Posted on 03/04/2024 11:57:20 AM PST by libh8er
The Democrats would have our presidential election reduced to the single candidate farce elections we see in places like Venezuela, Cuba, China or North Korea where the “winner” and only candidate receives 99% of the vote.
“Nope, they are strip mining thieves and the only way to stop their insanity is to elect the most badass guy we can find who will go medieval on them.”
**************
Agree. We need to elect fighters, not appeasers and excuse makers.
We can just keep repeating that like some kind of a mystic mantra... but it isn’t going to change anything...
UNTIL WE FORCE IT TO CHANGE.
These people have a lot of stolen power... and they KNOW it. They will do anything to keep it.
Are you ready to do ANYTHING to disabuse them of that notion?
Wilson and FDR killed that idea long ago..................
The Democrats, in their zeal to save Democracy, take their inspiration from the German Democratic Republic.
If necessary, when all else fails, I took an oath at age 18. It still stands.....................
Anything Congress passes cannot apply directly to President Trump. Any law Congress passes must apply to future acts of Presidents if they think the President is currently excluded from the 14th amendment.
-PJ
These people just don’t know when to quit.
Marxist Democrats are not babes in the political wood and know exactly what they are doing: using President Trump to GOTV and fundraise for them.
Libtards announce new plans to break the law and cheat to beat Trump
But if the court gives him immunity, their stupid bill will make them look like fools. Itis rumored that the court has already decided on the full immunity. You can’t have the political prosecution of a President. It is just political chaos.
That's not what SCOTUS ruled.
They said that the Presidency is an office of ALL THE PEOPLE and that a single state cannot disqualify the President from their ballot.
Whether Congress can "ban Trump" is another matter.
First, any act of Congress cannot be a bill of attainder (a punitive law against a single subject), nor can it be ex post facto (making something criminal after the act had occurred).
Second, the President is absent from the list of federal offices in the 14th amendment. This clearly supports the SCOTUS ruling that offices that represent single states was the intended scope of the 14th amendment.
Third, anything Congress does must address the limitations of the second point. Congress cannot simply legislate that the President is now included in the 14th amendment. Only another amendment can alter an existing amendment.
Fourth, Congress can pass a law describing exactly which behaviors constitute "insurrection" for purposes of the 14th amendment, perhaps even making them specific to Representatives, Senators, and Electors, but any law will have to pertain to future actions of said people, not past actions.
Fifth, any law that Congress can think of to "ban Trump" from the ballot must be signed by the President. Joe Biden signing a law disqualifying the opposition candidate who is beating him in the polls will not sit well with half the country. THAT may be the spark that ignites a new civil war.
-PJ
Murray claimed Trump's lawyers were given every opportunity to argue against the former president's alleged guilt in the alleged insurrection, so even though ballot removal was the central question, not a question of guilty involvement in an insurrection, the Colorado Supreme Court had made that determination, uncontested, using due process, thus that determination for all intents and purposes would stand until and unless overturned.
Some might say SCOTUS avoided overturning that determination to allow for a unanimous 9-0 decision.
But now government has become not just overbearing but also unsustainably costly. Two good reasons to downsize it.
Every one of them is a fascist. Period.
Exactly.
Like Lombardi’s Green Bay Packers, if they ran the ball and their foe couldn’t stop them, they would just keep running the ball until they were stopped.
That is what the Left does. Until they are made to pay with punishment, they will keep doing it.
Well, that is my understanding as well, so we need to keep an eye on Jack Smith.
But then there have been a few grumblings about Barret not fully backing today's opinion and leaving some wiggle room for Congress to decide the matter on their own (or at least my understanding of it).
IMHO this has been the endgame since the 2020 election, and was the whole point of the J6 committee.
The people in DC are snakes and would do anything and everything to keep their positions and power.
What do Jamie Raskin and Debbie Wasserman Schultz have in common with Judge Kaplan, Judge Engoron, Merrick Garland, Judge Beryl Howell, Shenna Bellows (Maine Secretary of State) , Jena Griswold (Colorado Secretary of State), George Soros, Reid Hoffman (financial support for E Jean Carroll)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.