“The truth is finally coming out about Nikki Haley’s troublesome record showing her total disdain for the working-class and a willingness to sellout to lobbyist parasites.
She pushed for a WHOPPING 60% increase in the state gas tax in South Carolina after promising voters she would never do so. She also voted for an unconscionable 20% increase in the state sales tax, making her the enemy of the working-class and an ally of lobbyist cronies taking advantage of impressionable politicians looking for their approval.
Nikki Haley’s shameful record as governor has now been exposed, and voters are witnessing who she really is: a tax wielding politician who is more interested in doing the bidding of her puppetmasters instead of doing what’s right for the American people.
To make matters worse, she has promoted entitlement reform, RINO talk for ripping away Medicare and Social Security and increasing the retirement age. How much longer do you want to force people to slave away just so they can earn what they have been promised, Nikki?”
– Steven Cheung, Trump spokesperson
THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER – New Hampshire 9-year-old calls Nikki Haley ‘the new John Kerry’ to her face
Law Professor In The NYT Says President Trump Should Be On The Ballot
Kurt Lash, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law and the author of the law paper “The Meaning and Ambiguity of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” wrote in the New York Times Friday that President Donald Trump should be allowed on the ballot nationwide.
Lash: Challenges to disqualify Donald Trump from the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment are popping up all over the country. On Thursday, the secretary of state of Maine ruled that Mr. Trump would be ineligible for the state’s primary ballot, a decision that can be appealed to the state’s Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled narrowly that the state will allow Mr. Trump to stay on the primary ballot — but left open a potential future challenge to his inclusion on a general-election ballot.
But so far only one — the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that bars Mr. Trump from the primary ballot — has reached the doorstep of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court should take the case and reverse the Colorado Supreme Court ruling… Despite extraordinary efforts by researchers, no one has yet found evidence that any ratifier even considered the possibility that Section 3 abridged the people’s right to choose their president.
The silence of the ratifiers on this point is important. Those favoring the disqualification of Mr. Trump insist that there is nothing “anti-democratic” about constraining the presidential choices of the national electorate. The Constitution, after all, contains a number of provisions that deny the people the right to elect whomever they wish. Article II, Section One, for example, prevents the people from electing anyone who is under age 35 or who is a foreign-born candidate.
Those qualifications are expressly declared in the text and they received robust vetting and debate in the ratifying conventions. In the case of Section 3, the Supreme Court is being asked to impose new constraints on the democratic process by way of textual implication and in the absence of any public debate whatsoever.
Such a reading is neither democratically appropriate nor textually necessary. And it was most certainly not “the objective sought to be achieved [or] the mischief to be avoided” by Section 3.
At best, the text of Section 3 is ambiguous regarding the office of president. The Supreme Court should limit the clause to its historically verifiable meaning and scope.
Let the people make their own decision about Donald Trump.