SCOTUS

[jfish26]

But the thing is, Obama would have to actually be from Kenya, not just some political opponents claiming he was.

Kind of like how trump would have to actually be an insurrectionist, not just political opponents trying to claim that

This is childish. The law on this is quite well-settled.

[randylahey]

You're just whinging and making shit up at this point. I'm not going to argue semantics with you. In no way did I say or imply that

Also: 9-0. Trump is on the ballot. Has a good shot at winning even. Better hope the democrats switch biden out for someone else last minute, as we all expect

Have a great day

[jfish26]

You're just whinging and making shit up at this point. I'm not going to argue semantics with you. In no way did I say or imply that

Also: 9-0. Trump is on the ballot. Has a good shot at winning even. Better hope the democrats switch biden out for someone else last minute, as we all expect

Have a great day

I'm not making anything up. Did you NOT say that if the people vote for a Kenyan-born person, that is what should control over the Constitutional eligibility provisions?

[randylahey]

You're just whinging and making shit up at this point. I'm not going to argue semantics with you. In no way did I say or imply that

Also: 9-0. Trump is on the ballot. Has a good shot at winning even. Better hope the democrats switch biden out for someone else last minute, as we all expect

Have a great day

I'm not making anything up. Did you NOT say that if the people vote for a Kenyan-born person, that is what should control over the Constitutional eligibility provisions?

Was he born in Kenya? Or did some people just claim he was

We already went through that reality, and there was not a legal attempt to remove Obama from the ballot

[jfish26]

You're just whinging and making shit up at this point. I'm not going to argue semantics with you. In no way did I say or imply that

Also: 9-0. Trump is on the ballot. Has a good shot at winning even. Better hope the democrats switch biden out for someone else last minute, as we all expect

Have a great day

I'm not making anything up. Did you NOT say that if the people vote for a Kenyan-born person, that is what should control over the Constitutional eligibility provisions?

Was he born in Kenya? Or did some people just claim he was

We already went through that reality, and there was not a legal attempt to remove Obama from the ballot

Stop evading the point.

The point is that you have said, now about two different Constitutional eligibility provisions, that you think the outcome of an election should be determinative.

I'm not saying that is "good" or "bad" or anything in between.

But the position you have taken is that the outcome of an election should be determinative, over the Constitution.

[randylahey]

I'm not making anything up. Did you NOT say that if the people vote for a Kenyan-born person, that is what should control over the Constitutional eligibility provisions?

Was he born in Kenya? Or did some people just claim he was

We already went through that reality, and there was not a legal attempt to remove Obama from the ballot

Stop evading the point.

The point is that you have said, now about two different Constitutional eligibility provisions, that you think the outcome of an election should be determinative.

I'm not saying that is "good" or "bad" or anything in between.

But the position you have taken is that the outcome of an election should be determinative, over the Constitution.

You don't get to tell other people what their position is.

I just didn't play along with your stupid Kenya analogy.

It doesn't appear that Obama is actually from Kenya, or that Trump is actually an insurrectionist. So neither could be taken off the ballot

The only difference is nobody actually tried to remove Obama from the ballot

[jfish26]

Was he born in Kenya? Or did some people just claim he was

We already went through that reality, and there was not a legal attempt to remove Obama from the ballot

Stop evading the point.

The point is that you have said, now about two different Constitutional eligibility provisions, that you think the outcome of an election should be determinative.

I'm not saying that is "good" or "bad" or anything in between.

But the position you have taken is that the outcome of an election should be determinative, over the Constitution.

You don't get to tell other people what their position is.

I just didn't play along with your stupid Kenya analogy.

It doesn't appear that Obama is actually from Kenya, or that Trump is actually an insurrectionist. So neither could be taken off the ballot

The only difference is nobody actually tried to remove Obama from the ballot

Stop saying things that don't matter.

This was you, unedited:

I get it you guys are upset that you couldn't get trump removed from the ballot.

Personally I don't think anyone should ever be removed from a ballot. That isn't how this country is supposed to work. Let the people decide. If someone truly did something worth being taken off a ballot, they'd never get elected by the people anyways

So, if Obama had been born in Kenya after all...let the people decide?

Yes. Obama to me was very controversial, he did some things I agreed with, and some I didn't. I would have loved ron paul in 2008, but the republicans marched out their own deep state puppet instead to go against the dem's. I'm not delusional enough to want him removed from a ballot

Removing candidates is a very dark path our country is flirting with. Fortunately, the courts overruled it

[randylahey]

Was there proof Obama was born in Kenya? Or just his political opponents saying it? If there was no proof, then the people should be able to decide if they want to vote for him or not

Exact same situation with trump. His political opponents have been using the word "insurrection" repeatedly. Even though that did not happen. So the people should be able to decide if they want to vote for him

[randylahey]

Fish what was the Supreme courts ruling? Was it 9-0? Unanimous?
Even the progressive justices voted in favor of keeping trump or the ballot. Just give it up kid. You didn't get your way this time. Maybe you will next time

[Sparko]

DC , this was a partisan decision by a partisan court. I came slowly to believe that the 14th was self activated. After being hounded about saying Congress should act in 2021. But Congress has acted by simple majorities in declaring Trump an insurrectionist for impeachment. But now, what constitutes congressional assent? Just a senate vote?

[jfish26]

Fish what was the Supreme courts ruling? Was it 9-0? Unanimous?
Even the progressive justices voted in favor of keeping trump or the ballot. Just give it up kid. You didn't get your way this time. Maybe you will next time

You continue to misunderstand the meaning of 9-0.

[jfish26]

Was there proof Obama was born in Kenya? Or just his political opponents saying it? If there was no proof, then the people should be able to decide if they want to vote for him or not

Exact same situation with trump. His political opponents have been using the word "insurrection" repeatedly. Even though that did not happen. So the people should be able to decide if they want to vote for him

Again, you bring things up that do not matter when we are talking about the position you took.

You were asked if the will of the people should control over the text of the Constitution. Your answer was, "Yes."

[KUTradition]

i’m not sure if this is tying one’s self in knots, or shitting little rings around one’s self…i do know that it’s pretty amazing the lengths some people will go to keep from owning up to their own words

[DCHawk1]

DC , this was a partisan decision by a partisan court. I came slowly to believe that the 14th was self activated. After being hounded about saying Congress should act in 2021. But Congress has acted by simple majorities in declaring Trump an insurrectionist for impeachment. But now, what constitutes congressional assent? Just a senate vote?

[jfish26]

i’m not sure if this is tying one’s self in knots, or shitting little rings around one’s self…i do know that it’s pretty amazing the lengths some people will go to keep from owning up to their own words

Speaking of.

Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress. The Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.

[...]

[T]he people of the States need not point to any affirmative grant of power in the Constitution in order to prescribe qualifications for their representatives in Congress, or to authorize their elected state legislators to do so. Our system of government rests on one overriding principle: all power stems from the consent of the people. To phrase the principle in this way, however, is to be imprecise about something important to the notion of "reserved" powers. The ultimate source of the Constitution's authority is the consent of the people of each individual State, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole.

[...]

While the individual States have no "reserved" power to set qualifications for the office of President, we have long understood that they do have the power (as far as the Federal Constitution is concerned) to set qualifications for their Presidential electors--the delegates that each State selects to represent it in the electoral college that actually chooses the Nation's chief executive. Even respondents do not dispute that the States may establish qualifications for their delegates to the electoral college, as long as those qualifications pass muster under other constitutional provisions.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (Thomas, J., dissenting).

For those who - fortunately, for them - do not know this, the "J." is for the title Justice.

(This is also a good illustration of why the minority here prudently did NOT dissent.)

[Shirley]

Because they serve a party and not the constitution

i actually have little issue putting the onus on congress…if congress could be trusted

It was a unanimous decision.

It will be interesting to hear what Judge Luttig has to say.

'Stunning in its overreach'

CNN's Jake Tapper talks to retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig about the Supreme Court's ruling that former President Donald Trump should appear on the ballot in Colorado, a ruling that Judge Luttig predicted would go differently.

[Sparko]

DC will have to send Luttig the rollling eyes emoji.

[jfish26]

i actually have little issue putting the onus on congress…if congress could be trusted

It was a unanimous decision.

It will be interesting to hear what Judge Luttig has to say.

'Stunning in its overreach'

CNN's Jake Tapper talks to retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig about the Supreme Court's ruling that former President Donald Trump should appear on the ballot in Colorado, a ruling that Judge Luttig predicted would go differently.

Is "a ruling that Judge Luttig predicted would go differently" accurate?

[DCHawk1]

DC will have to send Luttig the rollling eyes emoji.

I'm sure there are emergency services in your area.

You should have someone sober find out.

[Shirley]

It was a unanimous decision.

It will be interesting to hear what Judge Luttig has to say.

'Stunning in its overreach'

CNN's Jake Tapper talks to retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig about the Supreme Court's ruling that former President Donald Trump should appear on the ballot in Colorado, a ruling that Judge Luttig predicted would go differently.

Is "a ruling that Judge Luttig predicted would go differently" accurate?

^^^

Conservative Former Judge All In On Colorado Decision Barring Donald Trump From Ballot
He includes a bold Supreme Court prediction too.

By KATHRYN RUBINO
December 20, 2023

Retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig — a noted conservative, I should add — appeared on MSNBC last night to praise the decision. Judge Luttig was quite enamored with the decision, which focused on the traditional conservative catnip of textualism and states’ rights, calling it “a masterful judicial opinion of constitutional law” that “will stand the test of the time.”

This isn’t the first time Luttig has broken from the Trumpian cult of personality the modern conservative legal movement has devolved into. And he seems optimistic at least five Supreme Court justices will agree with him, predicting the Court “will affirm this decision.”