STATE & NATIONAL. Today, as the Primaries roll out results on the status of a narrowing number of presidential candidates, there may be more to question than whether the Supreme Court decision is, truly circumspect in maintaining Donald Trump’s right to be listed among several other American candidates. What may also be in question is whether a true precedent served any purpose , in this situation, in arriving a a balance of justice.
By Anne M Erbynstein
What May also be in question is how Congress may decide on a petition determined, already, by 35 states which , in each instance, has elected to eliminate Donald Trump’s name from their state’s ballots.
According to information perused surrounding the 5th President, Abe Lincoln’s removal from 5 state ballots., a decision by Congress was not sought after and, however, 5 states —slave states— were successful in removing Lincoln’s name from the General Election ballot paving the road for a Lincoln re-election.
What is not in question is whether Lincoln won or lost the election. Despite Lincoln’s victory, what must be questioned, today, if Lincoln’s removal was accomplished without a decision by Congress how might it have been lawful that the Lincoln removals were acceptable in accordance with ofthe rule of law .
Also, given that Lincoln’s ballot removal set a clearly stated precedent, how, when acting upon a balanced justice, might the US Supreme Court simply ignore the Lincoln name removal from ballots and by overriding the precedent, the US Supreme Court, thereafter, determined that states haven’t the authority to disqualify a candidate as it had been determined by 35 states concerning Trump.
The SCOTUS decision fails the Litmus test while, also, appearing to lean toward a preferential conclusion. Some points perused surrounding the change in US elections in 1800v 2000s indicating that presidential candidates were nominated during the party convention and did not face primary rounds of voting. The point is moot. The fact that Lincoln's name was lawfully removed from any ballot at whatever point in the election the name was removed is significant in establishing the fact--the name being removed from an official ballot. The Lincoln matter , being the singular precedent bearing evidence of ballot name removal , however, not regarded as such by the US Suoreme Court-- the fact of the matter is, it should have been respected, used and reference as the precedent in the Trump balloting disqualification .
What should be considered by both the Suoreme Court and Congress is the appearance of a preference by the people of 35 who are represented by the members of Congress who, should the states request a political referendum by the U.S. Congress, must decide whether Trump is disqualified , his name removed from 35 state ballots, thereby representing the interests of the people of each of the 35 Trump disqualifying states.
Finally, in the instance involving the Colorado Supreme Court decision The court ordered the Colorado secretary of state to exclude Trump from the Republican primary ballot and disregard any write-in votes for him.
The most siginificsnt factor in the Trump disqualification is the basis of the state Congress and the Colorado Supreme court's , ultimate decision:
Komentar