Posted on 12/21/2023 8:18:19 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The ballots were simply lists of names of the Electors who were pledged to the candidate. The voter would "vote" the list. The candidates would distribute the lists and the people would vote the one they preferred.
In the southern states, printers refused to print ballots for the Lincoln campaign, and people were afraid to submit them for fear of being shunned or physically attacked.
It was intimidation tactics like this that section 2 of the 14th Amendment was intended to address.
From Wikipedia: 1860 United States presidential election:
Excerpt:
One key difference between modern elections and those of the mid-nineteenth century is that at the time the state did not print and distribute ballots. In theory, any document containing a valid or at least non-excessive number names of citizens of a particular state (provided they were eligible to vote in the electoral college within that state) might have been accepted as a valid presidential ballot; however, what this meant in practice was that a candidate's campaign was responsible for printing and distributing their own ballots (this service was typically done by supportive newspaper publishers).-PJMoreover, since voters did not choose the president directly, but rather presidential electors, the only way for a voter to meaningfully support a particular candidate for president was cast a ballot for citizens of his state who would have pledged to vote for the candidate in the Electoral College. In ten southern slave states, no citizen would publicly pledge to vote for Abraham Lincoln, so citizens there had no legal means to vote for the Republican nominee. In most of Virginia, no publisher would print ballots for Lincoln's pledged electors.
While a citizen without access to a ballot for Lincoln could theoretically have still voted for him by means of a write-in ballot provided his state had electors pledged to Lincoln and the voter knew their identities, casting a ballot in favor of the Republican candidate in a strongly pro-slavery county would have incurred (at minimum) social ostracization (of course, casting a vote for Breckinridge in a strongly abolitionist county ran a voter the same risk).
Should the SC not find 9-0 against colorado sc, I pity the fool(s)
āarmed mobā???
Color me amazed it took 19 posts into the thread to point out that foundational error in the WaPo editorial. Everything written after that was just mental masturbation, i.e. the usual outflow from that ājournalisticā sewer.
It wasnāt an insurrection, it was a riot.
Did anyone at the time declare an insurrection ??? The DC mayor ?? The Maryland Governor ???? The President ????
You canāt just say something was an insurrection without meeting certain criteria, especially since we have examples of actual insurrections to compare too. All of them involved organized conspirators working in unison for a specific common cause, all of them lasted more than a few hours (more often years), all of them involved planned violence, all of them involved prolonged resistance to Federal authority and in all cases the conspirators refused to stop their actions even after notice was given to cease or they refused to negotiate a cessation of hostilities until forced to by military action.
There is no interpretation of the Tenth Amendment that allows a state legislature or court to violate the constitutional rights of a person. Otherwise, a state could legitimately bar black people or women from serving as electors or running for public office.
Among all the disastrous proceedings surrounding the 2020 election fiasco, the Supreme Court got that one right. One state has no legal standing to petition a Federal court to enforce another stateās laws.
I’m agreeing with the Washington Compost? Did Hell freeze over?
SCOTUS over throw of the CO decision is not good enough. The CO judges should be disbarred, scorned and humiliated for convicting Trump without a trial. The dirty commie Co judges made their decision based on mob rule.
Someone please enlighten me... how does a state court have standing in a matter of federal law at all?
It is a reserved State issue.
But is a plenary power of State Legislatures, not State courts.
The ONLY necessary people to appoint the President are State Legislatures and the Electors they appoint.
They most certainly should not throw out that case, what they should do is throw out the jurists
Mile high isn’t just for the mountains.
Has anything like this ever happened before
Allowing for mild generalization of the 'like this,' Yes!
How many times before have states banned major party Presidential candidates from their ballot?
IIRC, ten times
That many times! What were the partisan makeups of the officials doing the banning and the banned candidates?
IIRC, in all cases it has been Democrat party election officials banning Republican party candidates.
How well did those bans work out in those elections?
Not very well. The banned candidate, Lincoln, won the election!
Was there insurrection?
* Yes! In pretty much every case of the earlier banning the officials were guilty of insurrection.
Should the new banners be worried about that?
Yes, the Colorado judges banning Trump are arguably at least as covered by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as was President Trump.
* Most, if not all, of those state officials banning Lincoln from their ballots subsequently seceded from the Union and supported the Confederacy during the Civil War against the Union they'd previously sworn to uphold. Whether their actions just in banning Lincoln from their ballots, prior to secession, were enough to constitute 'insurrection' depends on how broadly one defines 'insurrection.' The Colorado judges used it very broadly and officially banning an otherwise qualified candidate just because they didn't like what he had freely, Constitutionally, spoken is a much stronger action than any action taken by Trump on J6.
According to the Constitution, the selection of Electors is a State Legislatures issue ... the Colorado court is overstepping its authority.
https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LM301.pdf
Amnesty Acts of 1872 and 1898. Four years after the Fourteenth
Amendmentās ratification, Congress exercised its power under Section 3
and passed the Amnesty Act of 1872 with the required two-thirds vote in
each House.15 The Act provided
[t]hat all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth
article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of
the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military,
and naval services of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign
ministers of the United States.16
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
They did remove the disability.
https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LM301.pdf
Amnesty Acts of 1872 and 1898. Four years after the Fourteenth
Amendmentās ratification, Congress exercised its power under Section 3
and passed the Amnesty Act of 1872 with the required two-thirds vote in
each House.15 The Act provided
[t]hat all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth
article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of
the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military,
and naval services of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign
ministers of the United States.16
The scotus needs to rule that the 14:3 is now repealed via the amnesty acts.
https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LM301.pdf
Amnesty Acts of 1872 and 1898. Four years after the Fourteenth
Amendmentās ratification, Congress exercised its power under Section 3
and passed the Amnesty Act of 1872 with the required two-thirds vote in
each House.15 The Act provided
[t]hat all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth
article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of
the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military,
and naval services of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign
ministers of the United States.16
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.