After What Maine Did, Texas Should Remove Biden From Their 2024 Ballot

Maine opted to get involved in this facetious legal drama concerning Trump and the 14th Amendment. They removed the former president from their 2024 ballot, keeping this nonsensical lawfare alive. Anti-Trump attorneys and election officials are trying to argue that Trump committed an act of armed rebellion against the United States through the January 6 riot. That’s inaccurate. Trump hasn’t been charged with insurrection, and you’re not found guilty by default in this country, either.

Spencer wrote what Maine did last night:

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, issued a 34-page ruling Thursday evening stating that former President Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on her state’s 2024 ballot.

The official ruling followed a hearing Bellows convened on December 15 on three challenges to Trump’s eligibility for office: two based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and one filed under the Twenty-Second Amendment. “For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that Mr. Trump’s primary petition is invalid,” Bellows’ ruling states. “Specifically, I find that the declaration on his candidate consent form is false because he is not qualified to hold the office of the President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

In response to Maine’s decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 presidential ballot, Texas Lieutenant Gov. Dan Patrick has suggested the Lone Star State make its own move to deny President Joe Biden from ballots.

Texas might be considering removing Biden. They should do so because, obviously, legal precedent and due process are irrelevant points of procedure.

Speaking to Fox News, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick suggested Biden should be removed from his state’s 2024 ballot due to his administration’s response to immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border.

“Seeing what happened in Colorado and now in Maine makes me think—except we believe in democracy in Texas—maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing eight million people to cross the border since he’s been president disrupting our state,” Patrick said.

Political commentator Gunther Eagleman posted on X that Biden should be removed from the Texas ballot after the Colorado ruling. Peachy Keenan, a conservative commentator and author, took it a step further, writing on X: “All red states should immediately petition their courts to remove Biden from the ballot.”

Natalie Dagenhardt

Natalie Dagenhardt is an American conservative writer who writes for  Right Journalism! Natalie has described herself as a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot," and does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do," drawing criticism from the left, and sometimes from the right. As a passionate journalist, she works relentlessly to uncover the corruption happening in Washington. She is a "constitutional conservative".

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
5 months ago

100 % to remove him!

5 months ago

We’re doing better then that- TEXIT is in the hopper. Goodbye sh💩t-show. There will be enough to deal otherwise.

Miss Havisham's Poodle
Miss Havisham's Poodle
5 months ago

Can’t figure out the 22nd Amendment angle. That amendment limits a person to 2 terms as President. How is Trump disqualified under this?

As to banishing names from ballots,
Article II, Srction 1 clearly states that rules for selection of electors for a State shall be specified by the Legislature thereof. Not the court(s).

Second, technically in the Presidential election, voters are actually voting for Electors. The Electors nationwide then vote on the President and Vice President.
As we’re all aware from the 2016 and 2020, Electors are not legally bound to vote for a specific candidate. (Some States claim such a law in their States, but that’s clearly unconstitutional and was shown to be unenforceable in 2016.)

Third, Trump has not been tried for the charge of insurrection. Moreover, the term ‘insurrection’ is not defined in the Constitution. Unfortunately, for political expediancy alone, its definition is currently being expanded to the point of imprecision that could ensnare someone for making remarks critical of the government or an election.

Fourth, if this nonsense continues, we will end up in the absurd, dangerous, and destabilizing situation in which State courts arbitrarily decide who is and who is not allowed on a ballot.