(PCC)Just about the time America thinks there is no more evil left in Nancy Pelosi she surprises even her biggest fan…..Satan!
In a surprising twist, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently made a controversial demand, telling the states they have the authority to override the Constitution and prevent former President Donald Trump from appearing on the presidential ballot.
Although Pelosi’s statement was met with skepticism and accusations of political bias, it raises a larger conversation about the role of states in determining their own electoral procedures.
I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2021
During recent appearance Pelosi made the argument states have different laws and regulations, and some may have the ability to prevent Trump from being included on their ballots, referencing Article 14, Section 3 of the Constitution.
In response to Trump’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent his name from being removed from the Colorado ballot, Pelosi made a demand. The former Speaker criticized Trump for allegedly inciting an insurrection, a charge some argue lacks merit, considering his explicit call for peaceful demonstrations during the events in question but that didn’t stop Nutty Nancy
The broader concern raised by Pelosi’s suggestion is the potential for a biased interpretation of the Constitution driven by personal political agendas.
Here is a question worth a few minutes of deep consideration. What if Nutty Nacy is right? Could there be some validity to Pelosi’s argument?
States have considerable autonomy in regulating their elections, enabling them to establish distinct criteria for candidates on their ballots.
Nevertheless, the notion of states independently prohibiting a former president, especially based on allegations of incitement, raises concerns about democratic representation and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Although some may view Pelosi’s comments as extreme, they raise an important discussion about the delicate equilibrium between federal and state powers, particularly in relation to the electoral process.
The ongoing debate between states’ rights and federal oversight has been a consistent topic throughout American history, with both sides asserting their authority in various situations.
ABC: “You believe [Trump] is ineligible to be president?”
NANCY PELOSI: “They have different laws from state-to-state.”
ABC: “It’s the Constitution…”
NANCY PELOSI: “That’s not the point.” pic.twitter.com/2lPZc1q6A0
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 7, 2024
As a matter of fact the grounds for the Civil War were the issue of slavery and State’s Rights. In that case did the State have the right to secede from the union? …you know how that ended.
As the nation prepares for the 2024 presidential election, the discussion surrounding states’ autonomy in determining their ballots is expected to become more heated. It remains to be seen whether the suggestion put forth by Pelosi is an isolated viewpoint or if it garners support within the Democratic party and beyond.
Final Word: Pelosi’s demand may have standing, as it highlights the need to carefully consider the balance between states’ rights and federal authority in the electoral process. The Supreme Court must analyze the wider consequences and possible outcomes of states asserting their autonomy in deciding who can or cannot be on the ballot. If it is found the State can openly exclude candidates from their ballots then the battle of who becomes President moves from the Democratic style vote of the people to a single decision maker……………… Nancy’s old buddy…….Satan.
