1323
Well, We Have a Speaker. He’s an Election Denier and an Extreme Christian Fundamentalist.
(newrepublic.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
1323 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3506 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Election law varies from state to state. But generally from what I gather, a write-in candidate is only valid if the candidate registers with the state in advance.
If there's a winning plurality for Mickey Mouse in your state for a statewide office, it won't matter. The state won't be forced to see if there's anyone there that has the name Mickey Mouse and then pick which (if more than one) was the individual meant by the voters. Someone has to register with the state saying that they're going to run a write-in campaign for office with name XYZ.
Note that these details are a bit of a side track. The above person was talking about Trump being excluded due to the 14th amendment. However that doesn't say "not on the ballot" — it invalidates people from office entirely. If applied to Trump, the not being on the ballot would be a consequence of being determined ineligible for office, not a method to make him unable to win. Also it's all moot: while I think on the face of it the correct action would be to apply the 14th amendment to Trump, the fact of the matter is that this will not happen. States are not going to be willing to risk the political backlash from going down that path, so they will not.
Many states already are going down that path. Are you saying the judges won't vote in the people's favor bringing the suit?
What I'll say is the only states doing this wouldn't vote for him anyhow. It's important that this happen, but let's be real.
"All states" is the only thing that would directly, functionally impact results.
Arizona is red and Michigan is purple. New Hampshire and Minnesota are very close to purple. Colorado is blue. The down ticket will mess their shit up as well.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-ballots-14th-amendment-jan6-insurrection-1825503
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-ballots-14th-amendment-jan6-insurrection-1825503
We have a case in colorado that is going forward I believe
Colorado already did and it has stated it's Consitutional and allows a 2/3 vote in the U.S. Congress to overturn. We won't back down from that, the law is the law.
I AM a lawyer, and from what I can see, you're close but (perhaps unintentionally) misrepresenting the facts, unless you are referring to some other previous action. A judge this week decided to allow a case to proceed that will determine, amongst other things, whether the events of January 6 “constituted an insurrection” and whether Trump “engaged” in insurrection.
I'm referring to what our State Legislators are saying that they will ignore the Supreme Court if they don't follow the Consitution in favor or partisan politics. The law is the law and the Supreme Court cannot rewrite what the Consitution says.