On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 08:00:09 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 10/29/2023 7:34 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:47:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/28/2023 6:31 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:45:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/27/2023 4:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for the 14th to be
>>>>>>>> used and frankly, I don't want them to. I want the voters to decide.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
>>>>>>> an election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm then we better start prosecuting those Democrat politician who
>>>>>> required mail in voting in 2020.
>>>>>
>>>>> If mail-in voting steals an election, every election in Oregon has been
>>>>> stolen for almost 20 years. What nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> When a government requires, by dictate of governors and not law, this
>>>> should raise eyebrows. This process was put in place with no real
>>>> checks and balances. Did Oregon just throw a switch with little
>>>> notice and tell you you can't vote in person anymore?
>>>
>>> Where was mail-in voting instituted in 2020 by "dictate of governors,
>>> and not the law"? Oregon initiated theirs by voter referendum.
>>
>> Oregon appeared to follow a process. NJ is an example of the governor
>> in power dictating that in person voting would not be permitted for
>> the 2022 election (unless you wanted to case a provisional vote that
>> would not be counted untiil several days after the election was over.)
>> There was no legislation passed to support this order.
>
>At the time of the executive order, there was no explicit legislation.
>Murphy claimed he nonetheless had the legal authority under emergency
>powers granted to him by the legislature.

He did not have the authority or you would have pointed it out. Thank
you for admitting I was correct in my statement.

>
>Was this an illegal power grab? Perhaps, perhaps not. Trump sued, but
>the case never made it court because the legislature reacted by
>explicitly passing legislation enabling Murphy's plan.
>
>https://legiscan.com/NJ/text/A4475/id/2208140

Swing and a miss. The legislation does not require the use of the
boxes which the Murphy administration did require. In fact they
specifically mentioned in person voting:

"In addition to delivering a voted mail-in ballot by mail or in person
as provided..."

Traditional in person machine voting was not permitted.

"A voter without a mail-in ballot will vote on a paper, called a
provisional ballot. The person will be given both a ballot, virtually
identical to a mail-in ballot, and a form to complete and sign
providing identifying information and attesting that he is eligible to
vote. After filling out the information, the voter must give back the
ballot and form to a poll worker."

https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2020/11/nj-election-2020-in-person-voting-process-election-day-nov-3/

Of course provisional ballots weren't counted until long after the
voting took place.

On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 08:03:16 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 10/29/2023 7:36 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:56:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/28/2023 6:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:09:30 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Due Process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which will likely begin in court deciding how to decide. Praps
>>>>> they will decide this is political process they have to stay out
>>>>> of. Praps not.
>>>>
>>>> There's no "praps" about it. The Constitution requires due process.
>>>> You can't declare someone guilty of sedition without a trial.
>>>
>>> 14.3 isn't a declaration of being guilty of the crime of sedition. You
>>> can repeat yourself over and over again, but it is not settled law what
>>> constitutes acceptable due process for being disqualified under 14.3.
>>
>> Due process is already defined in the Constitution.
>
>No, it is not.

You mean people can be deprived of their rights without trial?
Do tell.

On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 07:37:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 10/29/2023 7:30 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:56:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/28/2023 6:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:44:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/27/2023 4:26 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Due Process.
>>>>>
>>>>> ... which may or may not require a conviction.
>>>>
>>>> What's the definition of "due process"?
>>>
>>> For 14.3, we don't know
>>
>> Due process is already established in the Consitution. You're
>> pretending that it's a new thing.
>>
>>> . I suspect (but only suspect) it's review on
>>> appeal by the courts on both the process and factual findings of the
>>> decision maker (who might be the secretary of state).
>>
>> That is not due process.
>
>Says you. There is no precedent that supports (or refutes) your claim.
>It's not settled law.

Provide an example of anyone being punished by the government without
the benefit of charges and a trial.

>
>>>> What do you suppose would happen if someone could be prevented from
>>>> running for office by a mere accusation? Your lack of concern about
>>>> this issue is troubling in itself.
>>>
>>> I'd be concerned if the due process I just described above wasn't given.
>>
>> It's NOT due process. End of story.
>
>Sorry, your opinion - not supported by precedent - is not the end of the
>story no matter how many times you repeat it, with or without CAPS.

"A bill of attainder is a piece of legislation that declares a party
is guilty of a crime. Bills of attainder allow the government to
punish a party for a perceived crime without first going through the
trial process.

In the United States, bills of attainder are unconstitutional as
stated in Article 1 Section 9 and Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S.
Constitution. Article 9 prohibits federal bills of attainder and
Article 10 prohibits bills of attainder by the states. The
constitutional ban on bills of attainder works to uphold separation of
powers principles by preventing Congress from assuming the functions
of the judicial branch. "

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bill_of_attainder

Sheesh...

NoBody wrote:
> Of course provisional ballots weren't counted until long after the
> voting took place.

No shit. All voting is completed on the same day throughout the
country. Ballots are collected after this and then votes are
counted. Counting votes can last a month.
--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.1 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

NoBody wrote:
> You mean people can be deprived of their rights without trial?
> Do tell.

What do you mean by 'trial'?

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.1 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uhqoni$115tp$1@dont-
email.me:

> NoBody wrote:
>> Of course provisional ballots weren't counted until long after the
>> voting took place.
>
> No shit. All voting is completed on the same day throughout the
> country. Ballots are collected after this and then votes are
> counted. Counting votes can last a month.

Every GOP audit and recount showed Trump lost.

Including the "cyberninja" one in Arizona that
found even MORE votes for Biden.

"The ballots that were provided to us
to count in the coliseum very accurately
correlate with the official canvass numbers,"
Cyber Ninjas CEO Doug Logan said during the
presentation. He noted that the hand recount
found President Joe Biden gaining 99 votes
in Maricopa County and former President
Donald Trump losing 261 votes � which he
called "very small discrepancies."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/24/politics/arizona-election-review-
results/index.html

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 04:34:05 -0700
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

> NoBody wrote:
> > Of course provisional ballots weren't counted until long after the
> > voting took place.
>
> No shit. All voting is completed on the same day throughout the
> country. Ballots are collected after this and then votes are
> counted. Counting votes can last a month.

If everyone voted in person a computer could count the votes, and we
would know soon after the polls closed who won.

Mail in voting was created so the democrats could cheat.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 05:46:35 -0700
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

> Johnny wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 04:34:05 -0700
> > Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> NoBody wrote:
> >>> Of course provisional ballots weren't counted until long after the
> >>> voting took place.
> >>
> >> No shit. All voting is completed on the same day throughout the
> >> country. Ballots are collected after this and then votes are
> >> counted. Counting votes can last a month.
> >
> > If everyone voted in person a computer could count the votes, and we
> > would know soon after the polls closed who won.
>
> And if the computer broke down, no voting allowed?
>
> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/vote-machine-glitch-roils-arizonas-maricopa-county-fuels-false-stateme-rcna56261
>
> > Mail in voting was created so the democrats could cheat.
>
> How?
>

By taking ballots door to door so people that wouldn't have got off
their lazy asses to vote, now get to vote.

What is Ballot Harvesting?

To increase voter participation, various organizations in multiple
states have made active and coordinated efforts to collect absentee
voters' ballots during elections. Then they drop them off at polling
places or election offices.

This practice, known as ballot harvesting, has been effective and,
unsurprisingly, has generated controversy.

Some see the practice of ballot harvesting as a voter service that has
long-assisted elderly voters and Native American voters living on
remote reservations. Others see it is a political tool that can easily
lend itself to fraud.

Johnny wrote:
> By taking ballots door to door so people that wouldn't have got off
> their lazy asses to vote, now get to vote.

The people who take ballots door to door are postal carriers.

> To increase voter participation, various organizations in multiple

Anything to make it easier to vote is cheating.

> states have made active and coordinated efforts to collect absentee
> voters' ballots during elections. Then they drop them off at polling
> places or election offices.

The postal carriers also collect ballots from every household
which uses the carrier.

> remote reservations. Others see it is a political tool that can easily
> lend itself to fraud.

Well, yes. You already decided anything that makes voting easier
is cheating.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.1 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

Johnny wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 04:34:05 -0700
> Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> NoBody wrote:
>>> Of course provisional ballots weren't counted until long after the
>>> voting took place.
>>
>> No shit. All voting is completed on the same day throughout the
>> country. Ballots are collected after this and then votes are
>> counted. Counting votes can last a month.
>
> If everyone voted in person a computer could count the votes, and we
> would know soon after the polls closed who won.

And if the computer broke down, no voting allowed?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/vote-machine-glitch-roils-arizonas-maricopa-county-fuels-false-stateme-rcna56261

> Mail in voting was created so the democrats could cheat.

How?

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.1 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On 10/31/2023 5:25 AM, Johnny wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 04:34:05 -0700
> Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> NoBody wrote:
>>> Of course provisional ballots weren't counted until long after the
>>> voting took place.
>>
>> No shit. All voting is completed on the same day throughout the
>> country. Ballots are collected after this and then votes are
>> counted. Counting votes can last a month.
>
> If everyone voted in person a computer could count the votes, and we
> would know soon after the polls closed who won.

No need for that.

On 10/31/2023 4:15 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 08:03:16 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/29/2023 7:36 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:56:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/28/2023 6:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:09:30 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Due Process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which will likely begin in court deciding how to decide. Praps
>>>>>> they will decide this is political process they have to stay out
>>>>>> of. Praps not.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no "praps" about it. The Constitution requires due process.
>>>>> You can't declare someone guilty of sedition without a trial.
>>>>
>>>> 14.3 isn't a declaration of being guilty of the crime of sedition. You
>>>> can repeat yourself over and over again, but it is not settled law what
>>>> constitutes acceptable due process for being disqualified under 14.3.
>>>
>>> Due process is already defined in the Constitution.
>>
>> No, it is not.
>
> You mean people can be deprived of their rights without trial?

No. But due process is not defined in the Constitution. It is guaranteed by two
amendments in the Constitution, but it is not defined.

On 10/31/2023 4:14 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 08:00:09 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/29/2023 7:34 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:47:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/28/2023 6:31 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:45:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/27/2023 4:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for the 14th to be
>>>>>>>>> used and frankly, I don't want them to. I want the voters to decide.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
>>>>>>>> an election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm then we better start prosecuting those Democrat politician who
>>>>>>> required mail in voting in 2020.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If mail-in voting steals an election, every election in Oregon has been
>>>>>> stolen for almost 20 years. What nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> When a government requires, by dictate of governors and not law, this
>>>>> should raise eyebrows. This process was put in place with no real
>>>>> checks and balances. Did Oregon just throw a switch with little
>>>>> notice and tell you you can't vote in person anymore?
>>>>
>>>> Where was mail-in voting instituted in 2020 by "dictate of governors,
>>>> and not the law"? Oregon initiated theirs by voter referendum.
>>>
>>> Oregon appeared to follow a process. NJ is an example of the governor
>>> in power dictating that in person voting would not be permitted for
>>> the 2022 election (unless you wanted to case a provisional vote that
>>> would not be counted untiil several days after the election was over.)
>>> There was no legislation passed to support this order.
>>
>> At the time of the executive order, there was no explicit legislation.
>> Murphy claimed he nonetheless had the legal authority under emergency
>> powers granted to him by the legislature.
>
> He did not have the authority or you would have pointed it out.

He *did* point it out.

On 10/31/2023 4:20 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 07:37:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/29/2023 7:30 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:56:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/28/2023 6:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:44:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/27/2023 4:26 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Due Process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... which may or may not require a conviction.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the definition of "due process"?
>>>>
>>>> For 14.3, we don't know
>>>
>>> Due process is already established in the Consitution. You're
>>> pretending that it's a new thing.
>>>
>>>> . I suspect (but only suspect) it's review on
>>>> appeal by the courts on both the process and factual findings of the
>>>> decision maker (who might be the secretary of state).
>>>
>>> That is not due process.
>>
>> Says you. There is no precedent that supports (or refutes) your claim.
>> It's not settled law.
>
> Provide an example of anyone being punished by the government without
> the benefit of charges and a trial.

Being held to be ineligible for office is not punishment. If a naturalized
citizen wants to run for president and secretaries of state refuse to put him on
the ballot because he's ineligible under Article II, is he being punished? No.

On 10/31/2023 4:14 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 08:00:09 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/29/2023 7:34 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:47:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/28/2023 6:31 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:45:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/27/2023 4:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for the 14th to be
>>>>>>>>> used and frankly, I don't want them to. I want the voters to decide.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
>>>>>>>> an election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm then we better start prosecuting those Democrat politician who
>>>>>>> required mail in voting in 2020.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If mail-in voting steals an election, every election in Oregon has been
>>>>>> stolen for almost 20 years. What nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> When a government requires, by dictate of governors and not law, this
>>>>> should raise eyebrows. This process was put in place with no real
>>>>> checks and balances. Did Oregon just throw a switch with little
>>>>> notice and tell you you can't vote in person anymore?
>>>>
>>>> Where was mail-in voting instituted in 2020 by "dictate of governors,
>>>> and not the law"? Oregon initiated theirs by voter referendum.
>>>
>>> Oregon appeared to follow a process. NJ is an example of the governor
>>> in power dictating that in person voting would not be permitted for
>>> the 2022 election (unless you wanted to case a provisional vote that
>>> would not be counted untiil several days after the election was over.)
>>> There was no legislation passed to support this order.
>>
>> At the time of the executive order, there was no explicit legislation.
>> Murphy claimed he nonetheless had the legal authority under emergency
>> powers granted to him by the legislature.
>
> He did not have the authority or you would have pointed it out.

I say I am not sure whether Murphy originally acted lawfully because
it's a debatable question that the courts have to resolve. And you claim
that I think he did not act lawfully since I am not sure. That's royally
screwed-up logic.

> Thank
> you for admitting I was correct in my statement.

Your statement, "NJ is an example of the governor in power dictating
that in person voting would not be permitted for the 2022 election.
[...] There was no legislation passed to support this order." is
incorrect. There was legislation in place by the time voting took place
in November.

>> Was this an illegal power grab? Perhaps, perhaps not. Trump sued, but
>> the case never made it court because the legislature reacted by
>> explicitly passing legislation enabling Murphy's plan.
>>
>> https://legiscan.com/NJ/text/A4475/id/2208140
>
> Swing and a miss. The legislation does not require the use of the
> boxes which the Murphy administration did require.

What boxes?

> In fact they
> specifically mentioned in person voting:
>
> "In addition to delivering a voted mail-in ballot by mail or in person
> as provided..."
>
> Traditional in person machine voting was not permitted.
>
> "A voter without a mail-in ballot will vote on a paper, called a
> provisional ballot. The person will be given both a ballot, virtually
> identical to a mail-in ballot, and a form to complete and sign
> providing identifying information and attesting that he is eligible to
> vote. After filling out the information, the voter must give back the
> ballot and form to a poll worker."
>
> https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2020/11/nj-election-2020-in-person-voting-process-election-day-nov-3/
>
> Of course provisional ballots weren't counted until long after the
> voting took place.

The legislation explicitly called for provisional ballots. From my link
above to the legislation:

"Any voter who appears at a polling place on the day of the November
2020 General Election and does not return a voted mail-in ballot, \
pursuant to subsection h. of this section, shall vote via a provisional
ballot, except that accommodations will be made for voters with
disabilities."

On 10/31/2023 4:20 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 07:37:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/29/2023 7:30 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:56:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/28/2023 6:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:44:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/27/2023 4:26 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Due Process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... which may or may not require a conviction.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the definition of "due process"?
>>>>
>>>> For 14.3, we don't know
>>>
>>> Due process is already established in the Consitution. You're
>>> pretending that it's a new thing.
>>>
>>>> . I suspect (but only suspect) it's review on
>>>> appeal by the courts on both the process and factual findings of the
>>>> decision maker (who might be the secretary of state).
>>>
>>> That is not due process.
>>
>> Says you. There is no precedent that supports (or refutes) your claim.
>> It's not settled law.
>
> Provide an example of anyone being punished by the government without
> the benefit of charges and a trial.

It's routine practice in anti-discrimination law for the first
determination of a violation to be made by an executive-department
agency (such as a civil rights commission). If found in violation, the
person can then appeal to the courts.

>>>>> What do you suppose would happen if someone could be prevented from
>>>>> running for office by a mere accusation? Your lack of concern about
>>>>> this issue is troubling in itself.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be concerned if the due process I just described above wasn't given.
>>>
>>> It's NOT due process. End of story.
>>
>> Sorry, your opinion - not supported by precedent - is not the end of the
>> story no matter how many times you repeat it, with or without CAPS.
>
> "A bill of attainder is a piece of legislation that declares a party
> is guilty of a crime. Bills of attainder allow the government to
> punish a party for a perceived crime without first going through the
> trial process.
>
> In the United States, bills of attainder are unconstitutional as
> stated in Article 1 Section 9 and Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S.
> Constitution. Article 9 prohibits federal bills of attainder and
> Article 10 prohibits bills of attainder by the states. The
> constitutional ban on bills of attainder works to uphold separation of
> powers principles by preventing Congress from assuming the functions
> of the judicial branch. "
>
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bill_of_attainder

14.3 is not a "piece of legislation" and does not declare that anyone is
guilty of a *crime* (violating 14.3 is not a criminal offense).

But unlike you, I am not insisting that my viewpoint is correct, end of
story. Again, this is not settled law.

On 10/31/2023 4:15 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 08:03:16 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/29/2023 7:36 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:56:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/28/2023 6:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:09:30 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Due Process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which will likely begin in court deciding how to decide. Praps
>>>>>> they will decide this is political process they have to stay out
>>>>>> of. Praps not.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no "praps" about it. The Constitution requires due process.
>>>>> You can't declare someone guilty of sedition without a trial.
>>>>
>>>> 14.3 isn't a declaration of being guilty of the crime of sedition. You
>>>> can repeat yourself over and over again, but it is not settled law what
>>>> constitutes acceptable due process for being disqualified under 14.3.
>>>
>>> Due process is already defined in the Constitution.
>>
>> No, it is not.
>
> You mean people can be deprived of their rights without trial?
> Do tell.

As "nickname unavailable" (Rudy?) said, "No. But due process is not
defined in the Constitution. It is guaranteed by two amendments in the
Constitution, but it is not defined."

Thus, as applied to 14.3, it is not settled law under "due process"
whether 14.3 deprives a person of a "right" that triggers a trial.

On 10/31/2023 8:12 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 10/31/2023 4:20 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 07:37:36 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/29/2023 7:30 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:56:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/28/2023 6:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:44:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/27/2023 4:26 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Due Process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... which may or may not require a conviction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the definition of "due process"?
>>>>>
>>>>> For 14.3, we don't know
>>>>
>>>> Due process is already established in the Consitution.  You're
>>>> pretending that it's a new thing.
>>>>
>>>>> . I suspect (but only suspect) it's review on
>>>>> appeal by the courts on both the process and factual findings of the
>>>>> decision maker (who might be the secretary of state).
>>>>
>>>> That is not due process.
>>>
>>> Says you. There is no precedent that supports (or refutes) your claim.
>>> It's not settled law.
>>
>> Provide an example of anyone being punished by the government without
>> the benefit of charges and a trial.
>
> It's routine practice in anti-discrimination law for the first determination of
> a violation to be made by an executive-department agency (such as a civil rights
> commission). If found in violation, the person can then appeal to the courts.

Being declared ineligible for an office is not a punishment. In (I think) 2012,
Neil Gorsuch wrote an appellate opinion upholding the Colorado secretary of
state refusing to allow a naturalized citizen on a presidential election ballot
because he was ineligible. That naturalized citizen was not being punished.

>
>>>>>> What do you suppose would happen if someone could be prevented from
>>>>>> running for office by a mere accusation?  Your lack of concern about
>>>>>> this issue is troubling in itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd be concerned if the due process I just described above wasn't given.
>>>>
>>>> It's NOT due process.  End of story.
>>>
>>> Sorry, your opinion - not supported by precedent - is not the end of the
>>> story no matter how many times you repeat it, with or without CAPS.
>>
>> "A bill of attainder is

Not what 14.3 is.

>
> 14.3 is not a "piece of legislation" and does not declare that anyone is guilty
> of a *crime* (violating 14.3 is not a criminal offense).
>
> But unlike you, I am not insisting that my viewpoint is correct, end of story.
> Again, this is not settled law.

Kremlin Girl / Bit of Nothingness is just pissy because her guy potentially is
going to be held to be ineligible. Too fucking bad.

On 10/31/2023 8:18 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 10/31/2023 4:15 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 08:03:16 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/29/2023 7:36 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:56:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/28/2023 6:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:09:30 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Due Process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which will likely begin in court deciding how to decide. Praps
>>>>>>> they will decide this is political process they have to stay out
>>>>>>> of. Praps not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no "praps" about it.  The Constitution requires due process.
>>>>>> You can't declare someone guilty of sedition without a trial.
>>>>>
>>>>> 14.3 isn't a declaration of being guilty of the crime of sedition. You
>>>>> can repeat yourself over and over again, but it is not settled law what
>>>>> constitutes acceptable due process for being disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>
>>>> Due process is already defined in the Constitution.
>>>
>>> No, it is not.
>>
>> You mean people can be deprived of their rights without trial?
>> Do tell.
>
> As "nickname unavailable" (Rudy?) said, "No. But due process is not defined in
> the Constitution. It is guaranteed by two amendments in the Constitution, but it
> is not defined."
>
> Thus, as applied to 14.3, it is not settled law under "due process" whether 14.3
> deprives a person of a "right" that triggers a trial.

Does enforcing the citizenship and age eligibility requirements for the
presidency deprive a person who doesn't meet the requirements of a "right"? No.
A naturalized citizen or someone who has not attained age 35 or higher does not
have a "right" to run for president. Neither does someone who, having sworn an
oath to defend the Constitution, has engaged in insurrection.

Being declared ineligible for something is not a punishment.

Fred J McCall wrote:
> Does enforcing the citizenship and age eligibility requirements
> for the presidency deprive a person who doesn't meet the
> requirements of a "right"? No. A naturalized citizen or someone
> who has not attained age 35 or higher does not have a "right" to
> run for president. Neither does someone who, having sworn an oath
> to defend the Constitution, has engaged in insurrection.
>

Those are very objective and nearly everyone will agree. Without a
conviction or laws by congress this is a bit subjective. So it
makes sense to give it to a court if they accept it.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.1 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On 10/31/2023 10:03 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> Fred J McCall wrote:
>> Does enforcing the citizenship and age eligibility requirements for the
>> presidency deprive a person who doesn't meet the requirements of a "right"?
>> No. A naturalized citizen or someone who has not attained age 35 or higher
>> does not have a "right" to run for president. Neither does someone who, having
>> sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, has engaged in insurrection.
>>
>
> Those are very objective and nearly everyone will agree. Without a conviction or
> laws by congress this is a bit subjective. So it makes sense to give it to a
> court if they accept it.

That's fine, but it needs to be made clear that if a court does make a finding
that he is ineligible, he is not being "punished."

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 07:25:03 -0500, Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 04:34:05 -0700
>Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> NoBody wrote:
>> > Of course provisional ballots weren't counted until long after the
>> > voting took place.
>>
>> No shit. All voting is completed on the same day throughout the
>> country. Ballots are collected after this and then votes are
>> counted. Counting votes can last a month.
>
>If everyone voted in person a computer could count the votes, and we
>would know soon after the polls closed who won.

A Dominion computer?

>Mail in voting was created so the democrats could cheat.

Since Republicans have worked out how to do it, they're changed their position on that.

Trump regularly votes by mail.

Swill
--
"I don't want everybody to vote. As a matter of fact, our leverage in
the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
- Paul Weyrich, co founder of Heritage Foundation and Moral Majority

Not left, not right, https://www.forwardparty.com/

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 14:01:13 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

> |
> | The campaign to use the U.S. Constitution's "insurrection"
> | clause to bar former President Donald Trump from running
> | for the White House again enters a new phase this week as
> | hearings begin in two states on lawsuits that might end up
> | reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.
> |
> | A weeklong hearing on one lawsuit to bar Trump from the
> | ballot in Colorado begins Monday, while on Thursday oral
> | arguments are scheduled before the Minnesota Supreme Court
> | on an effort to kick the Republican former president off
> | the ballot in that state.
> | ...
><https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-ballot-14th-amendment-colorado-f5d6c6174476ec414208323785df6e15>
>
> --bks

Nothing says democracy like a bunch of liberals trying to dsqualify
and prosecute the opposition party without the benefit of trial.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 04:34:05 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

>NoBody wrote:
>> Of course provisional ballots weren't counted until long after the
>> voting took place.
>
>No shit. All voting is completed on the same day throughout the
>country. Ballots are collected after this and then votes are
>counted. Counting votes can last a month.

And yet the elections were called long before that. Imagine that.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 05:46:35 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

>Johnny wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 04:34:05 -0700
>> Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>> Of course provisional ballots weren't counted until long after the
>>>> voting took place.
>>>
>>> No shit. All voting is completed on the same day throughout the
>>> country. Ballots are collected after this and then votes are
>>> counted. Counting votes can last a month.
>>
>> If everyone voted in person a computer could count the votes, and we
>> would know soon after the polls closed who won.
>
>And if the computer broke down, no voting allowed?
>
>https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/vote-machine-glitch-roils-arizonas-maricopa-county-fuels-false-stateme-rcna56261
>

Using an exception to prove the rule?

>> Mail in voting was created so the democrats could cheat.
>
>How?

We'll start with inability to validate the voter and ballot harvesting
and go from there.