Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
He gives his view on who wins whether on or off the ballot the next presidential election. The opposite of what I was thinking.
I think it is more about the law than it is about what you would prefer, or what you would personally find more satisfactory.
State supreme courts are the final arbiters on matters of state law (including laws governing the conduct of elections), just like the US Supreme Court is the final arbiter on matters of federal law. If state law says that someone who has "engaged in insurrection" cannot be on the ballot, and the courts determine that in individual has "engaged in insurrection," then it seems reasonable that that court also exclude him from the state's ballot.
except that the 14th amendment makes no such claim an in fact when it was passed there were no primaries, so how could the amendment be meant to address something that was not a thing for several more decades?
The 14th amendment addresses, among other things, who should be disqualified from office. While it doesn't discuss primaries (because, as you said, they did not exist at the time), it's wholly reasonable for states to restrict who can be on the primary ballot based on whether or not they are qualified for office. After all, it wouldn't do to nominate someone who couldn't legally hold office, right? And that's precisely what happened here. Colorado requires all primary candidates to be qualified for the office that they are running for. The petitioners claimed that Trump was disqualified based on the 14th amendment, and therefore should be taken off the ballot. The courts agreed with their arguments, so it was done.
Oh, OK, you are talking about primaries.
I don't generally watch youtube videos posted by others for a variety of reasons. That's why it's generally considered polite to post a brief summary of the video.
Then why comment on what someone else says that is off-topic? It's just as polite to at least get a gist of what the topic is about by watching the video, before making comments. I read everything people post if I want to be involved with a thread. But I know an 8-minute video will take up too much time and keep people from jumping from thread to thread arguing over semantics.
This is a case of "that's just how the internet works." If you post a video without comment, most people won't watch it, but will rather assume that the thread title is the topic of the thread. Discussion will continue from there.
I guess, to me it seems like intellectual laziness.
I'm not going to screw up what he says so I'd rather you hear it from the horse's mouth. This is for anyone interested in a different point of view of their assumptions like I've already read on other threads. Peace
Thats fine. I didn't post it for anyone who is intellectually lazy.
You might find out if you look him up.
