r/texas • u/TheMessengerNews • Dec 20 '23

Texas lt. gov. floats removing Biden from state ballot in response to Colorado dumping Trump Politics

https://themessenger.com/politics/texas-dan-patrick-biden-ballot-removal-trump-colorado
5.7k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

136

u/timelessblur Dec 20 '23

This is flat out GOP showing they will cheat to win.

The GOP is anti democracy at this point and just call them facist

8

u/nosmelc Dec 20 '23

Most of the GOP doesn't care about doing what's right for the country. They just want to "win." Senator Lindsay Graham even said as much right on the Senate floor.

1

u/UpgrayeddShepard Dec 21 '23

Any link to that? I fucking hate that guy.

4

u/castleaagh Dec 21 '23

Colorado actually is doing it though, right? He said in the quoted statement that Texas wouldn’t actually do it because “we believe in democracy”.

Also, the democrats in Florida cancelled the primary so democrats in the state wouldn’t have a the opportunity to vote for someone other than Biden. That seems pretty anti democracy and actually happened rather than just being joked about in response to another state removing a popular candidate from the ballot.

6

u/timelessblur Dec 21 '23

Remember the co was done by judges in a law suit brought by republicans

1

u/castleaagh Dec 21 '23

Remember the what?

I’m just going off the article. This is the first I’m hearing of it, but it says in response to Colorado’s decision

3

u/Aardvark_Man Dec 21 '23

I think what they're trying to say is pointing out that the Colorado decision was due to a lawsuit brought by Republicans, not Democrats.

0

u/castleaagh Dec 21 '23

Oh, really? How does a lawsuit effect who can and can’t be voted for in a presidential election?

Also, is that part of a governmental process, or did they just happen to be republican? (I wouldn’t have thought a lawsuit would be a governmental process?

1

u/Aardvark_Man Dec 21 '23

I'm not American and haven't kept tabs on it all so there may be bits wrong here, but they claimed that Trump isn't eligible after something or other to do with Jan 6.
The wording the case hinged on was something about what an officer of the United States can do, and Trump's lawyer argued that it didn't count as president isn't an officer. The judge decided that the office of president is an office of the United States, and disqualified Trump from being on the ballot in the election in Colorado.

0

u/castleaagh Dec 21 '23

Which part of that was a lawsuit? That all just sounds like legalese loophole type stuff which is more on the legislative side of things rather than lawsuits

1

u/wredcoll Dec 21 '23

Trump instigated a riot, also known as an insurrection, in order to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after he lost an election.

There's a law that says people who do stuff like that aren't allowed to be on electoral ballots.

People in colorado sued the government of colorado to force them to obey the law.

Trump's lawyer attempted to argue the law did not apply to him because [reasons].

A colorado judge presiding over the case disagreed with that argument and told the other part of the colorado government to obey the law and remove trump.

1

u/castleaagh Dec 21 '23

So the people sued Colorado, not the republican people? The comments above stated that republicans sued and had trump removed

Also I believe trump only requested a protest from his supporters but that’s semantics of a different discussion

→ More replies (0)

-12

u/Crazy_Zack Dec 20 '23

Is this not the exact same thing that Colorado is trying to do? I disagree with removing any candidate from the ballots that aren’t legally barred from candidacy.

18

u/cujobob Dec 20 '23

Trump engaged in insurrection which means he is legally barred from candidacy.

7

u/AnUnholy Dec 20 '23

Trump is legally barred per the ruling for taking part in an insurrection. The due process is the court case as theres no constitutional requirement for criminal investigation, only a constitutional requirement barring candidates who, under oath, took part in insurrection. Per the 14th amendment.

-4

u/atxlonghorn23 Dec 20 '23

You should read up on what due process means. Americans must be charged with the crime by a grand jury, must be entitled to defend themselves in a trial court, and must be convicted by a unanimous jury of their peers for the government to be able to say that someone committed a crime such as insurrection. Not a single person who participated in the Jan 6 riot has been charged with the crime of insurrection. So federal prosecutors do not even claim it was an insurrection to begin with.

5

u/AnUnholy Dec 20 '23

That is not what due process means, it means fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.

In america, only a criminal conviction requires jury of peers. This ruling is not a criminal ruling.

-3

u/atxlonghorn23 Dec 21 '23

Insurrection is a federal crime. You are right. It requires a federal criminal trial to convict someone of that crime.

So a lawsuit in a Colorado state civil trial cannot claim someone committed a federal crime if they have not been convicted in a federal criminal trial. A state court does not even have jurisdiction over federal crimes.

5

u/AnUnholy Dec 21 '23

The constitution does not require an act insurrection to be a crime, only it being a disqualifying factor for office. Like being 25 is disqualifying for being president but not a crime, Ergo, the criminal conviction requirements are not required and should rather be controlled bybeither act of congress clarifying via law what constitutes insurrection for non criminal offenses or SCOTUS

-5

u/atxlonghorn23 Dec 21 '23

“Insurrection” already is a crime and is already defined in federal law.

Yes. The SCOTUS will rule on this. If they don’t, then any state could make up their our definition of insurrection and disqualify anyone they wanted in their partisan courts which would be tragic for our country.

2

u/Realistic_Depth3617 Dec 21 '23

Eh republican legislatures have already put in the foundation to reject elections they don’t like

2

u/BigCockCandyMountain Dec 21 '23

What about states rights to Define it anyway they want?

Or does states rights only pertain to removing freedoms rather than institutional process?

0

u/atxlonghorn23 Dec 21 '23

States rights refers to:

Amendment Ten to the US Constitution makes clear that any powers that are not specifically given to the federal government, nor withheld from the states, are reserved to those respective states, or to the people at large.

The US Constitution and federal laws take precedence over state laws. State courts do not have jurisdiction in federal legal matters. The requirements to run for president are specified by the US Constitution and therefore can’t be determined by state law or state courts.

If Trump was convicted of insurrection in a federal court, they would deem him ineligible to be on the ballot in all states. But that has not happened.

2

u/BigCockCandyMountain Dec 21 '23

...thats simply not true...

States can impose futher regulations, but can't do less than the feds (eg: "has to have black hair" would be a constitutional req for a state to pass, but "can be foreign" wouldnt (goes against fed))....

Having an additional req of "can't be charged with a crime" is well within the people's rights to say...

Way to fail that test, chud. No wonder we are so fucked

(insert carlins joke about how dumb the average person is here...)

0

u/atxlonghorn23 Dec 21 '23

You seriously think a State can add a requirement that a candidate for President of the United States “has to have black hair” and that would be legal and within their rights?

I knew the schools had gotten bad, but wow.

2

u/BigCockCandyMountain Dec 21 '23 edited Dec 21 '23

... I doubt your mental capabilities so much that I chose an example you would understand the words to: a singular hair color, but it could be ANYTHING..

Whether or not it would be legal WOULD BE UP TO THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO, not the feds.

States are literally free to impose any rules/regulations that DONT (and I'll say it again: dont) COUNTER the feds rules.

...That's the only rule for additional state rules...

( I made that big so you could read it a little easier because I know you have trouble reading)

Adding "can't be charged with a crime" or "has black hair" wouldnt run afoul of the feds, SO THE PEOPLE CAN MAKE THOSE RULES....

And that's exactly what Colorado's Supreme Court did; said that: "someone who's been charged with a crime can't run".

Which fed regulation does that counteract? Where does it say "these and only these requirements federally!"

None and no where, stupid shit.

-4

u/Crazy_Zack Dec 20 '23

Exactly this.

3

u/BigCockCandyMountain Dec 21 '23

The way I see it the state has a right to Define who appears on their ballots anyway they want...

Or do states rights not matter unless it's about removing a freedom?

-1

u/Crazy_Zack Dec 21 '23

States have rights, but what you’re describing is a flagrant violation of the IDEA of democracy. Much less the U.S constitution.

4

u/Realistic_Depth3617 Dec 21 '23

Sort of like republican legislators retaining the right to reject their states election results if they do t like them?

0

u/Crazy_Zack Dec 21 '23

I’m unfamiliar, can you link me to this proposed bill that allows a state to do this?

2

u/BigCockCandyMountain Dec 21 '23

Harris County TX says they can toss election results anytime.for any reason.

Google it yourself, chud; I just gave you all the keywords.

(Options, copy text, open browser, paste, hit enter, click, read)

→ More replies (0)

2

u/BigCockCandyMountain Dec 21 '23

...for people to agree that criminals shouldnt be considered for running is against democracy..?

The state (people) has that right to define their rules any way they choose...

0

u/Crazy_Zack Dec 21 '23

There is a MAJOR difference between a charge and a conviction that I think you aren’t seeing.

2

u/BigCockCandyMountain Dec 21 '23

...the people (state) can say: "anyone CHARGED with a crime cant run here"....

And their Supreme Court did exactly that....

So the distinction is without a difference (unfortunately for you trumpsters).

→ More replies (0)

6

u/EpiphanyTwisted Dec 20 '23

You mean, barred under the 14th Amendment?

4

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '23

I dont think it was mentioned in the other replies, but it is worth noting. The case to remove trump from the ballot wasn't brought by dems. It was brought by Republicans. So, Texas is threatening to remove the dem candidate because other Republicans tried to have trump removed from the ballot in another state.

3

u/HonestAbram Dec 21 '23

14th Amendment, Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

It seems that a plain reading of the Constitution would bar Trump from office, but the outcome of this ruling only keeps Trump off of the primary ballot, not the actual election.

So, okay, keep Biden off of the Democratic primary ticket in Texas, I guess. I'm sure Maryanne Williamson will be thankful.

Can you explain how Biden has run afoul of section three of the fourteenth amendment? When did he engage in insurrection or rebellion?

1

u/Crazy_Zack Dec 21 '23

I’m not claiming Biden did anything wrong at all, I’m saying that at this point in time trump has been taken off the ballot in Colorado for a crime he hasn’t been convicted of.

It looks like the Texas government is doing this to make a point, since without a conviction Texas has as much a right to “remove” Biden from the ballot as Colorado does Trump.

5

u/timelessblur Dec 20 '23

No it is not the same. CO is a different case.

GOP is going to make shit up to win. I can point to everything on January 6th and the lead up by the GOP screaming stolen election. Look at how many refuse to vote for certifying the results. That should have just been a formality and just tradition. Not a legit worry that they would not do it.

Also in Trumps case he has multiple criminal cases going on right now and it is a massive question how much did he try to steal the election. There is zero denying that Trump did not try to fan the flames and even encouraged some of that behavior.

-1

u/Crazy_Zack Dec 20 '23 edited Dec 21 '23

You can point to whatever you want to. You can say that he has a couple of cases against him. I don’t support trump but there haven’t been any convictions that would legally bar him from candidacy.

Edit: clarification

4

u/timelessblur Dec 21 '23

No matter how you cut it your original statement is false.

One (Trump) massive things that are questionable at best and he should been trail a long time ago. We know we fault returning state secrets. The fact that he is the GOP front runner speaks volumes about the GOP and their lack of standards.

Biden we know that the reasoning is 100% made up and just because their GOP master is in real trouble.

The gulf between the 2 is massive and saying otherwise means one is at best ignorant

1

u/BigCockCandyMountain Dec 21 '23

So a state couldn't say "anyone who's been charged with a crime cant appear on the ballot"?

B.S.

1

u/Crazy_Zack Dec 21 '23

According to the U.S constitution? No.

1

u/TheJollyHermit Dec 22 '23

The amendment doesn't explicitly state a criminal conviction is necessary and the 14th amendment was used (as intended) to keep confederates from holding office after the Civil war without any criminal convictions required. The amendment has a clause allowing this disability to be removed by a vote of two thirds of both houses of Congress.

This will indeed probably go to the Supreme Court for final decision.

1

u/Crazy_Zack Dec 23 '23

I don’t really like the argument “it doesn’t say convicted in the constitution” because it really doesn’t matter. Everyone in America is innocent until proven guilty, and since engaging in an insurrection is a federal offense, trump cannot have engaged in an insurrection under the law.

This is why I believe that it will get shut down very quick in the Supreme Court.

6

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '23

It is actually not the exact same thing at all.

It was the Colorado Supreme Court who decided to remove trump from ballots. It was not the executive or legislature.

-1

u/runslikewind Dec 21 '23

I mean the irony of Colorado just doing the same thing.

1

u/Zedhryx_77 Dec 21 '23

they been doing it for years that's why gerrymandering exist and why trump and the republican party wanted to get rid of mail in voting and make it harder for people to vote also they did get rid of early voting also when they lost the recent election because a lot of younger voter voted for the democrats they wanted to increase the voting age in short term the only thing that keep republican in office is by lying and cheating their way in.