Seems the best way to protect Democracy is to do everything you can to become a Bannana Republic. Dont like who the people are going to vote for? No problems, just do what China does and only allow "approved" candidates to run.
Picture this: You're The Orange Man, former President of the United States, a real estate mogul, reality TV star, and now, a contestant in the nation's most bizarre game show: "Let's Kick Trump Off the Ballot!" But this isnt some MSNBC shit show hosted by Joy Reid; it's happening in real life, right before our eyes.
So, there you are, minding your own business, and suddenly, you're the star of a constitutional conundrum. Maine's Democratic Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, decided to play the part of the judge, jury, and executioner, removing you from the state's presidential primary ballot. And what's her weapon of choice? The Constitution's insurrection clause, of course!
Now, why is this a big deal? Well, it's not just Maine that's playing this peculiar game. Colorado did it too, under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It seems like everybody's trying to kick Trump out of the political game, but they've put the decision on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court steps in to play referee.
Here's the kicker: Bellows argues that Trump can't run for his old job because of his role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill chaos. Yep, that's right. They're saying you can't be President if you incite an insurrection. Which makes sense to me. However there is no need to define "Insurrection", no need to be convicted of an "Insurrection". Bellows is convinced that if she "feels" like it was an insurection, that is enough. Law fair at its finest here folks.
It does clear some things up for us here at Anonymous Publishing. We couldnt figure why Democrats have been calling the events of January 6th an insurection from the very beginning. Why they refused the national guard and chose very specific language from day one. Language that was protected by the machine, because to call Jan 6th anything other than an "Insurection" was met with scorn and distain from all Mainstream outlets. It was treasonous to suggest Grandma Jean - who just walked calmly through the Capitol Building, didnt deserve to go to prison for her last 6 years.
Now, here's where it gets really fun. Legal experts are watching this like it's the Super Bowl. They're saying, "Hey, we need some clear rules here!" See, the Supreme Court has never ruled on Section 3 before. It's like trying to score a touchdown without knowing the rules of football.
While all this legal drama unfolds, let's not forget that Maine only has four electoral votes. You might think, "Who cares?" But remember, they split those votes. Trump snagged one in 2020, and in a tight election, every vote counts. It's like playing chess and losing your queen. You can still win, but it's a lot tougher.
Bellows, despite knowing that the U.S. Supreme Court will probably have the final word, felt it was important to do her official duty. But hey, she's not the only player in this political theater. Former state lawmakers filed petitions forcing her to consider the case. And they're cheering her on, saying she showed "great courage" in her ruling.
But, naturally, not everyone's happy. Maine's House Republican leader, Billy Bob Faulkingham (yes, that's really his name), called it a "sham decision" and compared it to "Third World dictatorships." Stupid name but a smart point.
Here's the cherry on top: Trump's campaign requested that Bellows disqualify herself from the case because she'd previously tweeted that January 6 was an "insurrection" and expressed dissatisfaction with Trump's acquittal in his impeachment trial. She stood her ground and refused to step aside, highlighting the ongoing drama surrounding this
But let's rewind for a moment and dive deeper into the legal intricacies of this political rollercoaster. Bellows' decision follows the path blazed by the Colorado Supreme Court earlier this month. They invoked Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to boot Trump from the ballot. Years of planning all coming together in a single decision that by the looks of things has been in the pipe since long before January 6th.
Legal experts are rubbing their hands in anticipation, awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling. See, the Court has never ruled on Section 3, so it's like they're entering uncharted territory. Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles, notes, "It seems a certainty that SCOTUS will have to address the merits sooner or later." SCOTUS, the referee in this political wrestling match, will have to lay down the rules.
Now, here's a fascinating twist. Maine may only have four electoral votes, but they split them. In 2020, Trump managed to snag one. So, having him off the ballot there, should he emerge as the Republican general election candidate, could have outsized implications in a race that is expected to be narrowly decided. It's like throwing a curveball into the political game.
And Remember:
Trust no Single Source
Trust Your Gut
and Stay Curious
Jesse
For media inquiries, please contact:
UK - 020 3404 2295
USA - 0650 278 4440
AUS - 02 9072 9499
Help Support Jesse and the rest of our Authors by visiting the store to get your copy of the latest Anonymous Author Novel or Anything Anonymous.
Comentários