Four women on the court ramble on for seven more pages to complain that the men should've stopped talking sooner.

BMX Bandit said:

---

on state's rights, as roberts alluded to during oral argument:

Quote:

---

Proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the States in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment "expand[ed] federal power at the expense of state autonomy" and thus "fundamentally altered the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution."

---

like it or not, part of the purpose of 14th amendment was to take certain power away from that states.

---

So...**** Lincoln?

Or who else can we blame for that?

Sotomayor and Kagan are still traumatized by Dobbs. They go extra innings to try and get a dig in at Roberts. Somehow manage to trot out Dobbs in the very first line.

Inexplicable but thats really nice work to shoehorn that in.

This is equivalent of your wife still being mad at you because she had a dream you cheated on her.

Very catty. Much vitriol with this bunch.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

eric76 said:

---

If states do not have the ability to determine which candidates for federal office can be on the ballot, does this mean that every every state must include every third party and independent candidate on the ballot?

---

No. It means they can't use the 14th amendment as a reason for not letting them on the ballot.

---

It means that the Supreme Court is ruling against State's Rights.

Big, expansive government in total control has won yet again.

Ag with kids said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

on state's rights, as roberts alluded to during oral argument:

Quote:

---

Proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the States in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment "expand[ed] federal power at the expense of state autonomy" and thus "fundamentally altered the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution."

---

like it or not, part of the purpose of 14th amendment was to take certain power away from that states.

---

So...**** Lincoln? Or who else can we blame for that?

---

Well, Lincoln was dead at the time ….

If you are looking for someone to "blame," the Republicans controlled Congress at the time.

She looks like an insurrectionist to me

eric76 said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

eric76 said:

---

If states do not have the ability to determine which candidates for federal office can be on the ballot, does this mean that every every state must include every third party and independent candidate on the ballot?

---

No. It means they can't use the 14th amendment as a reason for not letting them on the ballot.

---

It means that the Supreme Court is ruling against State's Rights.

Big, expansive government in total control has won yet again.

---

Take the L. It does not mean that. You are back to defending the Trayvon Hill again

samurai_science said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

eric76 said:

---

If states do not have the ability to determine which candidates for federal office can be on the ballot, does this mean that every every state must include every third party and independent candidate on the ballot?

---

No. It means they can't use the 14th amendment as a reason for not letting them on the ballot.

---

It means that the Supreme Court is ruling against State's Rights.

Big, expansive government in total control has won yet again.

---

Take the L. It does not mean that. You are back to defending the Trayvon Hill again

---

How long until someone comes along and deletes another 20 posts trying to explain this ruling to Eric?

AggieUSMC said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

eric76 said:

---

If states do not have the ability to determine which candidates for federal office can be on the ballot, does this mean that every every state must include every third party and independent candidate on the ballot?

---

No. It means they can't use the 14th amendment as a reason for not letting them on the ballot.

---

It means that the Supreme Court is ruling against State's Rights.

Big, expansive government in total control has won yet again.

---

States do not have the right to remove someone from the ballot in a federal election. They never did.

---

And especially for an undefined issue.

AggieUSMC said:

---

States do not have the right to remove someone from the ballot in a federal election. They never did.

---

before the 14th amendment was ratified, I'm not sure you would have been correct. as I recall, Lincoln was excluded from the ballot throughout the South in the 1860 election.

but that is entirely academic at this point

eric76 said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

eric76 said:

---

If states do not have the ability to determine which candidates for federal office can be on the ballot, does this mean that every every state must include every third party and independent candidate on the ballot?

---

No. It means they can't use the 14th amendment as a reason for not letting them on the ballot.

---

It means that the Supreme Court is ruling against State's Rights.

Big, expansive government in total control has won yet again.

---

I don't agree.

There are many ways in which "big expansive government" has won. The most egregious of which is the expansion of the commerce clause.

This is not such an example.

This is an example in which the plain reading of the text prevailed.

The number of problems with the Colorado court's decision is large. Giving individual states the ability to unilaterally disqualify a presidential candidate is not only wrong but it would be a horrible precedent.

Not to mention that even if they had that ability, there must be some "due process" in which "insurrection" is clearly defined and the candidate be formally found guilty of such in a formalized defined process rather than an ad-hoc assessment based on "orange man bad" and in which the accused is not given any opportunity to defend himself. (innocent until proven guilty should still be the case)

No, this was a good and proper ruling by the Supreme Court.

Rockdoc said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

eric, educate yourself.

---

That will never happen.
It looks like the fake conservatives and CM's are finally starting to take that hard left now that the handwriting is starting to appear on the wall.

---

Yep. They're worried now that their lawfare strategy is not only not going to work, but it has actually backfired and lit a fire under Trump voters.

Now their true stripes are showing.

Quote:

---

States do not have the right to remove someone from the ballot in a federal election. They never did.

---

It's not really relevant to this decision, but historically, I don't think that's correct. (Putting aside for a moment that what we think of as a ballot didn't even exist at the time and didn't come in till the 20th century.)

Prior to the 14th amendment, state could put an insurrection on the ballot, or leave one off. Nothing in the constitution Spoke to that. The amendment was passed to make sure the Civil War rebels did not take over the federal government or come in the power in the states again

If you look at the dissent from Thomas in term limits v Thornton, I think he would agree.

Quote:

---

Justice Thomas , with whom The Chief Justice, I dissent. 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.

Because the majority fundamentally misunderstands the notion of "reserved" powers, I start with some first principles. Contrary to the majority's suggestion, the 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.

---

By the way, based on the current composition of the court, they'd probably reverse the holding in that term limits case

"Justice Thomas , with whom The Chief Justice, I dissent. 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. "

STATE REPRESENTATION =/= FEDERAL REPRESENTATION

HTH

AggieUSMC said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

eric76 said:

---

If states do not have the ability to determine which candidates for federal office can be on the ballot, does this mean that every every state must include every third party and independent candidate on the ballot?

---

No. It means they can't use the 14th amendment as a reason for not letting them on the ballot.

---

It means that the Supreme Court is ruling against State's Rights.

Big, expansive government in total control has won yet again.

---

States do not have the right to remove someone from the ballot in a federal election. They never did.

---

I haven't read this entire 10 pages, and I think I posted this question several months ago.

This whole issue centered around a primary which is part of a nomination process. It isn't the actual federal election . My understanding is that political parties aren't really addressed by the Constitution, so this is all just party business not under the purview of the election officials. As far as I care a party could nominate a convicted serial killer without participating in a state-run primary, and it wouldn't matter until the actual national election. Why does anyone in the government have a say in this issue?

And if they do, why don't they do something about the inherent unfairness of Democrat's Superdelegates system of nomination?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

States do not have the right to remove someone from the ballot in a federal election. They never did.

---

It's not really relevant to this decision, but historically, I don't think that's correct. (Putting aside for a moment that what we think of as a ballot didn't even exist at the time and didn't come in till the 20th century.)

Prior to the 14th amendment, state could put an insurrection on the ballot, or leave one off. Nothing in the constitution Spoke to that. The amendment was passed to make sure the Civil War rebels did not take over the federal government or come in the power in the states again

If you look at the dissent from Thomas in term limits v Thornton, I think he would agree.

Quote:

---

Justice Thomas , with whom The Chief Justice, I dissent. 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.

Because the majority fundamentally misunderstands the notion of "reserved" powers, I start with some first principles. Contrary to the majority's suggestion, the 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.

---

By the way, based on the current composition of the court, they'd probably reverse the holding in that term limits case

---

The constitution is NOT silent on THIS eligibility requirement. Given the fact that Colorado was trying to use the 14th amendment itself as justification for their action, I don't think your argument applies.

Besides, we're not talking about a State or district's representation in congress. We're talking about the President of the US. BIG difference.

Ag87H2O said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

eric, educate yourself.

---

That will never happen.
It looks like the fake conservatives and CM's are finally starting to take that hard left now that the handwriting is starting to appear on the wall.

---

Yep. They're worried now that their lawfare strategy is not only not going to work, but it has actually backfired and lit a fire under Trump voters.

Now their true stripes are showing.

---

this. It's why you're seeing the conniption fits on the typical leftist news outfits and headlines bemoaning the demise of the republic.

In the DC leftist bubble, everything anti-Trump is a noble, moral, and righteous crusade. It's a religious war. Being told "no" isn't just a loss, it's being told that the heretics who are immoral and evil might just actually be right. Massive cognitive dissonance.

Quote:

---

The constitution is NOT silent on THIS eligibility requirement.

---

Correct. It's not silent because of 14th amendment.

Before 1868, it was.


By the way, there are lots of legal scholars that would probably agree with your position. Thomas, Alito & Gorsuch just aren't in that group

samurai_science said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

eric76 said:

---

If states do not have the ability to determine which candidates for federal office can be on the ballot, does this mean that every every state must include every third party and independent candidate on the ballot?

---

No. It means they can't use the 14th amendment as a reason for not letting them on the ballot.

---

It means that the Supreme Court is ruling against State's Rights.

Big, expansive government in total control has won yet again.

---

Take the L. It does not mean that. You are back to defending the Trayvon Hill again

---

LOL. Again and again.

Antoninus said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

States do not have the right to remove someone from the ballot in a federal election. They never did.

---

before the 14th amendment was ratified, I'm not sure you would have been correct. as I recall, Lincoln was excluded from the ballot throughout the South in the 1860 election.

but that is entirely academic at this point

---

Before cars were invented, it took longer to get from place to place

samurai_science said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

eric76 said:

---

If states do not have the ability to determine which candidates for federal office can be on the ballot, does this mean that every every state must include every third party and independent candidate on the ballot?

---

No. It means they can't use the 14th amendment as a reason for not letting them on the ballot.

---

It means that the Supreme Court is ruling against State's Rights.

Big, expansive government in total control has won yet again.

---

Take the L. It does not mean that. You are back to defending the Trayvon Hill again

---

If only Zimmerman could have delivered a few well placed karate kicks, Trayvon would be an astronaut right now.

AggieUSMC said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

eric76 said:

---

If states do not have the ability to determine which candidates for federal office can be on the ballot, does this mean that every every state must include every third party and independent candidate on the ballot?

---

No. It means they can't use the 14th amendment as a reason for not letting them on the ballot.

---

It means that the Supreme Court is ruling against State's Rights.

Big, expansive government in total control has won yet again.

---

States do not have the right to remove someone from the ballot in a federal election. They never did.

---

They do it every election.

eric76 said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

eric76 said:

---

If states do not have the ability to determine which candidates for federal office can be on the ballot, does this mean that every every state must include every third party and independent candidate on the ballot?

---

No. It means they can't use the 14th amendment as a reason for not letting them on the ballot.

---

It means that the Supreme Court is ruling against State's Rights.

Big, expansive government in total control has won yet again.

---

States do not have the right to remove someone from the ballot in a federal election. They never did.

---

They do it every election.

---

Please elaborate

AggieUSMC said:

---

eric76 said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

eric76 said:

---

If states do not have the ability to determine which candidates for federal office can be on the ballot, does this mean that every every state must include every third party and independent candidate on the ballot?

---

No. It means they can't use the 14th amendment as a reason for not letting them on the ballot.

---

It means that the Supreme Court is ruling against State's Rights.

Big, expansive government in total control has won yet again.

---

States do not have the right to remove someone from the ballot in a federal election. They never did.

---

They do it every election.

---

Please elaborate

---

When's the last time you saw the Constitution Party on the ballot in Texas? They do it all the time for third parties and for independents.

Also, it is apparently pretty common for someone to try to get on the ballot even if they are not old enough or are not natural born US citizens and the states interpret the Constitution to keep them off the ballot.

The Constitution leaves it up to each state to run their own elections. The important thing is that each state legislature makes the rules for their state. If they had determined that Colorado did not follow their own laws on ballot access, then that would be far more logical except that I would imagine that the proper venue would be the Colorado courts.

But what we have is the US Supreme Court deciding issues that the US Constitution leaves to the states.

eric76 said:

---

The Constitution leaves it up to each state to run their own elections. The important thing is that each state legislature makes the rules for their state. If they had determined that Colorado did not follow their own laws on ballot access, then that would be far more logical except that I would imagine that the proper venue would be the Colorado courts.

But what we have is the US Supreme Court deciding issues that the US Constitution leaves to the states.

---

The Constitution did not petrify/ossify in 1850.

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

The Constitution leaves it up to each state to run their own elections. The important thing is that each state legislature makes the rules for their state. If they had determined that Colorado did not follow their own laws on ballot access, then that would be far more logical except that I would imagine that the proper venue would be the Colorado courts.

But what we have is the US Supreme Court deciding issues that the US Constitution leaves to the states.

---

The Constitution did not petrify/ossify in 1850.

---

We obviously have amendments. Which amendment gives the federal government power over how the states hold their elections?

Quote:

---

Which amendment gives the federal government power over how the states hold their elections?

---

With regard to how a state is permitted to keep an insurrectionist of the ballot, the answer is below.

I am going to have it hidden so posters Can try to guess at the answer.


14th amendment. What should have been painfully clear to any person that bothered to pay even the slightest attention to the Supreme Court ruling in this case

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Which amendment gives the federal government power over how the states hold their elections?

---

With regard to how a state is permitted to keep an insurrectionist of the ballot, the answer is below.

I am going to have it hidden so posters Can try to guess at the answer.


14th amendment. What should have been painfully clear to any person that bothered to pay even the slightest attention to the Supreme Court ruling in this case

---

Neat trick

14th amendment. What should have been painfully clear to any person that bothered to pay even the slightest attention to the Supreme Court ruling in this case

AggieUSMC said:

---

eric76 said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

States do not have the right to remove someone from the ballot in a federal election. They never did.

---

They do it every election.

---

Please elaborate

---