quote:… Six Colorado voters argued that Trump had run afoul of a post-Civil War law that bars people who took an oath to support the Constitution from engaging in an insurrection or rebellion. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has never been used against a presidential candidate, and it’s only been deployed eight times since the 1860s.
That sparse record contributed to the high court’s decision Monday.
“Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,” the court decision concluded. …
Two shallow “impeachments” could not find Trump did what these voters claimed. Also funny how the opinion of these six voters overruled any semblance of rule of law, briefly.
Posts: 785 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just like SCOTUS ruled unanimously, I do hold that the voters should have their choice. Even if the thought of Trump as POTUS47 is repugnant, just as such is with many people I know, the voters at large should make that choice.
Even if I am ideologically opposed with the views of The Supremes on more issues than not of late, I think they made the right call in this instance.
Posts: 10622 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The effort to get a person thrown off a ballot says loud and clear that these people do not trust the voters and want to make their choice for them. Having someone removed from the ballot should only happen if a person has been CONVICTED of a serious criminal offense, and claiming that the results of an election outcome were dishonest is not one of them. Getting someone thrown off the ballot is common in many places where they want to maintain the facade of a multiparty democracy without having the substance thereof.
Posts: 2938 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
