Trump and Disqualification Under the 14th Amendment

Jump to Last Post 1-9 of 9 discussions (63 posts)
  1. Valeant profile image78
    Valeantposted 13 months ago

    A Florida attorney has filed suit to disqualify Trump from the ballot in his state under the terms of the 14th Amendment.

    Multiple legal scholars have already written articles supporting the theory, including numerous conservatives.

    Florida:  https://electionlawblog.org/?p=138421
    Conservative Scholars:  https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-c … rt-1819108
    Tribe and Luttig:  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … cy/675048/

    According to these guys, all a state's Attorney General needs to do it make the determination and they can remove Trump from the ballot.  Trump would have to sue to get back onto the ballot.  If he gets dropped from Florida, it's over if he's the nominee.

    Thoughts?

    1. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      My thoughts would mean little to this very complicated issue --- So, here are Alan Dershowitz's thoughts, and what he fears if Florida decides to proceed on this path.  source    https://justthenews.com/government/cour … nstitution

      "Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz says the attempt to get former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot is a "grave danger" to the U.S. Constitution.

      "That's a grave danger to our Constitution, and if that happens, I think I can be called out of retirement and be counted on to take an active role in preventing that injustice from occurring to all Americans," Dershowitz said on the Tuesday edition of the "Just the News, No Noise" TV show.

      There have been reports of activist groups putting together a campaign to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024 under the 14th Amendment.

      The groups, Mi Familia Vota and Free Speech for People, cite Section 3 of the Amendment, which bars people from certain offices who “having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

      "What I'm worried about most for America and not for Donald Trump or any particular individual, is this extremely dangerous attempt to try to prevent Donald Trump from running under the 14th amendment," Dershowitz explained.

      "It would put the decision about who the President is in the hands of local Secretaries of State and Democratic governors, instead of in the hands of the people," he continued. "That's the most dangerous threat currently that Donald Trump faces because it doesn't even require a conviction for some secretaries of state to take them off the ballot."

      Trump is currently facing four indictments, with two of them being federal. He has not been convicted in any of those cases."

      1. Valeant profile image78
        Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Of course Dershowitz leaves out the many conservative voices also making the case.  It's the usual half-truth the far-right gets fed in this country.

        So Dershowitz thinks it's dangerous to enforce a provision of the Constitution that protects our democracy?  That says about all we need to know.

        And both red and blue states have the same powers, don't they?  But only one candidate has been accused of participating in an insurrection against their own government.  The day the democratic candidate does that, the same actions should also be taken - to protect the country.

        And the indictments have no bearing on using the 14th Amendment.  So bringing that up is another distraction to confuse the GOP base.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Just sharing a view from someone's opinion that over the years I have come to respect.

          1. Valeant profile image78
            Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, and I am rebutting the argument with logic to make the alternative case.    As well as noting the parts he left out to try and make it appear that this was only a left-leaning theory - which is false on its face.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image86
              Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, I can assure you you have every right to dispute Alan Dershowitz.  Like I said I had hoped to offer another view of a man I respect. Hopefully, some who visit this thread will have a look and consider his opinion. 

              As I did by reading the links you offered.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          "But only one candidate has been accused of participating in an insurrection against their own government."

          Which candidate was that?  Because I haven't heard that either candidate for the last few decades or so has faced insurrection charges.

          Or does "insurrection" mean the shrieks of the ignorant yahoo on the street corner that doesn't care what the word means or if it even happened at all?

          1. Valeant profile image78
            Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Your logical fallacies bore me.  Go shift the goalposts from accused and shown in examples, to charged in a court (which is not necessary to apply the 14th Amendment) being the same thing, somewhere else.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              "which is not necessary to apply the 14th Amendment"

              Well, I have to agree with you there - liberals are not overly concerned with following the Constitution.  Open borders, violating the 2nd amendment, etc.; anything goes if they can just get what they want.  In this case just a claim of violation; no court necessary, right?

              1. Valeant profile image78
                Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Actually, in this case, it isn't just liberals following the Constitution - it is noted conservative scholars and judges.  Something now two of the three far-right posters have omitted from their claims in the most ridiculously partisan display you can find.

                Those scholars assert that the 14th Amendment gives Secretaries of State the right to keep those who engaged in, or gave aid and comfort to, insurrection off the ballot in their state.  In the same manner the Constitution grants other officers, such as a president, the right to appoint ambassadors.

                Those scholars have laid out their cases in the links I provided, which I am certain you did not read before making your post.

                I'm sure there would be suits by the displaced candidate to appeal those decisions.  It will be interesting to watch each side present their case to the court.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  I understand all that.  I also understand that not a single person, including Trump, is charged with "insurrection", which you say the Constitution would prohibit him from being President.  The whole comment was about liberals not feeling it necessary to actually have a law broken (insurrection) to bring out the 14th amendment.  A simple claim is sufficient to declare guilt to the liberal mind when it comes to Trump, and you follow that trend to a "T".

                  1. Valeant profile image78
                    Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    Not what I say, what legal scholars and judges are saying, including many conservatives.  Again, you fall back to the tired claim that it's 'liberals not feeling it necessary to actually have a law broken' when I keep noting it's conservatives and liberals.

                    And yes, according to the 14th Amendment, giving aid and comfort to those that committed the insurrection - as noted by the multiple people charged with seditious conspiracy to overthrow the US government - is a qualifying standard to be barred from ever serving in an official capacity ever again.

                    If you had read any of the links, you might have seen that argument from the conservatives that are making the case.

        3. abwilliams profile image70
          abwilliamsposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          There was no insurrection, perhaps that has something to do with it.
          IF there had been, a planned insurrection, more people than a Trump -supporter, Ashli Babbitt, would be dead!

          1. Valeant profile image78
            Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            And that seditious conspiracy charge that multiple people went to jail for?  Care to explain.  That's been proven in a court of law - so take that claim of 'no insurrection' back to that alternate reality.

            And you always fall back to that domestic terrorist who made herself into a threat and failed to obey police orders.  Maybe someday we can get you to acknowledge the multiple reports that explained why she died.

    2. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Thoughts?

      This is how far we descend in today's political milieu, having to even discuss the fact that any man with so many indictments could even be considered as fit for the office whether there is a conviction or not.

      Conservatives are going to call Trump's clear attempt to usurp power contrary to what is prescribed in the Constitution as "free speech" .

      The requirements of Section 3 is clear. Conservatives are going to dispute as to whether Trump actually violated that provision of Amendment 14.

      Considering the affairs of January 6th, the fake electors which point to Trump, the badgering of VP Pence to go beyond his actual designated authority that day along with interference in the final GA vote tally, the answer would be obvious. Including the mob, who would believe that all of these events were unrelated and mere coincidences, not involving Trump?

      Fifty years ago, there would have been no question where anyone with the level of the stench of illegality all over him like this would end up. There wouldn't even have been a second thought......

  2. abwilliams profile image70
    abwilliamsposted 13 months ago

    Scary stuff! But some citizens are actually okay with ALL of this --- which is even scarier! Don't think I have ever been as nervous about the type of future my grandchildren will have, as I am, present day. :`(

    1. Valeant profile image78
      Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      What is scarier is that some people are accepting of re-electing a person who was involved in an insurrection against our country.  That the will of the people no longer matters if they can take power by force or deception.

      1. abwilliams profile image70
        abwilliamsposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Asked and answered already.

  3. Willowarbor profile image61
    Willowarborposted 13 months ago

    Prominent conservative scholars and judges have joined in also.
    J. Michael Luttig,former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and Laurence H. Tribe of the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University have also joined this call.

    The argument was also made earlier this month when two members of the  Federalist Society, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, endorsed it in the pages of the Pennsylvania Law Review.

    Trump did claim that he would pardon those who breached the capitol.  Sounds like aid and comfort to me.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-am … =102547316

  4. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months ago

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

    If you can't do that, didn't really mean it when you took that oath, or changed your mind because it didn't fit your circumstances - then your name shouldn't be on any ballot anywhere.

    Let anyone who doesn't honor the oath they took face the consequences without anyone making excuses for them.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Are you talking about opening our southern border to anyone wanting in, letting illegal aliens vote, taking actions limited to states, etc. or Trump?

      1. Valeant profile image78
        Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Why should anyone engage with you when you fabricate half the claims in your posts and deflect off topic?

      2. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Or weaponizing the DOJ and FBI.

      3. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
        Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Wilderness: I can only assume you do not understand the difference between an oath of office and policy.

        The oath I quoted is taken by every elected official and military member in our country. When it is violated, there should be consequences.

  5. abwilliams profile image70
    abwilliamsposted 13 months ago

    Um-hum

  6. Valeant profile image78
    Valeantposted 13 months ago

    Yeah, we usually get to um-hum when the facts undermine the far-right claims and there are no answers to the hard questions we on the left ask.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      I believe that the frequent use of "um-hum's" stems from a sense of frustration among some individuals here. It seems that certain topics have been discussed repetitively, leading to weariness in responding to the same questions repeatedly. Unfortunately, I've noticed this pattern before, particularly among those with left-leaning viewpoints. There appears to be a tendency to dwell on certain issues extensively without progressing forward. It becomes apparent that disagreement with a sentiment is present in such cases. 

      Maybe realize we have no interest in repetition. We have no need to answer the same questions over and over. I mean I have literally kept a copy/paste file for this particular forum. Yeah, I too have been using un-hum.  I am not about to answer the same question over and over.  I mean, it shows a real lack of intelligence to do so, does it not?

      1. Valeant profile image78
        Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        I feel the lack of intelligence more stems from sticking to debunked points of view.  Such as 'there was no insurrection' when people went to jail for a charge that is synonymous with insurrection in seditious conspiracy.  Or needing to defend domestic terrorists that attacked our Capitol - something that only certain posters at this site continually bring up in the repetitious way that certainly must irk you.

        And you're right, certain topics get discussed frequently here.  In fact, I am aware of one user who spams the site with a new thread every time Fox News puts out one of their propaganda pieces - as if we couldn't choose to go read it if we had an interest.  This user could just add the new story to any one of their current threads, since they usually pertain to each of them, but instead chooses to spam the site with a dozen threads all on the same topic.  It's a pattern with this user - to spam this site with far-right half-truths and gaslighting.  I can understand how some might be frustrated by the repetitiveness of some users.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          um-hum

          1. Valeant profile image78
            Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            No one person has the market cornered on those thinly veiled insults that have been posted numerous times this week.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image86
              Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              I've elaborated on my rationale for choosing to use 'un-hum.' While you might not agree with my reasoning, it's important to recognize my right to hold my own perspective. Only the moderator holds the authority to intervene, and I believe they might value my 'um-hum' expression for insight into my genuine thoughts.

              Not an insult, a survival tool.

              Again ---   I believe that the frequent use of "um-hum's" stems from a sense of frustration among some individuals here. It seems that certain topics have been discussed repetitively, leading to weariness in responding to the same questions repeatedly. Unfortunately, I've noticed this pattern before, particularly among those with left-leaning viewpoints. There appears to be a tendency to dwell on certain issues extensively without progressing forward. It becomes apparent that disagreement with a sentiment is present in such cases.

              Maybe realize we have no interest in repetition. We have no need to answer the same questions over and over. I mean I have literally kept a copy/paste file for this particular forum. Yeah, I too have been using un-hum.  I am not about to answer the same question over and over.  I mean, it shows a real lack of intelligence to do so, does it not?

              1. Valeant profile image78
                Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                The irony of complaining about repetitive posts while repeating the exact same thing you said just a few hours ago is priceless.  And the typical display of hypocrisy we on the left have grown accustomed to.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                  Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  I should have given you the last word --- I know that is important for you.  All I care about is making sure my view is shared in the mix of things. Sometimes it takes a couple of copy and pastes.

                  Your bait is really dated.

      2. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
        Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        " I've noticed this pattern before, particularly among those with left-leaning viewpoints. "'

        Generalizations like this are not constructive.

        1. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
          Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          "The chip on your shoulder is showing."

          A little snarky - don't you think?

          1. Sharlee01 profile image86
            Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Let me assure you Cred and I are comfortable with such banter.

            Creds bit of snark --  You will wait until HELL  freezes over to get any kind of coherent dialogue from the rightwing types.....

            My reply --   Oh my... I have read many very relevant comments here... I myself posted an article in full with Alan Dershowitz's view on the thread's subject.

            My bit of snark ---   The chip on your shoulder is showing.

            On a different note, it seems your irritation might be coming through in your comments. I've noticed a certain demeanor in your words. It's important to point out that I've started to feel somewhat uneasy with the personal nature of your statements; they come across as bordering on trolling.

            As you can see, Cred and I both managed to exchange our friendly jabs without any issues. Just as I didn't take offense at his comment, he appeared to handle mine just fine as well.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          I was offering an honest opinion I hold as a view. Maybe you might consider, that others can share their views openly. I certainly intend to.

          I have no interest in your critiques of my words. I make every attempt to be polite, and congenial. So, if you find a problem with my comments, simply report them to the moderator.

          Perhaps you could comment on the subject of the conversation, otherwise... Your view of my way of conversing does not interest me. I have a right to my view.

          This statement is a view I truely do hold.   Plus you took a sentence, perhaps have a look at the entire context of the comment that one sentence came from.  "I've noticed this pattern before, particularly among those with left-leaning viewpoints. "

          Let me share the full context of the paragraph you plucked the sentence from   

          "I believe that the frequent use of "um-hum's" stems from a sense of frustration among some individuals here. It seems that certain topics have been discussed repetitively, leading to weariness in responding to the same questions repeatedly. Unfortunately, I've noticed this pattern before, particularly among those with left-leaning viewpoints. There appears to be a tendency to dwell on certain issues extensively without progressing forward. It becomes apparent that disagreement with sentiment is present in such cases. "

          As you see it offers my full thoughts and gives my reasoning.

  7. RJ Schwartz profile image85
    RJ Schwartzposted 13 months ago

    I would think this is a Federal Issue. If he is convicted of insurrection, then yes, take him off the ballot.

    1. Valeant profile image78
      Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      And yet Section 3 also includes giving aid and comfort - so your claim that a charge of insurrection is necessary does not equate to the language of the Constitution.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      This is such a sticky situation, is it not?  I think if he is convicted, and sent to prison, he should let another run. Although he has vowed not to.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        He should.  He won't.

        But he is not charged with insurrection that I'm aware of.  Of course, all it takes is some fancy twisting of words to change it into that...

        1. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          I have weeded through the indictments, and there are no insurrection charges In December, I do know the House select committee investigating Jan. 6 recommended that the Justice Department charge Mr. Trump with several federal crimes, including inciting insurrection — a count that would have directly placed the blame for the attack on Mr. Trump’s shoulders.  Smith’s prosecutors did not include that charge in the indictments.

          I agree, I feel sure the word itself will be used at trial.

          1. Valeant profile image78
            Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Not criminally, but civilly he is being sued by the Sicknick family for his role in contributing to the insurrection.  Having organized the event and then sending the crowd to the Capitol, despite his rally not being permitted for the Capitol, without telling Capitol Police of that plan, certain gives him some culpability.  Do you agree with that or not?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              "for his role in contributing to the insurrection."

              Is that the wording of the suit, or is that just Valeant adding that last little word?  Changing "riot", or maybe "disturbance" into "insurrection" because you like it better?

              1. Valeant profile image78
                Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Pretty sure I've established it can be called an insurrection based on the seditious conspiracy charges that sent multiple people to jail.  I'm done arguing that point with you - I believe you'll try to downplay it until your death and neither of us are going to budge - so you call it what you want by omitting facts and I'll call it what I want by including them.

                As to the suit, here is what it states:
                "Defendant Trump intentionally riled up the crowd and directed and encouraged a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol and attack those who opposed them," Sicknick's estate claims in the court papers.

                "The violence that followed, and the injuries that violence caused, including the injuries sustained by Officer Sicknick and his eventual death, were reasonable and foreseeable consequences of Defendant Trump’s words and conduct," the lawsuit alleges.

                So yeah, the suit argues that Trump's words and actions led to a violent uprising against the Capitol of his own country.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image86
              Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              I was unaware of the case. As of yet no court of law has proved he planned anything. Will be interesting to see where this civil case goes.

          2. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            No, there has been no specific indictment against Trump accusing him of fomenting insurrection, but the charges do point to the aiding and abetting that comes under the purview of Section 3. This was mentioned by Valeant.

            We need to go through the process of a trial to make it clear one way or the other that Trump is either guilty or innocent. If guilty, then we can dispense with the fussing regarding the application of Section 3. It can become clear to all parties that this goes beyond just political witch hunts.

            Have been reading articles that seem to indicate that many of those charged along with Trump are using a Nazi style defense of merely following orders. They might Play " let's make a deal" with Fani for a lesser charge if they reveal who and what put them up to the idea of illegally signing off on the fake electors plan or participating in it.


            https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/us/p … lence.html

            1. Sharlee01 profile image86
              Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Cred

              " No, there has been no specific indictment against Trump accusing him of fomenting insurrection, but the charges do point to the aiding and abetting that comes under the purview of Section 3. This was mentioned by Valeant."

              I went through the links that Val shared. I can't say I found the points presented to be particularly captivating or convincing. I also included Alan Dershowitz's perspective on the matter in my response. I shared it as an alternative viewpoint that I hold in high regard. In my opinion, his insights are quite pertinent to potential future challenges that could arise if Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is employed to remove Trump.

              Undoubtedly, we must navigate through the multiple trials that lie ahead.

              What I'm observing is an intricately complex matter – almost like a puzzle. A coherent image will only emerge when all the pieces align. I believe that if accounts don't correspond and fit together seamlessly, an individual might appear to be untruthful. I hope that this puzzle can be reconstructed with the truth: uncovering who took what actions and precisely when they took them.

              Shar

        2. Valeant profile image78
          Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Just like Ralph, the twisting is from you in saying he needs to be charged or convicted of insurrection to meet the requirements of the 14th Amendment's wording.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Sorry - you're the one that said the 14th amendment could come into play because Trump participated in an insurrection.  Not I.  All I did was question how that could happen if he was not charged - you seem to think that just because the word exists he is guilty of it.

            1. Valeant profile image78
              Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Actually, what I said was this since you often change what people said:  Those scholars assert that the 14th Amendment gives Secretaries of State the right to keep those who engaged in, or gave aid and comfort to, insurrection off the ballot in their state.  Then those scholars list the many ways Trump's actions fit into the Amendment - which they argue does not require a charge or a conviction.

              1. abwilliams profile image70
                abwilliamsposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Again, there was no insurrection!
                Some seem giddy about the downfall of America, but it will not be this so-called insurrection or the 45th President that takes us there!!

                It will be the people's complacency and irrational thinking.

                1. Valeant profile image78
                  Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Um-hum.  Again, seditious conspiracy convictions.

      2. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        That is going to be hard to sell to never Trumper Republicans, independents and moderates.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, it would be hard to sell.

    3. abwilliams profile image70
      abwilliamsposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Of course he will be convicted....he is freakin' Donald J.
      Trump - the man who dared.....

  8. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months ago

    In once again Sharlee You make up the rules as you go along as long as they do not apply to you.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      I adhere to the guidelines set forth by HP, and I also acknowledge that I hold my own perspective when it comes to expressing my opinions. I present my viewpoints without imposing them and respect others' choices in how they receive them. Your willingness to continue to critique my views, and how I choose to share them, while slightly unusual in my view, does not cause me any discomfort. In fact, I have grown accustomed to it with a positive outlook.

      I appreciate your recognition of my independent stance and understanding that I follow my own path in these matters.

  9. IslandBites profile image93
    IslandBitesposted 13 months ago

    Trump’s eligibility for New Hampshire ballot under review

    Officials in New Hampshire are looking into whether or not former President Donald Trump is constitutionally qualified to appear on the statewide presidential ballot in 2024.

    Attorney General John Formella and Secretary of State David Scanlan issued a joint statement Tuesday saying that their offices have been tracking a legal discussion over Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and that Formella's office is "reviewing the legal issues involved" at the request of Scanlan's office.

    “The Secretary of State’s Office has requested the Attorney General’s Office to advise the Secretary of State regarding the meaning of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the provision’s potential applicability to the upcoming presidential election cycle. The Attorney General’s Office is now carefully reviewing the legal issues involved,” New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella and Secretary of State David Scanlan said in a joint statement.

    “Neither the Secretary of State’s Office nor the Attorney General’s Office has taken any position regarding the potential applicability of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to the upcoming presidential election cycle,” they wrote.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)