On November 2nd I was admitted to the hospital because my hemoglobin count was discovered to be miniscule and my blood pressure was exceptionally sporadic jumping within very high ranges and very low. I was administered several units of blood because it was thought I might be suffering internal bleeding. The next morning a procedure was performed to attempt to locate and cauterize the bleed. I stayed in the hospital another night while they monitored my blood levels and felt I was stable enough to return home even though my blood pressure was still very low. They have been monitoring me though daily home visits, and now I believe only three visits this week. My blood pressure is now in the low normal range and I seem to have enough stamina to proceed.
First a reminder, Trump was successfully impeached for the second time, between January 6 and January 20, 2021. In both impeachment trials he was found not guilty by the slim majority 51 to 49 in the Senate. The only recourse for the People (meaning those of us not in government) is to prevent him from running for office by invoking Amendment 14, section 3. In Minnesota it was ruled we could not keep his name off the "primary" ballot because that determines only his right to run in the general election, therefor it is only in the General Election that Amendment 14, Section 3 applies. So, if he in fact is nominated by the FRP at their nominating convention, then we can go after him in court to prevent his name from being on the ballot for the actual election. For their sake, I hope the FRP has a back up nominee - otherwise Biden wins by default.
well not necessarily since RFK Jr. seems to be standing at an unbelievable 17%. Unfortunately Biden's stand in the Israeli-Hamas conflict also appears to be causing a great loss of support amongst the youth vote. The Minnesota court may be possibly correct about primary elections, however when on the 6th Circuit, Neil Gorsuch wrote an opinion that stated that states could remove unqualified candidates from the primary ballot. Minnesota wouldn't necessarily be controlled by the 6th, but Colorado is and the case in question that brought about Gorsuch's interpretation was actually a case from Colorado and did concern a presidential candidate, I believe. Another thing is that states often have other qualifications that can eliminate candidates from primary beyond the 3 constitutional elgibility requirements for president. And while not a primary, those other qualifications allowed six or seven states to not place Ralph Nader on the ballot. There are a multitude of factors involved. The Colorado does seem to be the most promising (according to Judge Luttig and Neil Katyal) to actually make its way to the supreme court because Colorado law allows citizens to challenge the ballot placement of a candidate that should grant standing some other courts are denying and from what I ascertain the citizens who are challenging the case in Colorado also have standing as Republicans to challenge Trump's standing in the primary. So I will be interested in the judge's ruling which she says will come next week. Either way, of course, the case is sure to be appealed. I quite imagine that if scotus decides the case, as most expect they will, it will almost certainly be before the first primaries begin. So I doubt the republicans will not have a presidential candidate to run in '24.
As for the second impeachment trial, the senate trial took place after he left office, and as much as I totally abominate Trump's attempted coup, I find I agree with Mitch McConnell (for maybe the only time ever) someone cannot be successfully convicted of impeachment that would have removed Trump from the presidency if he was no longer president. Once he was no longer president I think it was now the law that needed to prosecute Trump as McConnell said.
First a reminder, Trump was successfully impeached for the second time, between January 6 and January 20, 2021. In both impeachment trials he was found not guilty by the slim majority 51 to 49 in the Senate. The only recourse for the People (meaning those of us not in government) is to prevent him from running for office by invoking Amendment 14, section 3. In Minnesota it was ruled we could not keep his name off the "primary" ballot because that determines only his right to run in the general election, therefor it is only in the General Election that Amendment 14, Section 3 applies. So, if he in fact is nominated by the FRP at their nominating convention, then we can go after him in court to prevent his name from being on the ballot for the actual election. For their sake, I hope the FRP has a back up nominee - otherwise Biden wins by default.
well not necessarily since RFK Jr. seems to be standing at an unbelievable 17%. Unfortunately Biden's stand in the Israeli-Hamas conflict also appears to be causing a great loss of support amongst the youth vote. The Minnesota court may be possibly correct about primary elections, however when on the 6th Circuit, Neil Gorsuch wrote an opinion that stated that states could remove unqualified candidates from the primary ballot. Minnesota wouldn't necessarily be controlled by the 6th, but Colorado is and the case in question that brought about Gorsuch's interpretation was actually a case from Colorado and did concern a presidential candidate, I believe. Another thing is that states often have other qualifications that can eliminate candidates from primary beyond the 3 constitutional elgibility requirements for president. And while not a primary, those other qualifications allowed six or seven states to not place Ralph Nader on the ballot. There are a multitude of factors involved. The Colorado does seem to be the most promising (according to Judge Luttig and Neil Katyal) to actually make its way to the supreme court because Colorado law allows citizens to challenge the ballot placement of a candidate that should grant standing some other courts are denying and from what I ascertain the citizens who are challenging the case in Colorado also have standing as Republicans to challenge Trump's standing in the primary. So I will be interested in the judge's ruling which she says will come next week. Either way, of course, the case is sure to be appealed. I quite imagine that if scotus decides the case, as most expect they will, it will almost certainly be before the first primaries begin. So I doubt the republicans will not have a presidential candidate to run in '24.
As for the second impeachment trial, the senate trial took place after he left office, and as much as I totally abominate Trump's attempted coup, I find I agree with Mitch McConnell (for maybe the only time ever) someone cannot be successfully convicted of impeachment that would have removed Trump from the presidency if he was no longer president. Once he was no longer president I think it was now the law that needed to prosecute Trump as McConnell said.