Posted on 08/31/2023 8:13:30 AM PDT by cotton1706
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) said he does not have the ability to bar former President Donald Trump from running for president in his state Wednesday.
There have been calls to bar the former president from being able to run in 2024 related to language in the 14th amendment where it states those who “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the government cannot hold office. Fontes said despite those claims, he cannot do so by way of a previous Arizona Supreme Court case.
“Now, the Arizona Supreme Court said that because there’s no statutory process in federal law to enforce Section 3 of the 14th amendment, you can’t enforce it,” Fontes said on “The Gaggle” podcast by The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com.
“That’s what the Arizona Supreme Court said, so that’s the state of the law in Arizona. Now, do I agree with that? No, that’s stupid,” Fontes continued.
Fontes said despite his dislike of what the Arizona Supreme Court has decided, he will still follow it because it is Arizona law.
“What I’m saying is I’m going to follow the law,” Fontes said. “And the law in Arizona is what the law in Arizona is. Whether I like it or not, is irrelevant.”
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Doesn’t matter, the vote is rigged in Arizona.
A start.
“Trump carried AZ in 2016 by 3.5%. Following this stupid, unforced error he couldn’t replicate that performance in 2020.”
LOL. Sure. Had nothing to do with all the documented election shenanigans in AZ, that the coconspirators at Fox News seems to have had a miraculous precognition about when it still looked like Trump losing the state was statistically impossible.
DING! DING! DING!
We have a winner!
Exactly!
Well, McCarthy and his assistant Democrats better pass a bill detailing such a process.
This person is an idiot talking out of not the mouth.
These scumbags resort to murder, then we the people will “remove” them and everyone they care about.
Translation: “Leave him on the ballot. We’ve perfected election fraud in this state. There’s no chance he can win here.”
Hopefully a Swing and a MISS!
Pray for President in Exile Trump. Day & Night! :)
Surprising from a Rat Party hack.This won’t go down well at Rat Party Headquarters.
Total setup. They have no right to ban the Republican nominee but by doing this it conditions people to think its in their authority. By doing this, next year when they DO prevent his name from being on the ballot this decision to not ban him prior to conviction is in the minds of the people. These people are evil AND they think the people aren’t on to their B.S
His editor was out of town at a seminar given by AP about what words are banned.
This isn’t the way the Dems planned it.
Reading between the lines: We’re pretty sure we can come up with enough fake ballots to defeat Trump.
The 14th Amendment Disqualification Gambit"Can Congress, for example by majority vote on a concurrent resolution, simply declare that Trump has engaged in an insurrection and disqualify him from ever holding the office of president again? That would be a neat trick in that it would avoid the difficulties of winning conviction in a Senate trial by a two-thirds majority.
In the Washington Post, Daniel Hemel walks through why this is a strained interpretation of Section Three and why it would be a bad idea. I recommend checking it out:
"There’s a problem with this theory, though. A provision in the original 1787 Constitution — Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 — prohibits Congress from passing any “bill of attainder.” A bill of attainder is a law declaring a specific person to be guilty of a crime and prescribing a punishment. The bill of attainder clause reflects the principle that the judiciary, not the legislature, is responsible for adjudicating guilt and meting out justice."Be that as it may, a law barring Trump from future officeholding that is passed by a simple majority of the House and Senate would raise serious constitutional questions. Trump’s defenders would no doubt argue that the law violates the bill of attainder clause, and unlike many of Trump’s legal arguments, this one would be far from frivolous. Trump could cloak himself in the authority of Chase, an outspoken abolitionist, racial progressive and original member of Abraham Lincoln’s “team of rivals.”
Myles Lynch has a draft article working through the history of how Section Three has actually been applied.
A Senate impeachment trial may not adhere to the same standards of due process as an ordinary judicial proceeding, but there is a reason why the punishment of disqualification can be applied only after a trial and a conviction before a court with a high hurdle for a guilty verdict. "Insurrection" is not a political offense like "high crimes and misdemeanors." It is a criminal act in violation of the criminal code and capable of being adjudicated in ordinary criminal courts. If Section Three is to be applied, then it should follow a criminal conviction for engaging in an insurrection.
If instead partisan majorities can simply declare that individuals have participated in, encouraged, or given aid to insurrections, then it is not hard to imagine how the scope of "insurrection" could grow, the evidence that an individual had actually engaged in one could be thin to none, and how this power could be turned against political opponents. How many Democratic politicians would a Republican majority in Congress be willing to disqualify from holding future office given their expressed views on various protests turned riots? It would be better not to find out."
See, this doucehbag could have explained Bill of Attainder and why it is illegal for Fontes to keep Trump off the ballot, but instead he tried to poorly wing it and insinuate Arizona voters were somehow cheated of justice. That's why the article suddenly cuts off LOFL after just 200 words...
At that moment, countless AZ GOP voters swore up and down to never cast a vote for Trump. Trump carried AZ in 2016 by 3.5%. Following this stupid, unforced error he couldn’t replicate that performance in 2020."
Your post is the dumbest thing I read on FR so far this week. Here's your award.
Trump said: “He [McCain] was a war hero because he was captured,” Trump said. “I like people who weren’t captured.”Trump said this on July 18, 2015, in Ames, Iowa.
You said, "Trump carried AZ in 2016 by 3.5%. Following this stupid, unforced error he couldn’t replicate that performance in 2020."
So, somehow Arizona GOP voters ignored Trump's 2015 statement in 2016 , but held it against him in 2020 ?!?
That's not just illogical it's stupid. Are you people getting enough oxygen out there?
Arizona 2020 had everything to do with The Steal, and nothing to do with a statement from 2015, a statement that received rapturous applause, and a statement that was also made after McCrisis Shitstain maligned Trump supporters as "he fired up the crazies.”.
“Listen to this man very closely. He’s actually telling the Arizona legislature to change the law.”
——————
Doesn’t matter if they do or not, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment only covers *ELECTORS* for POTUS and Veep, not those offices. The simple fact is that NO state can keep someone off the ballot for these 2 offices based on this section of the 14th, period.
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.