Preface: Not from US, nor really care
But ain't the Supreme court exactly for that?
To decide on matters of law?
But ain't the Supreme court exactly for that?
To decide on matters of law?
They don't decide on some cases. The Constitution is defined as "the supreme law of the land", but the third section of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution is not one of those cases that they decide on.
They don't decide on some cases. The Constitution is defined as "the supreme law of the land", but the third section of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution is not one of those cases that they decide on.
didn't they already do that when they prohibited female care and so forth?
Sounds like a fallacy to me.
Proper decision - States can't interfere in Federal elections.
Nice try - it was pure desperation.
OT but could be insightful. Progressive Government enhances the Presidents authority into legislative authority. Over the years Progressives have created a Imperial Presidency. Ultimately where Congress is reduced to an advisory entity. President enacts both legislation and enforcement. Progressives would like to abolish the US Supreme Court so it can perform unconstitutionally at will. Also bureaucrats must be true believers in the progressive ideals to prevent restrictions.
Democrats can't have their Imperial Presidency occupied by anyone other then their own. Why these attempts to disqualify oppositional candidates keeps occurring.
Nixon was first non-progressive first imperial president, able to use enhanced powers but did not. It scared the crap out of the Progressives and still does every time a non believer is elected president. It is rich, Progressives fear monger dictatorship if their not elected.
On a unanimous decision (9-0), the Supreme Court justices allowed Trump to stay on the ballot, which allowed him to win the primaries for Colorado, Maine, and Illinois.
Some approve of it because they want Trump to win in November.
Some disapprove of it because they don't want Trump to win in November.
Some disapprove of Trump appearing on the ballot because he's a known criminal who's dangerous to our national security. Has nothing to do with "I want my guy to win."
Some disapprove of Trump appearing on the ballot because he's a known criminal who's dangerous to our national security.
They disapprove of Trump because they don't want Trump to win in November because of his nearly 100 felonies.
I disapprove of Trump because I don't want him to win in November because of my concern that he could repeal the Affordable Care Act.
Different people disapprove of a candidate for their own reason.
didn't they already do that when they prohibited female care and so forth?
Sounds like a fallacy to me.
well, they didn't prohibit anything per se. they just overturned a precedent set by the ruling for roe v. wade which ultimately now allows state governments to decide on their own whether or not abortion is legal or not.
to answer OP's question, if biden is still on ballot after everything going on recently, its fair game for trump too imo. they're all bad candidates and being old enough to vote isn't even enough of an incentive to me to go vote because it feels like I'm just picking my poison rn.
well, they didn't prohibit anything per se. they just overturned a precedent set by the ruling for roe v. wade which ultimately now allows state governments to decide on their own whether or not abortion is legal or not.
Roe v. Wade is part of the Substantive Due Process.
Trump's Colorado case, Trump v. Anderson, is part of the Power of Enforcement.
The Substantive Due Process and the Power of Enforcement are two different things.
Display MoreRoe v. Wade is part of the Substantive Due Process.
Trump's Colorado case, Trump v. Anderson, is part of the Power of Enforcement.
The Substantive Due Process and the Power of Enforcement are two different things.
where did i say they're the same thing? lol
i was clarifying something for alex relax
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
