PepeSilvia

I showed you the freaking Federalist Paper where it specifically said it. Also, where those that discussed the 14th amendment when it was ratified believed it also. You’re either too stubborn to believe it or not that bright. You have shown me no historical context to back up your belief. By the way, your “SCOTUS” paper, which was just a Stanford law review paper dealt with labeling who inferior officers were to get a better definition of those. It never dealt with whether or not the president is considered an officer because that wasn’t its focus. The paper’s definition of what an officer was easily suggests that the president is one. That’s assuming you actually read it.

That’s the dumbest response that I’ve read in a long time. Congrats.

And here I thought that Cons were strict originalists when it comes to the constitution. You sure are making a stretch to interpret what they are saying while ignoring what someone who was actually there said.

Since you want to base your reasoning on the Federalist Papers: “The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years;” Federalist #69

It doesn’t appear that you do and for that I am sorry.

You were stating that it was the opposition party trying to take him off the ballot when it was clearly started by members of his own party.

Obviously it’s something that you are lacking. That must be why your main response to anything is asking a hypothetical question. Also, is the debate that occurred during the ratification of the 14th in which everyone agreed that the president is an officer of the US, relevant or not?

The people who started this process in Colorado are from which political party? Is that clear enough for you?

Get back to me when you actually have a valid argument. That one is not.

That’s funny, you’d think that you’d care about what was being debated when the 14th amendment was being ratified and how everybody with a little common sense all knew that the President is an officer of the US.

Bwahahaha. What sad life you must lead where you are impatiently waiting on a response to a political forum. Some of us actually have things to do in the real world that are much more fulfilling than constantly refreshing Smoaky.

Exactly who started this process is the question I pose to you?

Very relevant since those don’t have to occur.

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2023/11/presidents-as-officers-of-and-under.html?m=1 Here’s some historical context for you.

So you honestly believe that an officer of the US would not include the president. Again, who’s the top officer of the US?

Just to clarify my position. I would prefer him to stay on the ballot. I love a good show which is what he is.

If he was a traitor.

States don’t run their own elections?

I do believe that it says “executive” which the president is the top executive if I’m not mistaken.

Again, where does it say that he has to be?

Quick question, where in the Constitution does it say that they have to be convicted?

I thought you Cons were all about states rights?

So a group of biased judges (not doctors) feel that she didn’t prove her medical case and that’s enough for you? We know you’ll be flying the Gilead flag soon.