Maine strips Trump from the ballot, inflaming legal war over his candidacy

I believe it will be 9-0'd. There's no factual basis for either Colorado or Maine's decision. Nor is there standing to make the claims. But it's not about Trump. As Spiritgide pointed out, this strikes at the heart of our system even more than 1/6/2020. It is an attempt to derive from the people not just an opportunity to vote for a candidate, but also to vote against said candidate as well.

In many ways, since it lacks standing and any factual basis, one must call it frivolous especially since the claim was already rejected the first time. Given Eastman's legal troubles for much the same, I think it would be poetic justice for the bar to ban the 4 justices as well as this secretary of state in Maine from practicing law.

 

There are qualifications to be President.

If someone announced that they were running for President but was only 29 years old would you think that free and fair elections were a thing of the past if states started ruling that the 29 year old can't be on the ballot?

 

And Trump obviously meets those qualifications. So why do you want to restrict candidates who are qualified to run for office?

 

The rich getting richer has been the gops economic plan for 40 years….suddenly you don’t like it?

 

I'm in the 1%. I got poorer under Trump. And Joe Biden didn't change the tax laws back to what they were prior to Trump. Why? Because the Democrat plan has been everyone gets poorer.

 

So using that logic, a sitting president would be immune because he could not be convicted while president….or ever according to trump

 

One of the qualifications is from the 14th Amendment. A candidate cannot have engaged in insurrection.

 

Presidents can’t change tax laws….and y’all claim to read the constitution?

 

Not a single person in America has been indicted for an insurrection in decades. Riots aren't insurrections. The reason not a single person has been indicted is because the legal threshold has not been met. But keep pretending, we'll see how well that works out for you.

 

When their party controls Congress, yes. The tax laws negatively impacted blue states. They didn't change the law back. Why?

 

So a state could let a 9yo run for president? Or should they enforce that federal requirement?

 

Nope, he can’t change it then either.

 

Hence, the impeachment process.

 

As has already been pointed out to you. There is only one way to determine that someone engaged in insurrection, which is a crime. And that is through the criminal courts. No matter how much you continue to ignore this FACT does not change it.

 

14th Amendment does not say "convicted" of insurrection....it says "engaged" in an insurrection, or even provided aid and comfort to someone involved in an insurrection.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

For the most part, yes. That's what impeachment is for. It's to prevent rogue and corrupt prosecutors from hamstringing the nation by filing frivolous charges.

The Constitution clearly says charges can only occur after a conviction in the Senate. Whether other parts of the Constitution circumvent that will be decided by the Supreme Court. This is uncharted legal territory because nobody has attempted to do this before. Nobody has ever charged a President with a crime related to their official duties. They generally have immunity just like Congressmen have immunity from their votes and judges have immunity from their judicial decisions.

 

Again, a riot is not an insurrection. If an insurrection occurred somebody would have been charged with it. There is a legal threshold for an insurrection and it was not met.

 

Yeah, there is no "federal law" involved.

ALL elections are administered by the state. Federal Government has no role in administering any election in the US.

 

But trump says he’d still be immune from criminal charges…

 

How old someone is, is not a crime. As such that IS an administrative action. Trying to conflate a non-criminal state of being, to having engaged in a crime, is a highly disingenuous comparison.

 

They will, until then, let the know it alls have their day. In the end the sound of the bubble bursting will be deafening...

At this point there are no convictions of insurrection, that's their Achilles' heel..

 

Why do you think I care what Trump says?

 

And again:

 

This is just one more indication of how far from a Constitutional Republic this nation has gone.

First Colorado and now Maine have barred Trump due to insurrection yet he has never been convicted of that crime...never been charged with that crime...nobody involved in the J6 riot has been convicted or even charged with that crime. I mean, to the best of my knowledge no person associated with J6 has even been charged under 18 USC 2383. I suspect that the main reason nobody has been so charged is that the DoJ would actually need to prove that an insurrection occurred and that's the LAST case they want to lose because the political narrative surrounding "insurrection" would be blown to bits. Politically, it's MUCH more beneficial to use a legal term to charge your political enemies socially instead of legally because proof is actually hard and accusation is as easy as it gets.

 

Except the States still have to follow Federal Law AND the Constitution when administering those elections.

Its funny, when Dems got in power in 2021 they tried passing federal law dictating how States were to administer elections in the most power grabbing move ever. Now suddenly the "Federal Government has no role in administering any election in the US.".... And note: I never once argued that the Federal government couldn't dictate how elections were done. I DID argue against some of what they wanted though. So try to keep that in mind with any whataboutisms you may have.