On December 26, the Nevada Republican Party filed this brief in Castro v Aguilar, 2:23cv-1387. This is the lawsuit filed by John Anthony Castro to keep former President Donald Trump off the ballot in the Nevada Republican presidential primary.
Castro’s Nevada lawsuit is his weakest lawsuit, because, as the Republican Party explains, Donald Trump isn’t even participating in the state-administered Nevada Republican presidential primary. Instead he and most of the other strong contenders for the Republican nomination are using the Nevada Republican caucus. The Nevada Republican Party refused to let anyone compete in its caucus if that person ran in the government-administered presidential primary.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/wisconsin-supreme-courts-ruling-could-095216238.html
Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling could mean a huge change for the purple state
—
WI LEGIS SUPER-GERRYMANDER MINORITY RULE
—
PR IN ALL REGIMES
APPV
TOTSOP
NV GOP DELEGATES TO GOP NATL CONV VIA PREZ PRIMARY OR CAUCUS ???
— IE WHICH IS TOTAL JUNK ??? — FRAUD ON GOP VOTERS
“Castro’s Nevada lawsuit is his weakest lawsuit”
Given that all 15 of his lawsuits that have concluded have ended with dismissals, and his two circuit court appeals were both unanimously rejected, that is saying a lot!
22-1 AMDT ALSO IS A DIS-QUALIFICATION PART OF THE CONST – FOR PREZ
LEGAL TO PUT A 22-1 AMDT PERSON ON BALLOTS FOR PREZ ???
Yes. It’s just illegal for a President who is already termed out to take the oath of office. It’s not illegal for him to make a symbolic run, for voters to vote for him , for states to include his name as a label for a slate of delegates or electors. and off the top of my head I don’t know of anything that would make it illegal for electors to vote for him but may need to double check that part.
Congress is charged to not certify the votes of any such electors were there to be any, though that seems unlikely. If congress ignored its job and certified the electoral votes for a termed out president, and if there were enough such votes to elect him – an even more absurd scenario – he would be violating his oath of office by taking it for a third time (or fourth, if he also served a partial term to then qualify for and serve two full terms).
Interesting. If Trump wasn’t even better than Reagan, I might see what it would take to get Reagan on the ballot.
Reagan is additionally disqualified by being dead. If you were putting dead presidents on the ballot, I’d go with Andrew Jackson, the only one so far who was better than Trump.
The only individuals currently disqualified by the 22nd (which I agree is among the many amendments that need to go) are Billy Jeff Clinton, Shrub, and Barack Insane Osama. None of those deserve a third term.
The two letter thing’s question was not whether they deserve another term, but whether it would be legal to put them on ballots. I agree none of those deserve an additional term. But I’ll be consistent and say it would be legal for states to put them in the ballot and for voters to vote for them. It would not be legal for them to be sworn in.