from every state ballot, as unable to
assume
office on January 21.
Don't blame me. Blame the people who wrote the Constitution.
See also "lifeboat case" and "trolley problem". Given any system of ethics >and/or rules for governing people, one can postulate a situation where it >will produce an obviously undesirable result.
In November 2024, the Second Coming appears, to save America from
Biden/Trump. Â He looks to be a lock. Â However... per his birth certificate,
he turns 35 on July 15, 2025.
A federal judge, reading the PLAIN MEANING of the 14th amendment,
DQs him from every state ballot, as unable to assume
office on January 21.
Blame the people who wrote the Constitution.
The Constitution says nothing about who may RUN for office.
Of course not; it doesn't need to. Can a 33-year-old run for
President? Obviously not, because they won't be 35 by Inauguration
Day.
Some idiots -- err, "misguided persons" -- say, "Let the people decide."
They _did_ decide, 150 years ago.
On January 7, Â Stan Brown wrote:
The Constitution says nothing about who may RUN for office.
Of course not; it doesn't need to. Can a 33-year-old run for
President? Obviously not, because they won't be 35 by Inauguration
Day.
Incorrect. READ THE TEXT.
Some idiots -- err, "misguided persons" -- say, "Let the people decide." They _did_ decide, 150 years ago.
I'll spell it out. Â The 14th amendment EXPLICITLY CONSIDERS that an unqualified candidate might win. Â Which means the voters might vote
him in, duh! It further stipulates that he may not assume office, on
the determined day. Â It DOESN'T mandate that he's barred from office indefinitely.
In the toy example above, Â the Messiah is barred from the oath on
January 21, hence the VP steps in. Â He qualifies on July 15. Â Is it reasonable to deny voters their choice?
That Colorado hack is a power grabber, rewriting the Constitution
to fit his own agenda. The Supremes have to slap him down.
The 14th amendment EXPLICITLY CONSIDERS that an
unqualified candidate might win. Which means the voters might vote
him in, duh! It further stipulates that he may not assume office, on
the determined day.
It DOESN'T mandate that he's barred from office
indefinitely.
It doesn't explicity say that an unqualified candidate can win.
It does say that he can't "hold office." You're right, it doesn't say that he can't run for office. But if he can't hold office, it's a reasonable extrapolation to say he can't run for office, because it would be a waste
of time, effort and money.
And yes that person IS barred from office indefinitely UNLESS two-thirds
of both houses of Congress remove that disability.
In the toy example above, the Messiah is barred from the oath on
January 21, hence the VP steps in. He qualifies on July 15. Is it
reasonable to deny voters their choice?
That's what a court will probably decide.
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
[quoted text muted]
It doesn't explicity say that an unqualified candidate can win. It does
say that he can't "hold office." You're right, it doesn't say that he
can't run for office. But if he can't hold office, it's a reasonable extrapolation to say he can't run for office, because it would be a
waste of time, effort and money.
The Constitution EXPLICITLY PERMITS the rescission of disability of a
barred winning candidate. Yet you find it a "reasonable extrapolation"
to deny the voters that choice, because the Shepherds wish to save the Sheeple time and money.
Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
[quoted text muted]
It doesn't explicity say that an unqualified candidate can win. It
does say that he can't "hold office." You're right, it doesn't say
that he can't run for office. But if he can't hold office, it's a
reasonable extrapolation to say he can't run for office, because it
would be a waste of time, effort and money.
Are there laws (apart from physics) that prevent people building - or
trying to build - perpetual motion machines ? Or does the law just step
in when you try and sell such a beast with lies ?
If you need laws to prevent people wasting their time and money, your
courts will be very busy.
Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
The 14th amendment EXPLICITLY CONSIDERS that an
unqualified candidate might win. Which means the voters might vote
him in, duh! It further stipulates that he may not assume office, on
the determined day.
It DOESN'T mandate that he's barred from office
indefinitely.
It doesn't explicity say that an unqualified candidate can win.
"... if the President elect shall have failed to qualify"
The President elect... that's the guy who got the most electoral
college votes. Normally, we call him "the winner"
It does say that he can't "hold office." You're right, it doesn't say
that he can't run for office. But if he can't hold office, it's a
reasonable extrapolation to say he can't run for office, because it
would be a waste of time, effort and money.
And yes that person IS barred from office indefinitely UNLESS
two-thirds of both houses of Congress remove that disability.
Nicely self contradicted!
The Constitution EXPLICITLY PERMITS the rescission of disability of a
barred winning candidate. Yet you find it a "reasonable
extrapolation" to deny the voters that choice, because the Shepherds
wish to save the Sheeple time and money.
In the toy example above, the Messiah is barred from the oath on
January 21, hence the VP steps in. He qualifies on July 15. Is it
reasonable to deny voters their choice?
That's what a court will probably decide.
The question isn't, what will a judge arbitrarily decide? The question
is, if he turns 35 on July 15, hence qualified at that point, is it reasonable to deny the voters their choice?
The Constitution EXPLICITLY PERMITS the rescission of disability of a
barred winning candidate. Yet you find it a "reasonable extrapolation"
to deny the voters that choice, because the Shepherds wish to save the
Sheeple time and money.
Good grief.
Just how likely do you think it is that this Congress
would be able to muster a two-thirds vote in both
houses to do _anything_, much less remove Trump's 14th
Amendment disability?
On 1/7/2024 1:27 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
(*) In the specific case of the presidency, the Constitution does say
who takes office: "... if the President elect shall have failed to
qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a
President shall have qualified ..." (20th Amendment, section 3) But
you still have the problem of everyone who voted for the ineligible
person having their votes wasted.
No. They knew (or should have known, given the court ruling) that the
person was ineligible, and decided to vote for him anyway. That makes it >either a protest vote (against the decision that he was ineligible) or a
vote for the person's running mate. The VP-elect is automatically
promoted to President-Elect.
It's not about what is reasonable or not. It's about what the law is.
If someone breaks into your house and is arrested, can he avoid going to
jail because he comes up with some reason that his breaking into your
house is "reasonable"?
On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 13:27:18 -0800, Stan Brown wrote:
Of course not; it doesn't need to. Can a 33-year-old run for President?
Obviously not, because they won't be 35 by Inauguration Day.
Only today I am reading of a Turkish born US citizen who wants to sue the
US for discriminating against him in refusing to let him run for POTUS.
https://www.rawstory.com/2-presidential-candidates-tossed-off-sc-ballots- >sue-and-one-wants-trump-off-too/
On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 17:43:28 -0800, RichD wrote:
The Repubs are a private organization. They can nominate whoever they
please. If they nominate someone who can't assume office, too bad, they
threw away their votes.
A potential (weasel ?) way out for SCOTUS would be to say the 14th
amendment only applies when someone tries to take office.
Leaves the GOP in an uncertain position about nominating Trump.
In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:44:22 -0800 (PST),
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:
This is a bit confusing to me. The Colorado republican party is >>considering switching from a primary to caucus system to get around the >>State Supreme Court ruling that Trump is ineligible to be on the primary >>ballot due to presumed 14th Amendment violations. The idea is that if the >>US Supreme Court upholds the state SC decision, it would at least be a way >>to get Trump on the ballot in November if he wins the caucus.
But this is what confuses me. If the US Supreme Court upholds the finding >>that Trump is ineligible to be on the primary ballot, wouldn't that ruling >>also apply to the November ballot? I realize that the lawsuit filed was >>specifically for the primary, but in the event the US Supreme Court upholds >>the ruling, isn't the logical next step that Colorado would ask the Court to >>apply it to the general election as well?
AFAIK Colorado was not the plaintiff in this case, but yes, the same >plaintiffs would surely sue again, this time with a very clear precedent
to support them. The plaintiffs in this week's case were 6 Republicans.
Not a Democrat among them.
I heard the Colorado Sec. of State on the tv-radio and she's plainly
very much in favor of keeping him off, but of course, she says she'll do
what the courts decide. Wasn't it she, her office, which defended the
case, and lost?
I've also heard stories that if the ussc takes the case but doesn't rule >before the printing deadline, a semi-clever way to help trump without
taking a position, he'll get on the primary ballot, but she said iiuc
that he would not. Her position makes more sense to me.
I've also heard that if in the end trump is off the Colorado ballot it
will have a big effect on other states, but I don't think so. I think no >legal effect. Encouragement for other lawsuits maybe but Colorado's law
is more specific than other states'. Don't remember how but I would
think ??????? that means it specifies the remedy, removal from the
ballot.
And is there any reason the
Court would uphold blocking him from the primary but not the general?
Not that I can think of but see sig.
Note - I'm not convinced the US SC will actually uphold the Colorado >>decision. It just seems that whichever way they decide, there's really not >>much point in the Colorado GOP switching from primary to caucus.
Here are a couple links to keep you busy:
Advance sheet headnote for the Colorado decsion. >https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/38112584-ce79-4a11-9671-6a3ad2f97ef3.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4
Interestingly, they manage to cite Neil Gorsuch, who was a judge in
Colorado earlier, and his words give support to banning trump. It will
be interesting to watch his vote.
1 instance of Gorsuch but 9 instance of Hassan, which is the case he was >involved in.
I only looked for the plaintiff, not the whole case, but this will give
you an idea of the iissues. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hassan_(lawyer) -- I"m not sure if
this link will work without some attention, since in my reader (lawyer)
is not underlined like the rest of it. ????
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote
[quoted text muted]
It only becomes illegal when someone actually tries to defraud someone
else. But that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.
[quoted text muted]
You're mixing apples and bananas.
On January 13, Stan Brown wrote:
The Constitution EXPLICITLY PERMITS the rescission of disability of a
barred winning candidate. Yet you find it a "reasonable extrapolation"
to deny the voters that choice, because the Shepherds wish to save the
Sheeple time and money.
Good grief.
Just how likely do you think it is that this Congress
would be able to muster a two-thirds vote in both
houses to do _anything_, much less remove Trump's 14th
Amendment disability?
egad
A judge has the authority to deny the voters their right to vote, using
"how likely is it" as his constitutional reasoning?
Now I've heard it all -
--
Rich
Stan Brown wrote:extrapolation"
The Constitution EXPLICITLY PERMITS the rescission of disability of a
barred winning candidate. Yet you find it a "reasonable
theto deny the voters that choice, because the Shepherds wish to save
Sheeple time and money.
Good grief.
Just how likely do you think it is that this Congress
would be able to muster a two-thirds vote in both
houses to do _anything_, much less remove Trump's 14th
Amendment disability?
egad
A judge has the authority to deny the voters their right to vote, using
"how likely is it" as his constitutional reasoning?
Now I've heard it all -
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 7 Jan 2024 17:21:50 -0800 (PST), Barry
Gold <barrydgold@ca.rr.com> wrote:
On 1/7/2024 1:27 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
(*) In the specific case of the presidency, the Constitution does say
who takes office: "... if the President elect shall have failed to
qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a
President shall have qualified ..." (20th Amendment, section 3) But
you still have the problem of everyone who voted for the ineligible
person having their votes wasted.
No. They knew (or should have known, given the court ruling) that the >>person was ineligible, and decided to vote for him anyway. That makes it >>either a protest vote (against the decision that he was ineligible) or a >>vote for the person's running mate. The VP-elect is automatically
promoted to President-Elect.
What if the pres-elect and vp-elect both die between election and inaugurations days?
What if the pres-elect and vp-elect both die between election and >inaugurations days?
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 7 Jan 2024 17:21:50 -0800 (PST), Barry
Gold <barrydgold@ca.rr.com> wrote:
On 1/7/2024 1:27 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
(*) In the specific case of the presidency, the Constitution does say
who takes office: "... if the President elect shall have failed to
qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a
President shall have qualified ..." (20th Amendment, section 3) But
you still have the problem of everyone who voted for the ineligible
person having their votes wasted.
No. They knew (or should have known, given the court ruling) that the >>person was ineligible, and decided to vote for him anyway. That makes it >>either a protest vote (against the decision that he was ineligible) or a >>vote for the person's running mate. The VP-elect is automatically
promoted to President-Elect.
What if the pres-elect and vp-elect both die between election and >inaugurations days?
What if the pres-elect and vp-elect both die between election and
inaugurations days?
The Speaker of the House is next in line.
--
According to micky <misc07@fmguy.com>:
What if the pres-elect and vp-elect both die between election and
inaugurations days?
It's lucky that the 20th Amendment, Sections 3 and 4, anticipated this situation, isn't it?
Also see the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.
According to micky <misc07@fmguy.com>:
What if the pres-elect and vp-elect both die between election and
inaugurations days?
It's lucky that the 20th Amendment, Sections 3 and 4, anticipated this situation, isn't it?
Also see the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.
On 1/14/2024 10:35 AM, John Levine wrote:
According to micky <misc07@fmguy.com>:
What if the pres-elect and vp-elect both die between election and
inaugurations days?
It's lucky that the 20th Amendment, Sections 3 and 4, anticipated this
situation, isn't it?
Also see the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.
Section 3 covers the President elect and Vice President elect. I think
that title applies after the electoral college meets.
So there are periods:
1) From election until the electoral college meets
2) From electoral college to Congress certifying the results
3) From Congressional certification to inauguration
On 1/14/2024 11:21 AM, Roy wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:35 AM, John Levine wrote:
According to micky <misc07@fmguy.com>:
What if the pres-elect and vp-elect both die between election and
inaugurations days?
It's lucky that the 20th Amendment, Sections 3 and 4, anticipated
this situation, isn't it?
Also see the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.
Section 3 covers the President elect and Vice President elect. I
think that title applies after the electoral college meets.
So there are periods:
1) From election until the electoral college meets
2) From electoral college to Congress certifying the results
3) From Congressional certification to inauguration
I believe that there is no "President elect" until the electoral college meets.
There is no federal law controlling who the electors can vote for.
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 7 Jan 2024 17:21:50 -0800 (PST), Barry
Gold <barrydgold@ca.rr.com> wrote:
On 1/7/2024 1:27 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
(*) In the specific case of the presidency, the Constitution does say
who takes office: "... if the President elect shall have failed to
qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a
President shall have qualified ..." (20th Amendment, section 3) But
you still have the problem of everyone who voted for the ineligible
person having their votes wasted.
No. They knew (or should have known, given the court ruling) that the
person was ineligible, and decided to vote for him anyway. That makes it
either a protest vote (against the decision that he was ineligible) or a
vote for the person's running mate. The VP-elect is automatically
promoted to President-Elect.
What if the pres-elect and vp-elect both die between election and inaugurations days?
What if the pres-elect and vp-elect both die between election and
inaugurations days?
If it happens before December 17, the electors are free to choose
someone else. That would not be an entirely bad thing: I think there are better potential Presidents in both parties.
If it happens after the electors cast their ballots but before December
25, it's conceivable that the electors might meet again and choose
somebody else.
After December 25, it would be up to Congress. The House of
Representatives would choose the President (voting by states, not by individuals) and the Senate would choose the VP.
If it happens after January 6, the Speaker of the House would become President on January 20. It might be possible for them to decline, but
my guess is they would take it.
See
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/key-dates https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec1.html
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
Stan Brown wrote:
extrapolation"The Constitution EXPLICITLY PERMITS the rescission of disability of a
barred winning candidate. Yet you find it a "reasonable
theto deny the voters that choice, because the Shepherds wish to save
Sheeple time and money.
Good grief.
Just how likely do you think it is that this Congress
would be able to muster a two-thirds vote in both
houses to do _anything_, much less remove Trump's 14th
Amendment disability?
egad
A judge has the authority to deny the voters their right to vote, using
"how likely is it" as his constitutional reasoning?
Now I've heard it all -
No, you've got it backwards. The Constitution says that someone who
supports insurrection is unqualified for public office. If a court finds someone is unqualified, that is when Congress can act. A judge can't
just determine that Congress might act and, as a result, ignore the law.
I switched this to the Dead Candidate thread
On 1/17/2024 9:21 AM, Barry Gold wrote:
What if the pres-elect and vp-elect both die between election and
inaugurations days?
If it happens before December 17, the electors are free to choose
someone else. That would not be an entirely bad thing: I think there
are better potential Presidents in both parties.
If it happens after the electors cast their ballots but before
December 25, it's conceivable that the electors might meet again and
choose somebody else.
After December 25, it would be up to Congress. The House of
Representatives would choose the President (voting by states, not by
individuals) and the Senate would choose the VP.
If it happens after January 6, the Speaker of the House would become
President on January 20. It might be possible for them to decline, but
my guess is they would take it.
See
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/key-dates
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec1.html
The 20th amendment Section 3 also applies. Excerpt:
"the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a
President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified,
declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one
who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly
until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
Stan Brown wrote:extrapolation"
The Constitution EXPLICITLY PERMITS the rescission of disability
of a barred winning candidate. Yet you find it a "reasonable
theto deny the voters that choice, because the Shepherds wish to save
Sheeple time and money.
Good grief.
Just how likely do you think it is that this Congress
would be able to muster a two-thirds vote in both
houses to do _anything_, much less remove Trump's 14th
Amendment disability?
egad
A judge has the authority to deny the voters their right to vote,
using "how likely is it" as his constitutional reasoning?
Now I've heard it all -
No, you've got it backwards. The Constitution says that someone who
supports insurrection is unqualified for public office. If a court
finds someone is unqualified, that is when Congress can act. A judge
can't just determine that Congress might act and, as a result, ignore
the law.
The Fourteenth amendment doesn't say who decides if a given candidate
is unqualified. I consider that a flaw, but that's the way things
stand. Maybe after this election we'll get an amendment to clarify
that.
Personally I think it should require conviction by "a jury of their
peers," but there's nothing about that in the Constitution.
This hasn't arisen before, AFAIK. After the Civil War, most of the
people who had fought for the Confederacy were proud of it and didn't
attempt to run for office until after Congress voted a blanket
amnesty.
But Trump isn't proud of what he did on January 6. Quite the contrary,
he's been saying, "It's not my fault." So maybe it should be up to a
court and a jury. But the Constitution says that each state decides
how electors are chosen. In theory, the legislature could take back
that power -- allowing a direct vote of the people is a choice made by
the states, not specified by the Constitution.
However it goes, it's a mess.
If it happens after January 6, the Speaker of the House would become >President on January 20. It might be possible for them to decline, but
my guess is they would take it.
If one doesn't want to use the default "him" when the sex of a person is unknown, I would suggest "hir", which is clearly singular. Using
"them" is very confusing.
Barry Gold <barrydgold@ca.rr.com> wrote:
If it happens after January 6, the Speaker of the House would become >>President on January 20. It might be possible for them to decline, but
If one doesn't want to use the default "him" when the sex of a person is unknown, I would suggest "hir", which is clearly singular. Using
"them" is very confusing. Are there several people who would have to
decline one after another?
my guess is they would take it.
In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 17 Jan 2024 09:21:38 -0800 (PST), Barry
Gold <barrydgold@ca.rr.com> wrote:
If it happens after January 6, the Speaker of the House would become >>President on January 20. It might be possible for them to decline, but
If one doesn't want to use the default "him" when the sex of a person is >unknown, I would suggest "hir", which is clearly singular. Using
"them" is very confusing. Are there several people who would have to
decline one after another?
my guess is they would take it.
"micky" wrote in message news:c7cb6jtpid6h32vm33dm42dpqsiv43bakf@4ax.com... >>
In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 17 Jan 2024 09:21:38 -0800 (PST), Barry >>Gold <barrydgold@ca.rr.com> wrote:
If it happens after January 6, the Speaker of the House would become >>>President on January 20. It might be possible for them to decline, but
If one doesn't want to use the default "him" when the sex of a person is >>unknown, I would suggest "hir", which is clearly singular. Using
"them" is very confusing. Are there several people who would have to >>decline one after another?
my guess is they would take it.
What's wrong with "him or her"?
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:32:14 -0700 (PDT), "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
my guess is they would take it.
What's wrong with "him or her"?
Nothing wrong with that either.
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:32:14 -0700 (PDT), "Rick" ><rick@nospam.com> wrote:
"micky" wrote in message >>news:c7cb6jtpid6h32vm33dm42dpqsiv43bakf@4ax.com...
In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 17 Jan 2024 09:21:38 -0800 (PST), Barry >>>Gold <barrydgold@ca.rr.com> wrote:
If it happens after January 6, the Speaker of the House would become >>>>President on January 20. It might be possible for them to decline, but
If one doesn't want to use the default "him" when the sex of a person is >>>unknown, I would suggest "hir", which is clearly singular. Using
"them" is very confusing. Are there several people who would have to >>>decline one after another?
my guess is they would take it.
What's wrong with "him or her"?
Nothing wrong with that either.
Despite the logic of the defenses in the first two posts, the fact
remains that most of us didn't learn our English from Shakespeare and
it's confusing to see they as a singular, and it will remain so because
there will be many times when there is a possible plural antecedent,
while "him or her" and "hir" are not confusing (once one is acquainted
with "hir").
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:42:05 -0700 (PDT), micky wrote:
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:32:14 -0700 (PDT), "Rick"
<rick@nospam.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
my guess is they would take it.
What's wrong with "him or her"?
Nothing wrong with that either.
And what about nonbinary people?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 67:10:52 |
| Calls: | 6,915 |
| Files: | 12,379 |
| Messages: | 5,431,769 |