Posted on Apr 12, 2019
A bunch of states are trying to keep Trump off the 2020 ballot
711
28
26
5
5
0
Not sure that taxes tell us much about people. This seems pretty evil. Imagine is we said you had to prove you were a man, prove your citizenship, provide your HS records, provide your college transcript? Can states require that you have to be a college graduate? What about requiring you to have a PhD?
A bunch of states are trying to keep Trump off the 2020 ballot
Posted from theweek.com
Elections
Democrats
Republicans
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
4
4
0
Sorry, I can't think of any other word for my reaction, any other way of expressing it: Un-American.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
The left is going crazy. Could you imagine if Conservatives reacted to Obama’s election the way the left has reacted to Trump? I am so sick of the efforts by the left to bypass the Constitution, invalidate Trump’s Constitutional Powers etc.
(3)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
In their attempts to sabotage Trump's success, they are invariably setting this country back. To their shame, they would rather see this country burn than see Trump succeed. If Trump succeeds, we ALL do. Their efforts are counterproductive and they are wrecking everything this country stands for and dividing it. My hope is that the electorate wakes up and rejects the Green New Deal / Socialist agenda that the Democrats are trying to foist on this country, and that they get mad at all the whining and drama the Democrats have created. The Democrats wasted $30 Million on their failed coup, and those involved need to answer for their crimes. The public will not have any faith in a Judicial System that is not blind and exercises Judicial double standards.
#Wakup #DontBeStupid #WalkAway #SecureTheBorder #BuildTheWall #MAGA #Trump2020
#Wakup #DontBeStupid #WalkAway #SecureTheBorder #BuildTheWall #MAGA #Trump2020
(1)
(0)
PO3 Paul Lowrey
I agree my friend, I talk and tell, write letters, email or text messages to anyone that will listen to me that the Democratic Party is Socialist Godless and corrupt and if they take over at the 2020 general elections we'll never recover and we'll no longer be America the beautiful. I encourage everyone that truly loves our Country to do the same. I'm going to fight for my Country right up to the elections.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Paul Lowrey
Capt Jeff S. I totally agree with you. I'm a Combat Veteran of the Vietnam war and nothing in the jungles of Vietnam scares me anymore then what I see going on right now. Our Country is under siege from within. It's total insanity.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.[2] In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them."[3] A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself.[4] No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole American political structure.
The U.S. Constitution provides as follows:
Article II Section 1 Clause 5:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The U.S. Constitution provides as follows:
Article II Section 1 Clause 5:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
(3)
(0)
Maj John Bell
In 1995, the Court considered in U. S. Term Limits v Hill the constitutionality of an Arkansas law that limited Arkansas representatives to a maximum of three terms (6 years) in the U. S. House or two terms (12 years) in the U. S. Senate. (The law prohibited persons who had served the maximum number of terms from being certified for the ballot, leaving open only the nearly hopeless prospect of running as a write-in candidate.) The Court concluded that the Qualifications Clauses of Article I, Sections 2 and 3 set forth a set of qualifications for federal elected office that could not be altered or added to. The Court saw as central to the framers vision that voters have the right to vote for whomever they wished. The Court also rejected the argument of Arkansas that its ballot access law might be considered a "time, place or manner" regulation of a federal election, such as is authorized by Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution. The regulation, according to the Court, was clearly a "qualification." In dissent, Justice Thomas argued that the qualifications set forth in Article I were a "minimum" set of qualifications and that the states--under the 10th Amendment--had the power to impose additional qualifications.
In Cook v Gralike (2001), the Court considered a Missouri law that "instructed" its congressional delegation to "use all of his or her delegated powers to pass the Congressional Term Limits Amendment." Under the Missouri law, elected representatives who failed to take specified actions to pass the amendment, or nonincumbent candidates for Congress who refused to take a "Term Limit" pledge faced language next to their names on the ballot that said "DISREGARDED VOTERS' INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS" or "DECLINED TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS." The Court rejected Missouri's contention that the law was an instruction of the sort commonly used early in our nation's history, noting that those earlier instructions carried no formal penalty (were "non-binding") and that the framers placed a high value in maintaining the deliberative nature of the National Assembly. The Court saw Missouri's "scarlet letter" law as not a manner regulation, but as an additional qualification for office of the sort rejected in U. S. Term Limits. Justice Rehnquist, in a concurring opinion, concluded that the law punished the content of a candidate's expression and therefore violated the First Amendment.
Source: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/qualifsclause.htm
In Cook v Gralike (2001), the Court considered a Missouri law that "instructed" its congressional delegation to "use all of his or her delegated powers to pass the Congressional Term Limits Amendment." Under the Missouri law, elected representatives who failed to take specified actions to pass the amendment, or nonincumbent candidates for Congress who refused to take a "Term Limit" pledge faced language next to their names on the ballot that said "DISREGARDED VOTERS' INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS" or "DECLINED TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS." The Court rejected Missouri's contention that the law was an instruction of the sort commonly used early in our nation's history, noting that those earlier instructions carried no formal penalty (were "non-binding") and that the framers placed a high value in maintaining the deliberative nature of the National Assembly. The Court saw Missouri's "scarlet letter" law as not a manner regulation, but as an additional qualification for office of the sort rejected in U. S. Term Limits. Justice Rehnquist, in a concurring opinion, concluded that the law punished the content of a candidate's expression and therefore violated the First Amendment.
Source: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/qualifsclause.htm
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google