I say "maybe" because, as the lower article from August makes clear, women COULD die if certain politicians don't think twice. (Not just in Ohio, obviously.)

The following article is from yesterday.

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-democracy-threats-republicans-ballot-initiatives-ohio-3d6e2f0d0f5993ddd75522b662d2eb34

Excerpts:

....In all seven states where abortion has been on the ballot since Roe v. Wade fell, voters have either supported protecting abortion rights or rejected an attempt to erode them.

That has led some Republicans who support abortion restrictions to target the ballot initiative process, a form of direct democracy that is available to voters in only about half the states.

“Thank goodness that most of the states in this country don’t allow you to put everything on the ballot because pure democracies are not the way to run a country,” said Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania and one-time presidential candidate. He spoke about Ohio’s election results during an appearance on the conservative site NewsMax.

....Sophia Jordán Wallace, a political science professor at the University of Washington, said “the frequency and the explicitness of these undemocratic attempts are increasing” and that they threaten to do long-term damage to American institutions and the public’s faith in them.

“And that damage is incredibly difficult to undo,” she said..

....Andrew Whitehead, associate professor of sociology at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, said Christian nationalists, who have deep ties to the anti-abortion movement, have a history of viewing access to fundamental democratic processes such as voting not as a right but a privilege that should be afforded only to those who align with their beliefs.

“When it comes to enforcing their vision for America they think is ordained by God, they will set aside democracy,” Whitehead said...

From August:

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2023/08/liberal-fox-news-co-host-destroys-conservatives-claims-the-right-holds-the-majority-opinion-on-culture-war-issues/

....“Abortion is another instance of the tyranny of the minority,” Tarlov continued. “I get it, federalism – you send it back to the states where a group of elected officials have decided, for instance, in like Texas, Louisiana, that women should not be able to get abortions after six weeks. We have women that are bleeding out, going into sepsis. In Louisiana, a woman was forced to carry a baby that had no skull.”...

Yeah, meanwhile, you have states that are pulling out all the stops
trying to disqualify a certain _candidate_ from their ballot. Can't
let people vote for the candidate they want, not in our precious
democracy!

I think the rabid college kids and Muslims holding "Gas the Jews"
rallies is a more pressing concern than if some whore can kill her kid
legally.

David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:

>Yeah, meanwhile, you have states that are pulling out all the stops
>trying to disqualify a certain _candidate_ from their ballot. Can't
>let people vote for the candidate they want, not in our precious
>democracy!

Why are you talking about democracy with respect to the presidential
election? We have neither direct nominations nor direct election of the
president. Nomination is by convention. Election is by electors.

That's the only reason why the dude you refused to name cannot be
disqualified from appearing on the ballot. Semantically, a candidate for
president is a candidate only for the electors, not the voters.

I suppose a federal judge could rule that he's not a candidate with
respect to electors.

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:52:30 PM UTC-5, Travoltron wrote:
> I think the rabid college kids and Muslims holding "Gas the Jews"
> rallies is a more pressing concern than if some whore can kill her kid
> legally.

Given the results in those seven states...

....how many people really think that an abortion in the first thirty DAYS counts as murder? Does the same go for any herbal abortions that didn't call for a doctor or taxpayers' money? (Or, for that matter, an IUD, which prevents implantation but not fertilization, IIRC?)

And out of that group, how many would be willing to send the woman to PRISON for years?

Chances are, we pretty much all know more than one woman - among our loved ones, no less - who has had an abortion. If you knew who that loved one was, would you want to see HER go to prison? I doubt it.

(I doubt you would call her a "whore," either.)

Btw, for those who don't know, 60% of women who seek abortions already have children. So it should be obvious to everyone that the women in that 60% are not about to check out local fire stations or adoption agencies - and they also know perfectly well what number of children they CAN'T afford.

And how many people would really be willing to look a sister, daughter, niece or granddaughter in the eye and say "I don't care if becoming a single mother would ruin any chance of your ever getting a career you like. I also don't care if choosing adoption would shatter you for life. I will still do everything I can to make sure you can't legally get an abortion even in the first thirty days."

To quote again what I quoted elsewhere:

"The fact is, when your back is against the wall of unwanted pregnancy, it doesn't matter whether or not you think the fetus is a person. That's why, in this country, Roman Catholic women, who are less likely to use effective birth control, have a higher abortion rate than Jews or Protestants."

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 6:45:45 PM UTC-5, Lenona wrote:
>
> Btw, for those who don't know, 60% of women who seek abortions already have children. So it should be obvious to everyone that the women in that 60% are not about to check out local fire stations or adoption agencies - and they also know perfectly well what number of children they CAN'T afford.

And, of course, plenty - most? - of those mothers are MARRIED.

I.e., their loving husbands are not about to pressure them into poverty or adoption, either.

On top of everything else, roughly half of young people today will tell you that getting married before 30 just isn't financially prudent, since once you marry, you have to be prepared to support your spouse forever, should some terrible accident happen to your spouse the day after the wedding.

Does that mean that every unmarried man and woman under 30 who isn't a virgin is a "whore"?

(I would happily bet that even a conservative widower in his 40s who's looking to marry again does NOT want a 30-year-old virgin, if you see what I mean.)

Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:52:30 PM UTC-5, Travoltron wrote:

>>I think the rabid college kids and Muslims holding "Gas the Jews"
>>rallies is a more pressing concern than if some whore can kill her kid
>>legally.

>Given the results in those seven states...

>...how many people really think that an abortion in the first thirty
>DAYS counts as murder? Does the same go for any herbal abortions that
>didn't call for a doctor or taxpayers' money? (Or, for that matter, an
>IUD, which prevents implantation but not fertilization, IIRC?)

When you declare human life begins at conception, then you deliberately
misuse the word "abortion", you raise the stakes. A morning after pill,
which prevents pregnancy, is now an abortificant. Surgery for the health
or life of the mother, when the intent is not to kill the foetus but
that could easily be the result, is now an abortion procedure and no
longer routine gynecological surgery. Pre-Hobbs, pro life gynecological
surgeons unwilling to perform abortions were perfectly willing to provide
such surgery as ordinary care for their patients, the pregnant woman.

>. . .

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 23:00:02 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, meanwhile, you have states that are pulling out all the stops
>>trying to disqualify a certain _candidate_ from their ballot. Can't
>>let people vote for the candidate they want, not in our precious
>>democracy!
>
>Why are you talking about democracy with respect to the presidential
>election? We have neither direct nominations nor direct election of the
>president. Nomination is by convention. Election is by electors.
>
>That's the only reason why the dude you refused to name cannot be
>disqualified from appearing on the ballot. Semantically, a candidate for
>president is a candidate only for the electors, not the voters.

Don't tell me how the Constitution works, tell the people in the states
that are trying to do it. If you don't belieive this is a real thing that
they're trying to make happen, well, it is, and they're doing it _in the
name of democracy_.

>I suppose a federal judge could rule that he's not a candidate with
>respect to electors.

They don't care how they get the result they want as long as they get it.

"You don't break the glass unless there's an emergency." - the guy who
filed the lawsuit to take Trump off the ballot in Colorado.

I suppose this is the part where you insist on arguing with me - even
though I don't think we really disgree on anything - until I get bored.
Good news, I'm already there.

--
Dead or Alive Data Base
http://www.doadb.com

David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>Mon, 20 Nov 2023 23:00:02 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:

>>>Yeah, meanwhile, you have states that are pulling out all the stops
>>>trying to disqualify a certain _candidate_ from their ballot. Can't
>>>let people vote for the candidate they want, not in our precious
>>>democracy!

>>Why are you talking about democracy with respect to the presidential
>>election? We have neither direct nominations nor direct election of the
>>president. Nomination is by convention. Election is by electors.

>>That's the only reason why the dude you refused to name cannot be
>>disqualified from appearing on the ballot. Semantically, a candidate for
>>president is a candidate only for the electors, not the voters.

>Don't tell me how the Constitution works, tell the people in the states
>that are trying to do it. If you don't belieive this is a real thing that
>they're trying to make happen, well, it is, and they're doing it _in the
>name of democracy_.

Nominations aren't in the Constitution.

At no point did I say this wasn't a real thing. Obviously it is. There
have been multiple federal lawsuits in various states.

But you changed the topic here. The thread began as a discussion of
direct democracy and politicians ignoring the will of the people. The
presidential election ain't the least bit democratic.

"In the name of democracy" is a reference to someone who, indirectly,
tried to overthrow Congress to remain in power. The candidate you refuse
to name isn't the least bit interested in preserving democracy.

>. . .

>I suppose this is the part where you insist on arguing with me - even
>though I don't think we really disgree on anything - until I get bored.
>Good news, I'm already there.

If we weren't disagreeing, then there was no need to follow up, was
there. I followed up because I thought you should have stuck with the
original topic discussing direct democracy.

David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
> Yeah, meanwhile, you have states that are pulling out all the stops
> trying to disqualify a certain _candidate_ from their ballot. Can't
> let people vote for the candidate they want, not in our precious
> democracy!
>

When there are constitutional limitations as to who can be a candidate,
they can't be treated as dead letters.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 04:47:41 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>
wrote:

>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, meanwhile, you have states that are pulling out all the stops
>> trying to disqualify a certain _candidate_ from their ballot. Can't
>> let people vote for the candidate they want, not in our precious
>> democracy!
>>
>
>When there are constitutional limitations as to who can be a candidate,
>they can't be treated as dead letters.

The limitations must not be enforced against a person who has not been
found guilty of the crime that would make them applicable to him.

David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 04:47:41 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>:
>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:

>>>Yeah, meanwhile, you have states that are pulling out all the stops
>>>trying to disqualify a certain _candidate_ from their ballot. Can't
>>>let people vote for the candidate they want, not in our precious
>>>democracy!

>>When there are constitutional limitations as to who can be a candidate,
>>they can't be treated as dead letters.

>The limitations must not be enforced against a person who has not been
>found guilty of the crime that would make them applicable to him.

That's a bullshit interpretation. Post Civil War, they didn't have
massive show trials to convict Confederate Army soldiers and officers in
order to disqualify them from holding the public offices named in the
clause.

Someone who participated in the January 6 insurrection, even if
prosecuted, hasn't been charged with insurrection. There could be a
hearing in which a judge might make a finding whether or not he's
disqualified from the named public offices. If the office he's seeking
were Representative in Congress or state legislature, then if he's found
to be disqualified, his name is ineligible to appear on the ballot.

President is different due to indirect nomination and indirect election.
The clause acknowledges this as elector is a political office with such
a disqualification but otherwise the clause didn't amend the Electoral
College process.

The constitutional issue with president is what the judge already
pointed out, given indirect nomination and indirect election, the
candidate isn't legally the candidate for president till the electors
vote. On a primary ballot, his name represents delegates to the national
nominating convention. On the general election ballot, his name
represents the electors his party has chosen.

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:40:36 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 04:47:41 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>:
>>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Yeah, meanwhile, you have states that are pulling out all the stops
>>>>trying to disqualify a certain _candidate_ from their ballot. Can't
>>>>let people vote for the candidate they want, not in our precious
>>>>democracy!
>
>>>When there are constitutional limitations as to who can be a candidate,
>>>they can't be treated as dead letters.
>
>>The limitations must not be enforced against a person who has not been
>>found guilty of the crime that would make them applicable to him.
>
>That's a bullshit interpretation. Post Civil War, they didn't have
>massive show trials to convict Confederate Army soldiers and officers in
>order to disqualify them from holding the public offices named in the
>clause.

Sorry, I didn't think I needed to point out that Donald Trump wasn't a
Confederate soldier.

David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:40:36 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>>>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 04:47:41 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>:
>>>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Yeah, meanwhile, you have states that are pulling out all the stops
>>>>>trying to disqualify a certain _candidate_ from their ballot. Can't
>>>>>let people vote for the candidate they want, not in our precious
>>>>>democracy!
>>
>>>>When there are constitutional limitations as to who can be a candidate,
>>>>they can't be treated as dead letters.
>>
>>>The limitations must not be enforced against a person who has not been
>>>found guilty of the crime that would make them applicable to him.
>>
>>That's a bullshit interpretation. Post Civil War, they didn't have
>>massive show trials to convict Confederate Army soldiers and officers in
>>order to disqualify them from holding the public offices named in the
>>clause.
>
> Sorry, I didn't think I needed to point out that Donald Trump wasn't a
> Confederate soldier.
>

Nonetheless,it is appropriate to treat his insurrectionism the
same way theirs was treated for the purposes of the Amendment.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:40:36 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>>>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 04:47:41 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>:
>>>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:

>>>>>Yeah, meanwhile, you have states that are pulling out all the stops
>>>>>trying to disqualify a certain _candidate_ from their ballot. Can't
>>>>>let people vote for the candidate they want, not in our precious
>>>>>democracy!

>>>>When there are constitutional limitations as to who can be a candidate,
>>>>they can't be treated as dead letters.

>>>The limitations must not be enforced against a person who has not been
>>>found guilty of the crime that would make them applicable to him.

>>That's a bullshit interpretation. Post Civil War, they didn't have
>>massive show trials to convict Confederate Army soldiers and officers in
>>order to disqualify them from holding the public offices named in the
>>clause.

>Sorry, I didn't think I needed to point out that Donald Trump wasn't a
>Confederate soldier.

It does need to be pointed out to you that you made up "The insurrection
clause's disqualification applies only to those convicted" is bullshit
you just made up out of whole cloth.

It's not constitutional language. You were trying to pull a fast one.
Own up to it.

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 23:42:47 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>
wrote:

>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:40:36 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>>>>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 04:47:41 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>:
>>>>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Yeah, meanwhile, you have states that are pulling out all the stops
>>>>>>trying to disqualify a certain _candidate_ from their ballot. Can't
>>>>>>let people vote for the candidate they want, not in our precious
>>>>>>democracy!
>>>
>>>>>When there are constitutional limitations as to who can be a candidate,
>>>>>they can't be treated as dead letters.
>>>
>>>>The limitations must not be enforced against a person who has not been
>>>>found guilty of the crime that would make them applicable to him.
>>>
>>>That's a bullshit interpretation. Post Civil War, they didn't have
>>>massive show trials to convict Confederate Army soldiers and officers in
>>>order to disqualify them from holding the public offices named in the
>>>clause.
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't think I needed to point out that Donald Trump wasn't a
>> Confederate soldier.
>>
>
>Nonetheless,it is appropriate to treat his insurrectionism the
>same way theirs was treated for the purposes of the Amendment.

Yeah, forget about due process of law. That's in a different paragraph.

David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 23:42:47 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>
>wrote:
>
>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:40:36 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 04:47:41 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>:
>>>>>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>Yeah, meanwhile, you have states that are pulling out all the stops
>>>>>>>trying to disqualify a certain _candidate_ from their ballot. Can't
>>>>>>>let people vote for the candidate they want, not in our precious
>>>>>>>democracy!
>>>>
>>>>>>When there are constitutional limitations as to who can be a candidate,
>>>>>>they can't be treated as dead letters.
>>>>
>>>>>The limitations must not be enforced against a person who has not been
>>>>>found guilty of the crime that would make them applicable to him.
>>>>
>>>>That's a bullshit interpretation. Post Civil War, they didn't have
>>>>massive show trials to convict Confederate Army soldiers and officers in
>>>>order to disqualify them from holding the public offices named in the
>>>>clause.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I didn't think I needed to point out that Donald Trump wasn't a
>>> Confederate soldier.
>>>
>>
>>Nonetheless,it is appropriate to treat his insurrectionism the
>>same way theirs was treated for the purposes of the Amendment.
>
>Yeah, forget about due process of law. That's in a different paragraph.

Got it. There could be a hearing on whether the person you refused to
name earlier had participated in a disqualifying act in federal court
but no due process would take place because no criminal charges were
filed.

David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 23:42:47 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>
> wrote:
>
>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:40:36 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 04:47:41 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>:
>>>>>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>Yeah, meanwhile, you have states that are pulling out all the stops
>>>>>>>trying to disqualify a certain _candidate_ from their ballot. Can't
>>>>>>>let people vote for the candidate they want, not in our precious
>>>>>>>democracy!
>>>>
>>>>>>When there are constitutional limitations as to who can be a candidate,
>>>>>>they can't be treated as dead letters.
>>>>
>>>>>The limitations must not be enforced against a person who has not been
>>>>>found guilty of the crime that would make them applicable to him.
>>>>
>>>>That's a bullshit interpretation. Post Civil War, they didn't have
>>>>massive show trials to convict Confederate Army soldiers and officers in
>>>>order to disqualify them from holding the public offices named in the
>>>>clause.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I didn't think I needed to point out that Donald Trump wasn't a
>>> Confederate soldier.
>>>
>>
>>Nonetheless,it is appropriate to treat his insurrectionism the
>>same way theirs was treated for the purposes of the Amendment.
>
> Yeah, forget about due process of law. That's in a different paragraph.

So,you don't think the Confederates should have been disqualified,
because they were treated as Trump is being treated,with the understanding
that the constitutional language is self-executing?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 06:02:44 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>
wrote:

>David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 23:42:47 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:40:36 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 04:47:41 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>:
>>>>>>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yeah, meanwhile, you have states that are pulling out all the stops
>>>>>>>>trying to disqualify a certain _candidate_ from their ballot. Can't
>>>>>>>>let people vote for the candidate they want, not in our precious
>>>>>>>>democracy!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>When there are constitutional limitations as to who can be a candidate,
>>>>>>>they can't be treated as dead letters.
>>>>>
>>>>>>The limitations must not be enforced against a person who has not been
>>>>>>found guilty of the crime that would make them applicable to him.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's a bullshit interpretation. Post Civil War, they didn't have
>>>>>massive show trials to convict Confederate Army soldiers and officers in
>>>>>order to disqualify them from holding the public offices named in the
>>>>>clause.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I didn't think I needed to point out that Donald Trump wasn't a
>>>> Confederate soldier.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nonetheless,it is appropriate to treat his insurrectionism the
>>>same way theirs was treated for the purposes of the Amendment.
>>
>> Yeah, forget about due process of law. That's in a different paragraph.
>
>So,you don't think the Confederates should have been disqualified,
>because they were treated as Trump is being treated,with the understanding
>that the constitutional language is self-executing?

No. Whether or not one was a Confederate soldier was self-evident, and
whether the Confederacy was a rebel cause was also self-evident. Nothing
about Trump's so-called insurrectionism is self-evident. I, and all other
rational, non-deranged people in the U.S., understand that there was no
insurrection on January 6. There was a riot where a lot of people
trespassed and one trespasser was shot and killed. I'm not going to go
over the facts of the incident because it wont change your mind or anyone
else's. The point is that there is an argument about it. Likewise for the
claim that Trump is personally responsible for the riots. He mustn't be
disqualified from office until there is an objective answer to whether
insurrection was committed and that he is responsible for it. The only
hope of arriving at an objective answer is a criminal trial with due
process. It won't settle the question in most people's hearts and minds;
they will continue to believe what they want. But it will satisfy the
requirement that justice guides our application of the law, not the
ambitions of a deranged few.

David Carson
--
Dead or Alive Data Base
http://www.doadb.com

David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>Wed, 22 Nov 2023 06:02:44 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>:
>>David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>>>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 23:42:47 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>:
>>>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>>>>>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:40:36 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>>David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 04:47:41 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>:
>>>>>>>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>Yeah, meanwhile, you have states that are pulling out all the stops
>>>>>>>>>trying to disqualify a certain _candidate_ from their ballot. Can't
>>>>>>>>>let people vote for the candidate they want, not in our precious
>>>>>>>>>democracy!

>>>>>>>>When there are constitutional limitations as to who can be a candidate,
>>>>>>>>they can't be treated as dead letters.

>>>>>>>The limitations must not be enforced against a person who has not been
>>>>>>>found guilty of the crime that would make them applicable to him.

>>>>>>That's a bullshit interpretation. Post Civil War, they didn't have
>>>>>>massive show trials to convict Confederate Army soldiers and officers in
>>>>>>order to disqualify them from holding the public offices named in the
>>>>>>clause.

>>>>>Sorry, I didn't think I needed to point out that Donald Trump wasn't a
>>>>>Confederate soldier.

>>>>Nonetheless,it is appropriate to treat his insurrectionism the
>>>>same way theirs was treated for the purposes of the Amendment.

>>>Yeah, forget about due process of law. That's in a different paragraph.

>>So,you don't think the Confederates should have been disqualified,
>>because they were treated as Trump is being treated,with the understanding
>>that the constitutional language is self-executing?

>No. Whether or not one was a Confederate soldier was self-evident, and
>whether the Confederacy was a rebel cause was also self-evident.

The constitution didn't require there to be a finding that the Civil War
was a rebellion. The language is "engaged in insurrection or rebellion".
Don't bullshit Usenet readers that the language wasn't referring to the
Civil War and subsequent insurrections and rebellions against the United
States.

For the disqualification to be applicable, it doesn't say "having been
convicted of engaging in". We know historically that there were not
mass criminal trials convicting those who had engaged in insurrection
or rebellion as part of the Confederacy having previously taken an oath
of office.

The Constitution has qualifications for Senator: thirty years old, citizen
for nine years, and an inhabitant of the state. It has a disqualification:
not having engaged in insurrection or rebellion having previously taken
an oath to support the Constitution. That also puts the burden on the
candidate to prove his qualifications if challenged.

>Nothing about Trump's so-called insurrectionism is self-evident. I,
>and all other rational, non-deranged people in the U.S., understand that
>there was no insurrection on January 6.

An insurrection took place. In criminal trial proceedings, the burden is
upon the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant committed the crime of insurrection. That the government knew
it couldn't meet its burden of proof against individual defendants
is why they charged defendants with other crimes. That does NOT mean
that no insurrection took place.

Nice attempt at gaslighting.

>There was a riot where a lot of people trespassed and one trespasser
>was shot and killed. I'm not going to go over the facts of the incident
>because it wont change your mind or anyone else's.

No, you're just willfully leaving facts out because you don't have an
argument. It was an insurrection made as an attack upon Congress sitting
in session in the United States Capitol to prevent them from carrying
out their constitutional duties with respect to count the certificates
of the Electoral College vote.

Certain people were charged with crimes against persons as
police officers were attacked. Certain people were charged with
conspiracy because they organized others to attack the Capitol.

>The point is that there is an argument about it.

Yes. That argument can be made in court where evidentiary rules apply in
which Trump will be entitled to due process in a civil but not a
criminal trial.

You keep willfully leaving facts out because you are gaslighting Usenet.

>Likewise for the claim that Trump is personally responsible for the riots.

Trump is personally responsible for his own actions.

>He mustn't be disqualified from office until there is an objective answer
>to whether insurrection was committed and that he is responsible for it.

More gaslighting. The language is "engaged in having previously taken an
oath to support the Constitution", not "held responsible for illegal acts
committed by others".

>The only hope of arriving at an objective answer is a criminal trial
>with due process.

More gaslighting. The disqualification does not need to be proven at
criminal trial. Due process applies to trial procedure generally, not
solely to procedure at criminal trial.

>It won't settle the question in most people's hearts and minds;
>they will continue to believe what they want. But it will satisfy the
>requirement that justice guides our application of the law, not the
>ambitions of a deranged few.

I love how you are trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes that
unwritten language in the Constitution is uniquely applicable to Trump's
actions that led up to January 6 and therefore Trump cannot be
disqualified without having been convicted of the crime of insurrection,
and that the insurrection clause wasn't referring to the Civil War.

Wow.

In article <ujjfkn$119ja$3@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
....
>It does need to be pointed out to you that you made up "The insurrection
>clause's disqualification applies only to those convicted" is bullshit
>you just made up out of whole cloth.
>
>It's not constitutional language. You were trying to pull a fast one.
>Own up to it.

The funny thing about this thread is that David Carson is basically a smart
guy, and I have respect for his intellect. However, in this thread, he's
gotten himself into a rabbit hole trying to defend a position which is
categorically indefensible. Pity, that.

It is a mess that Trumpers often find themselves in. When they bother at
all to try to intellectually defend Trumpian positions.

--
The motto of the GOP "base": You can't *be* a billionaire, but at least you
can vote like one.

David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 06:02:44 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>
> wrote:
>
>>David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 23:42:47 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:40:36 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 04:47:41 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>:
>>>>>>>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yeah, meanwhile, you have states that are pulling out all the stops
>>>>>>>>>trying to disqualify a certain _candidate_ from their ballot. Can't
>>>>>>>>>let people vote for the candidate they want, not in our precious
>>>>>>>>>democracy!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>When there are constitutional limitations as to who can be a candidate,
>>>>>>>>they can't be treated as dead letters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The limitations must not be enforced against a person who has not been
>>>>>>>found guilty of the crime that would make them applicable to him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's a bullshit interpretation. Post Civil War, they didn't have
>>>>>>massive show trials to convict Confederate Army soldiers and officers in
>>>>>>order to disqualify them from holding the public offices named in the
>>>>>>clause.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I didn't think I needed to point out that Donald Trump wasn't a
>>>>> Confederate soldier.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nonetheless,it is appropriate to treat his insurrectionism the
>>>>same way theirs was treated for the purposes of the Amendment.
>>>
>>> Yeah, forget about due process of law. That's in a different paragraph.
>>
>>So,you don't think the Confederates should have been disqualified,
>>because they were treated as Trump is being treated,with the understanding
>>that the constitutional language is self-executing?
>
> No. Whether or not one was a Confederate soldier was self-evident, and
> whether the Confederacy was a rebel cause was also self-evident. Nothing
> about Trump's so-called insurrectionism is self-evident. I, and all other
> rational, non-deranged people in the U.S., understand that there was no
> insurrection on January 6. There was a riot where a lot of people
> trespassed and one trespasser was shot and killed. I'm not going to go
> over the facts of the incident because it wont change your mind or anyone
> else's. The point is that there is an argument about it. Likewise for the
> claim that Trump is personally responsible for the riots. He mustn't be
> disqualified from office until there is an objective answer to whether
> insurrection was committed and that he is responsible for it. The only
> hope of arriving at an objective answer is a criminal trial with due
> process. It won't settle the question in most people's hearts and minds;
> they will continue to believe what they want. But it will satisfy the
> requirement that justice guides our application of the law, not the
> ambitions of a deranged few.

For reference,on how and why the language of the Amendment
is self-executing and needs no convictions:

https://www.scribd.com/document/66431170/Trump-Can-t-Run
"The Sweep and Force of Section Three",by
William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen,
forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
> David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 06:02:44 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 23:42:47 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:40:36 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>>>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>David Carson <davo@neosoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 04:47:41 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws>:
>>>>>>>>>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yeah, meanwhile, you have states that are pulling out all the stops
>>>>>>>>>>trying to disqualify a certain _candidate_ from their ballot. Can't
>>>>>>>>>>let people vote for the candidate they want, not in our precious
>>>>>>>>>>democracy!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>When there are constitutional limitations as to who can be a candidate,
>>>>>>>>>they can't be treated as dead letters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The limitations must not be enforced against a person who has not been
>>>>>>>>found guilty of the crime that would make them applicable to him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's a bullshit interpretation. Post Civil War, they didn't have
>>>>>>>massive show trials to convict Confederate Army soldiers and officers in
>>>>>>>order to disqualify them from holding the public offices named in the
>>>>>>>clause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't think I needed to point out that Donald Trump wasn't a
>>>>>> Confederate soldier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nonetheless,it is appropriate to treat his insurrectionism the
>>>>>same way theirs was treated for the purposes of the Amendment.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, forget about due process of law. That's in a different paragraph.
>>>
>>>So,you don't think the Confederates should have been disqualified,
>>>because they were treated as Trump is being treated,with the understanding
>>>that the constitutional language is self-executing?
>>
>> No. Whether or not one was a Confederate soldier was self-evident, and
>> whether the Confederacy was a rebel cause was also self-evident. Nothing
>> about Trump's so-called insurrectionism is self-evident. I, and all other
>> rational, non-deranged people in the U.S., understand that there was no
>> insurrection on January 6. There was a riot where a lot of people
>> trespassed and one trespasser was shot and killed. I'm not going to go
>> over the facts of the incident because it wont change your mind or anyone
>> else's. The point is that there is an argument about it. Likewise for the
>> claim that Trump is personally responsible for the riots. He mustn't be
>> disqualified from office until there is an objective answer to whether
>> insurrection was committed and that he is responsible for it. The only
>> hope of arriving at an objective answer is a criminal trial with due
>> process. It won't settle the question in most people's hearts and minds;
>> they will continue to believe what they want. But it will satisfy the
>> requirement that justice guides our application of the law, not the
>> ambitions of a deranged few.
>
> For reference,on how and why the language of the Amendment
> is self-executing and needs no convictions:
>
> https://www.scribd.com/document/66431170/Trump-Can-t-Run
> "The Sweep and Force of Section Three",by
> William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen,
> forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

Further:
https://youtu.be/9urK6y_J_Wc
> -=-=-
> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.