BREAKING: Trump says he’s going to overturn the 14th Amendment with an executive order.

Neil N. Blowme said:
I support the truth. Tell us what the Supreme Cout decided about Trump being removed from the ballot in Colorado for being an "insurrectionist".
Click to expand...


By the way...
Here is from the Colorado Supreme Court ruling on the case that shows that no Democrats brought the suit to try to keep Trump off the ballot.
More than three months ago, a group of Colorado electors eligible to vote in
the Republican presidential primary—both registered Republican and unaffiliated
voters (“the Electors”)—filed a lengthy petition in the District Court for the City
and County of Denver (“Denver District Court” or “the district court”), asking the
court to rule that former President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) may not
appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot.
No Democrats were part of the attempt to remove Trump. If you actually knew anything about the case you would know that it was filed against a Democrat who defended Trump's right to be on the ballot.

I'll bet you have no clue what the US Supreme actually ruled. I'll give you a hint - They didn't actually rule Trump could be on the ballot. (even though that was the result.)

Here is from the USSC ruling that shows that no Democrats brought the suit to keep Trump off the ballot.
Last September, about six months before the March 5,
2024, Colorado primary election, four Republican and two
unaffiliated Colorado voters filed a petition against former
President Trump and Colorado Secretary of State Jena
Griswold in Colorado state court.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Belief isn't required - they were clear on intent

{Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.}

You of the America hating left have perverted the clause to something it never meant.
Click to expand...
Citation as to the Trumbull quote?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
By the way...
Here is from the Colorado Supreme Court ruling on the case that shows that no Democrats brought the suit to try to keep Trump off the ballot.
More than three months ago, a group of Colorado electors eligible to vote in
the Republican presidential primary—both registered Republican and unaffiliated
voters (“the Electors”)—filed a lengthy petition in the District Court for the City
and County of Denver (“Denver District Court” or “the district court”), asking the
court to rule that former President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) may not
appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot.
No Democrats were part of the attempt to remove Trump. If you actually knew anything about the case you would know that it was filed against a Democrat who defended Trump's right to be on the ballot.

I'll bet you have no clue what the US Supreme actually ruled. I'll give you a hint - They didn't actually rule Trump could be on the ballot. (even though that was the result.)

Here is from the USSC ruling that shows that no Democrats brought the suit to keep Trump off the ballot.
Last September, about six months before the March 5,
2024, Colorado primary election, four Republican and two
unaffiliated Colorado voters filed a petition against former
President Trump and Colorado Secretary of State Jena
Griswold in Colorado state court.
Click to expand...
Trump was put on the Colorado ballot. Why?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You tell us since you think you know what the ruling said.

I'll give you a hint. They didn't overturn the ruling that said Trump committed insurrection.
Click to expand...
You don't know why Trump was put on the ballot, but you know that it wasn't because Trump isn't an insurrectionist. You listen to MSNBC, don't you. That's exactly what they said.
 
Neil N. Blowme said:
You don't know why Trump was put on the ballot, but you know that it wasn't because Trump isn't an insurrectionist. You listen to MSNBC, don't you. That's exactly what they said.
Click to expand...
I read the court ruling. Clearly you have not.

The US Supreme court ruled that states do not have the power to remove an insurrectionist from the ballot. They did not decide the question of whether Trump committed insurrection.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I read the court ruling. Clearly you have not.

The court ruled that states do not have the power to remove an insurrectionist from the ballot. They did not decide the question of whether Trump committed insurrection.
Click to expand...
Yes, I read the court ruling. Let's take this one step at a time. Why was Trump taken off the ballot?
 
Jarod said:
Citation as to the Trumbull quote?
Click to expand...
A Senator's comments mean nothing. SCOTUS has ruled on it. Sybil is mentally ill and very warped. I hope he has good caretakers. :(

Example of SCOTUS ruling. It's long but I quoted a small part of it:

www.law.cornell.edu

UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK.

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
'Born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' and 'naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' mean born or naturalized under such circumstances as to be completely subject to that jurisdiction, that is, as completely as citizens of the United States who are, of course, not subject to any foreign power, and can of right claim the exercise of the power of the United States on their behalf wherever they may be. When, then, children are born the United States to the subjects of a foreign power, with which it is agreed by treaty that they shall not be naturalized thereby, and as to whom our own law forbids them to be naturalized, such children are not born so subject to the jurisdiction as to become citizens, and entitled on that ground to the interposition of our government, if they happen to be found in the country of their parents' origin and allegiance, or any other.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
A Senator's comments mean nothing. SCOTUS has ruled on it. Sybil is mentally ill and very warped. I hope he has good caretakers. :(

Example of SCOTUS ruling. It's long but I quoted a small part of it:

www.law.cornell.edu

UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK.

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
'Born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' and 'naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' mean born or naturalized under such circumstances as to be completely subject to that jurisdiction, that is, as completely as citizens of the United States who are, of course, not subject to any foreign power, and can of right claim the exercise of the power of the United States on their behalf wherever they may be. When, then, children are born the United States to the subjects of a foreign power, with which it is agreed by treaty that they shall not be naturalized thereby, and as to whom our own law forbids them to be naturalized, such children are not born so subject to the jurisdiction as to become citizens, and entitled on that ground to the interposition of our government, if they happen to be found in the country of their parents' origin and allegiance, or any other.
Click to expand...
Scalia's version of conservatism is you only look at the text and you don't look at the intention of the authors.

The arguments being presented here are opposite of Scalia's standards. They want to completely ignore the text and cherry pick from the authors to try to get their desired results.

Today's "conservatives" are no longer conservative. They are activists that change meanings on a whim.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I'll bet you don't even know which court ruled Trump was not eligible to be on the ballot.
Click to expand...
Neil seems to have cognitive issues. Like most JPP MAGAts, I strongly suspect he's an elderly, demented Euro-American male living under the care of a family member or, most likely, in a facility.
 
Daylight63 said:
Sailor said:
Yawn. You just prove my point. You poor dumb fuck.
Click to expand...
I noted that you cleverly avoided any sibilant sound in that post.

Are YOU hiding something? Perchance a typographical lisp as well? Hmmmmm?
Click to expand...
Alcoholism seems to have destroyed most of Sailor's brain. All he can do is troll and bitch about others.

I've never seen him post a coherent and logical reply to a complex issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top