The New Election Interference Strategy

[Mel Bradford]

The Federalist society is indeed conservative....but that doesn't mean a thing. They are merely rendering a political opinion. And I would counter that it is not based in law or precedent. They perhaps think because enough people "think" it, then it happens. What utter b.s.

If as you say the 14th restrictions clause is 'self-executing'
.... someone of governing authority must still "flip the switch" i.e Congress (through FEC) or the High Court.

Example: If an entire state hates their Governor and wants him removed from office....there is a process of impeachment (law)....it isn't 'self executing' based upon the editorial page of the newspaper.

Likewise, if people of said state want to keep so-and-so off the ballot they must prove behavior congruent with restrictions in law. Hear-say is not legally binding. There must be a determination by the legislature or by the court to inform the legislature.

If a 10 year old with pre-mature facial hair wants to run for state Senator and has everybody but one fooled...the damning birth certificate will be enough for a judge or legislative committee.

"legal scholars" are a dime a dozen. All it says is that they may be abreast of 'case law'. The Constitution was written so the 18th century farmer could understand it. Most lawyers have no idea of the philosophy behind the document, let alone its intended construction and execution. Just sayin.

[Donn Beach]

The lawsuit is the switch being flipped

[Mel Bradford]

At the core of this little session is the basic understanding of law. The responsibility of plaintiff and defendant/ state and the accused.

If all the DOJ or its subsidiaries has to do is make an allegation in order to initiate a mechanism of penalty...without a verdict...then there is no law.

They then become the law in and of themselves. I'll give you one thing Donn....we as a nation are damn close to that point.

[Donn Beach]

It has nothing to do with DOJ. It has everything to do with interpreting the constitution, specifically the 14th amendment. Think your gun rights and the second amendment. Or abortion rights which were also about interpreting the 14th amendment. It's a civil issue that would be decided in the courts

[Mel Bradford]

You get the last word Donn.

[Donn Beach]

Here's a a question and answer session with J. Michael luttig gets into the lack of a need for a conviction or whatever. You may find this interesting Gil.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/ ... presidency

If you think about it, the original intent being to block civil war participants, they were not being convicted of crimes.

[D-train]

Let's call a spade a spade. It is Trump haters (yes some consider themselves conservative) turning themselves into pretzels trying to keep him off the ballot and justifying it with and ends justify the means constitutional convolution because in their minds Trump is the antithesis of all they hold sacred and needs to be smothered at any and all costs to bring them the sanctimonious stature they desperately crave.

[Donn Beach]

All they hold sacred? You mean like the constitution? Is Bryant Messner a conservative trump hater? He ran for the Senate with trump's endorsement. That's what's interesting, I don't think its that easy to just toss a label over it. And how about the supreme court, who's to say they aren't a group of conservative trump haters. Those nine opinions really are the ones that would count. Luttig clerked for Scalia, he's was presented himself by the GOP as a supreme court candidate. It's not like these trump haters are some fringe of the conservative movement. Its an interesting constitutional question. Happy the thread was started, I hadn't been paying attention

[D-train]

Saying that someone should be presumed innocent and not punished or excluded for crimes they have yet to be convicted of is such an easy and logical and American position to take that is clear that anyone taking the other side doesn't want Trump to be POTUS as opposed to being some passionate constitutionalist Trump supporter that is hell bent on cutting off their nose to spite their face.

[Donn Beach]

Interpreting the constitution can be a bitch, particularly if you're into literal interpretations. If it goes to the supreme court it be interesting what their interpretation might be

About twenty hours ago, I responded on Twitter to my friends’ concern about the anti-democratic character of the reading of Section 3 that Professor Tribe and I took. I am going to read this into the record, and I would like for you to use it. The Fourteenth Amendment itself, in Section 3, answers the question whether disqualification is “anti-democratic,” declaring that it is not. Rather it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification that is anti-democratic, per the command of the Constitution.