tvc184

Then why is Trump leading in almost all electoral college votes at the moment and why all the infighting amongst the Democrats if anyone can win?

The vp has no constitutional authority except presiding over the Senate to cast a vote only if it breaks a tie and counting ballots after an election. A president under the Constitution is 1. commander-in-chief 2. can issue executive orders 3. has the sole discretion to nominate federal judges and cabinet members 4. has the sole authority to make treaty agreements with foreign governments. The vp has the 1. constitutional authority to vote on the Senate if needed to break a tie. So I guess if someone tried to file charges against the vp for voting in a tied issue, the vp would have immunity from that vote choice.

I will add this, the immunity ruling has brought out some of the most ridiculous statements and accusations. Like most times, headlines rule the day and the media sure doesn’t fact check any of that. It would be great for the Facebook fact checkers shut down a majority of the claims with their false information stamp. This example illustrates have fact checking only goes one way. The Supreme Court mentioned three situations. Constitutional authority, executive authority and no authority. Two of the three can potentially have no immunity depending on the situation. So… IMMUNITY- 1. Absolutely 2. Maybe not 3. None People: (a) Get to #1 and quit reading (b) Read and understand it but lie for political reasons (c) Rely on headlines and comments from people in (b)

I had cars for 15 years where that didn’t exist and at other times, no one ever knew. I honestly can’t imagine bringing a car in for inspection and not knowing that everything is working.

I have never had a vehicle inspection fail since I got my first car in 1974, using whatever inspection station I happen to be by when I notice it. I must have missed the ALWAYS for 50 years and about 100 vehicles. Maybe keeping a car in better condition???

That is nonsense. According to kff.org, Blacks have received at least one dose of the vaccine as of July, 2022 smaller than any other racial or ethnic group. Several states did not report those statistics and the ones that did have mostly stopped reporting. Things that make you go hmmm… But let’s not digress. I don’t think anyone would argue that Blacks have far an away the highest percentage of Democratic voters, usually 90% or higher. Yet when it comes to Covid vaccines, they are in the smallest group. This is quoted from the KFF article; Across the 36 states for which a total vaccination rate could be calculated by race/ethnicity as of July 11, 2022, 87% of Asian, 67% of Hispanic, and 64%of White people had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose, higher than the rate for Black people (59%). I can assume by your logic, about 40% of those Blacks who refused to get the vaccine, will be voting Trump this election. Those pesky Black conservatives again……

If you are just making an opinion statement, sure. If you are talking a legality, not so much. In that case the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

That pesky First Amendment sfain…..

Biden would have to withdraw from the race and release his delegates. Each state has its own laws on if they allow releasing of delegates. I am just guessing that a majority of states would allow delegates to be released by the candidate. If Biden is formally nominated at the convention, only he can call it off by his own resignation. Then the DNC decides on a replacement without delegates.

Mine expires this month so one last time. Since the fees are the same it just saves 15 minutes but that’s a pain in the butt we won’t have to worry about. What a brilliant move by the state.

Two political opponents pointing to each other and calling each other a liar….. Is like two roosters fighting and then pointing to the other and calling him a chicken.

Trump was indicted for his activities on January 6. He appealed the indictment to the District Court (trial court) and the way I read it, they pretty much said he has no immunity, period. So he appealed to the Circuit Court which is not a trial court, but is a constitutional court one step below the US Supreme Court. Both the District Court and the Circuit Court denied even reviewing the case. I believe they simply said that a former president has no such immunity. The US Supreme Court then took up the case on a constitutional basis. Remember at this point there has been no trial so no facts of the case have come out. It has been only appeals on the constitutionality of immunity. The Supreme Court ruling today said that the president has absolute immunity for constitutional authority (conclusive and preclusive). What that means to me is, if it’s something the Constitution gives him the authority to do, he absolutely cannot have charges filed against him. An easy example that I can think of is the Constitution makes him the commander-in-chief of the military. So if a president authorizes the military to do something such as Reagan authorizing the bombing of Libya in retaliation for terrorist attacks, the president cannot be sued or held to criminal charges because some civilians in Libya got killed. That is his authority as commander-in-chief and protection of the country. The Supreme Court then ruled that the president has presumed official acts immunity. A presumption under law in a case such as this means that it is assumed that the person accused, such as a president, is not guilty. The presumption is that he followed the law. The presumption does allow however for the prosecution to try and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the presumption does not exist. The person accused does not have to prove anything. The president does not have to prove that he had immunity. The prosecution has to prove that more likely yes than no that he didn’t have immunity. So technically there’s an opening to prosecute but you start out with the presumption that the person accused is not guilty with nothing to prove. As an example, the president has wide authority in many areas including issuing some executive orders. Those are authorities as official acts. If the president was to do something like order the unjustified jailing of a political opponent in an upcoming election and order the opponent held in Gitmo to keep from campaigning, that would not be included under an official act immunity. So it is possible to overcome the presumption of immunity but it will take quite a bit of work. The president has no immunity whatsoever that is outside of constitutional authority or an official act. As an example of the president gets drunk and manages to sneak past his Secret Service bodyguard. He gets in the car and drives DWI and kills someone. That is not covered under an official act so he could be held accountable for a homicide. So…. For constitutional authorities, the president has absolute immunity. For an official act, he has presumed immunity. Anything outside of a constitutional or official act, such as driving DWI, has no immunity. In this ruling the Supreme Court vacated the indictment because the District Court, and the Circuit Court did not even consider immunity. The Supreme Court did not clear Trump because at this point they have not even heard the evidence. All they issued was a constitutional ruling that the lower courts have to at least consider immunity under the rule that they just established. Therefore the case goes back to the prosecution to bring a case at the trial court level and try to prove that whatever Trump is accused of, it was not an official act. Certainly the DOJ could read this Supreme Court ruling and drop the case, saying that they cannot overcome immunity. I’m not going to hold my breath, waiting for the DOJ to come to that conclusion. Simply disagreeing with a president actions does not disprove immunity. I disagreed with some of the things that Biden did such as ordering vaccines for some workers. Some of that was appealed and the courts threw out some of those mandates, especially under OSHSA. I don’t think Biden could be prosecuted however for issuing an executive order to one of his federal agencies because that is probably covered under an official act immunity. Not liking it does not automatically qualified as a crime. Therefore…. Can the DOJ try to again get an indictment against Trump and try to prove in court that he is not covered by one of the immunities listed? Yes. The Supreme Court has stated that under their ruling absolute immunity must be taken into consideration for a constitutional act and presumed immunity must be taken into consideration for an official act. Let’s just say that the DOJ pushed this case again and convince the trial court and the appeals court that Trump has no immunity and they get a criminal conviction. At their discretion, the Supreme Court can take this case up again since the trial would have been held and the Supreme Court could see how the lower courts came to their conclusion. The Supreme Court could agree that with the lower courts that there was no immunity and a conviction stands or they could say, y'all weren't paying attention to our ruling and they can throw the whole case out. If you don’t want to read all of that…… To date the ruling is, yes a former president has immunity from what he did in office and by law that must be taken into consideration under the rules that the Supreme Court just set. The rest will play out in the future.

The DNC push to install (not elect) Hillary as the heir apparent is what started the chain of elections since 2012. It will finally play out this year. In 2028 we won’t have a bunch of 80 year olds fighting for a spot. Had 2016 been a completely fair primary from the DNC, Hillary would not have been the Democrats’ nominee. Anyone but Hillary would have beaten Trump but they wanted their female president and a Clinton at that. So they installed one of the worst candidates ever. That have Trump his stunning victory which in turn started TDS, ABT, etc.

Trump and a player to be named later.

I didn’t read your comment before I posted. I thought that Virginia was the test case for at birth abortions but it failed.

That is because Virginia attempted to pass a law that allowed a single physician to allow an at birth abortion for as little as the mental health of the mother. I believe the current law reads that three doctors had to concur that there was substantial risk of death to the mother before a third trimester abortion could be performed. The change would have made it up to birth, a single physician signing off on it and as little as the mental health of the mother. It failed but the “want to” was clearly out there from Democrats.

There are so many laws on ballots that it could probably be a degree course. Some say things like, you have to declare your party before January 1 each election year (so in the previous year) and you can’t change. So a potential candidate can’t declare to be a Democrat in December 2023 and then in May 2024 decide to file paperwork to run as a Republican. Each state is different though on dates (including actually different dates on “major” and “minor” parties), appeals, party affiliations, changes to the ballot by any means and so on. The Nevada alone for the 2023-2024 elections season is 9 pages with links to other pages. The states combined might have thousands of pages of election information. The Texas Election Code has about 160…. Chapters. I could understand where a person could read a line or two and say, “Aha! That’s the answer” and ignore 567 pages.

Maybe you think that the Nevada Secretary of State, who has to certify the election, is wrong? I didn’t notice any links to your Kirk article. Is anything posted to back this up or is it simply a claim?

This is what the Nevada Secretary of State shows for ballot deadlines on the last Friday in June: June 28, 2024 CHALLENGE OF CANDIDACY - (not later than 5 p.m. on the 4th Friday in June) Last day for filing with the appropriate filing officer challenge of qualification of an independent candidate for a partisan office. SO IT’S THE LAST DAY!! …. to file an appeal of qualifications of an “independent candidate” for any partisan office. I don’t think we are discussing independent candidates.

Yes.

The “too late” for Biden or anyone is approaching but in all states likely 6-10 weeks away. That isn’t long but has almost certainly the date to be on the ballot has not passed for any state.

I forgot to add, I think that Kirk is misguided in his conclusions.

Fact: The deadlines exist. Fact: The candidate doesn’t have to be named by the deadline. I read the Wisconsin law and didn’t bother with the rest when I posted. It listed the fourth Friday at 5pm as the deadline to submit for the filing of the party. Under the name of the candidate it stated something like (I don’t feel like looking it up again at this moment), “To be determined by the party’s procedures at a later date”. So it says that you have to submit that your party wants to place a candidate on the ballot by the date listed. It goes on to say basically, to be determined by the party at a later date. There are other dates for the party to actually name the person. I believe it was yesterday that I saw a video (unconfirmed by me) that Ohio had to have the ballot complete by August 7(?). I only bring that one up to show that there are definitely deadlines for the actual name on the ballot. Just now I pulled up Nevada. In the OP it shows Midnight on the fourth Friday to remove Biden. This is what I found from the Nevada Secretary of State official website: September 3, 2024 LAST DAY FOR MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES TO PROVIDE SECRETARY OF STATE NAMES OF PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES - Each major political party must provide the names of the party's respective candidates for President and Vice President of the United States to the Secretary of State by not later than 5 p.m. on the first business day of September of the year of a presidential election. So the SoS official Nevada website shows September 3, 2024 (first business day since September 2 is Labor Day) as the final day that major political parties can submit a presidential and vice presidential candidate for the ballot. That doesn’t exactly square with the claim in the OP where the deadline passed last night.

I will note that you started a thread this week on why the presidential debate when the candidates weren’t know. Correct so how could a state demand an unknown person?

Thoughts… Nonsense and taken way out of context. There are ballot deadlines but this is not talking about the final ballot deadline for a specific person on the November general election. Those deadlines I believe are for political parties to submit to the state that the party intends to put up a candidate. It isn’t for naming the candidate. So the DNC and RNC have until those listed dates to say, we plan to put our candidate on the ballot in November. It doesn’t require naming the candidate. That date will come later but there are no conventions ever held that early with almost all DNC and RNC conventions being held in July and August. How could a state demand a name when no one knows the name in June in most presidential elections years. So the dates are correct but the context is absolutely false in my opinion.