Kansas Crimson

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:21 pm 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

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:27 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:29 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:27 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:32 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:29 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:27 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:37 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:32 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:29 pm

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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:41 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:37 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:32 pm

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

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:57 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:51 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:48 am 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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:55 pm 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

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:54 pm 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

Sparko wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 2:07 pm 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?

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 2:47 pm 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

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.

Shirley wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:19 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:09 am

Sparko wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:07 am 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.

Shirley wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 4:17 pm

Shirley wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:19 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:09 am

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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 4:20 pm DC will have to send Luttig the rollling eyes emoji.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 4:58 pm

Shirley wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 4:17 pm

Shirley wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:19 am

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?