States may move to keep Trump off the ballot based on 14th Amendment disqualification (2 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

There is a growing movement in some states to conclude that Trump is already disqualified under the 14th Amendment and they may remove him from the ballot. This would set-up legal challenges from Trump that could end up at the SCOTUS.

The 14A disqualification doesn’t have any procedural requirements, it simply says that a person that does those things can’t serve in those offices. It a state says it applies to Trump, it would then be on Trump to show that it didn’t (either because what he didn’t doesn’t amount to the prohibited conduct, or that president isn’t an “officer” as intended by the amendment).

States are in charge of the ballots and can make eligibility determinations that are subject to appeal - there is actually a fairly interesting body of cases over the years with ballot challenges in federal court.


More on the legal argument in favor of this:

The Sweep and Force of Section Three

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range

papers.ssrn.com

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[SaintForLife]

Ok, so again, can you point me to the federal charge of insurrection? SCOTUS couldn't find it either but I am sure MSNBC has laid it out for you, so can you share with the class?

Who attacked the SCOTUS again and when? I would also like some back story of the feces on the wall, that sounds very alt-left to me.

What cases were rooted in the constitution?

They have no legitimate reasons about why Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with being involved in an insurrection. It's laughable

 

[MT15]

Ok, so again, can you point me to the federal charge of insurrection? SCOTUS couldn't find it either but I am sure MSNBC has laid it out for you, so can you share with the class?

Who attacked the SCOTUS again and when? I would also like some back story of the feces on the wall, that sounds very alt-left to me.

What cases were rooted in the constitution?

No, because these aren’t good faith questions and I’m not wasting any more time with your nonsense.

 

[MT15]

They have no legitimate reasons about why Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with being involved in an insurrection. It's laughable

This is a lie. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make it not a legitimate reason. It’s been explained to you multiple times. All you do is aim your firehouse of bull shirt all over this forum.

 

[SaintForLife]

This is a lie. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make it not a legitimate reason. It’s been explained to you multiple times. All you do is aim your firehouse of bull shirt all over this forum.

Whats the reason? The only ones I've heard here are prosecutorial discretion and its too hard to get a conviction. But then yall also say it was okay what Colorado did. It's ridiculous.

You are the most partisan Democrat here.

 

[MT15]

Whats the reason? The only ones I've heard here are prosecutorial discretion and its too hard to get a conviction. But then yall also say it was okay what Colorado did. It's ridiculous.

You are the most partisan Democrat here.

See, you know the reasons, or at least a couple of them. So your statement was a lie. That was easy.

I’m joking. But don’t say stuff that just isn’t true if you don’t want to be called out for lying.

 

[bdb13]

@SaintForLife can I ask you these as simple yes or no questions? I would say I can really boil down my reasoning on this to these two questions and I'll just simplify it as much as possible, appreciate it:

Did Trump wrongly attempt to stay in office?

Were there Trump supporters on January 6th at the Capitol who purposely and sometimes violently attempted to disrupt the transition of power?

 

[Optimus Prime]

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a New Mexico judge’s ruling barring a Donald Trump supporter − a former rodeo rider who started Cowboys for Trump − from local public office because of an anti-insurrectionist provision of the Constitution.

The decision came two weeks after the court said Colorado could not use that same provision to remove Trump from the presidential ballot because he's a federal candidate.

Couy Griffin, a founder of Cowboys for Trump, is the only person who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol to be removed from office using the 14th Amendment.

The challenge to Griffin had been a test run for Trump opponents who successfully argued to the Colorado Supreme Court last year that Trump is disqualified from the presidency by that same Civil War-era provision.

But Trump appealed the Colorado court’s ruling and the Supreme Court sided with him. Both liberal and conservative justices voiced concern about allowing one state to decide the eligibility of a presidential candidate, but they disagreed about how exactly the amendment could be used to disqualify a federal candidate.

In Griffin’s case, the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected his appeal because he missed filing deadlines after the district court judge ruled against him.............

MSN

 

[Farb]

Your response to my post did not warrant a valid argument or a well thought out response because it would be wasted. You would've, no doubtably, responded with another asinine analogy full of false equivalencies.

Yeah, I am sure that is the reason your intellect requires you to respond with pictures. Maybe go color while the adults talk?

 

[Farb]

This is a lie. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make it not a legitimate reason. It’s been explained to you multiple times. All you do is aim your firehouse of bull shirt all over this forum.

Meaning "this is something I don't agree with and cant rationally counter".

You do understand that people are dumb and their 'explanations' are often wrong, especially here, so the number times something wrong is repeated does not make it true. You do understand that right? I am not sure you do, because you use the 'it have been explained to you multiple times' way to much for you to argue otherwise.

 

[Farb]

No, because these aren’t good faith questions and I’m not wasting any more time with your nonsense.

Translation: I got nothing but the TV people can't be wrong

 

[Huntn]

Everyone loves a time keeper. Shows the value of the argument. LOL

So a protest is considered a riot if only a certain amount damage is done?

How would you describe Jan6?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Meaning "this is something I don't agree with and cant rationally counter".

You do understand that people are dumb and their 'explanations' are often wrong, especially here, so the number times something wrong is repeated does not make it true. You do understand that right? I am not sure you do, because you use the 'it have been explained to you multiple times' way to much for you to argue otherwise.

Al Capone was never tried for bootlegging or murder. Does that mean he was never responsible for these crimes being committed?

 

[LA - L.A.]

You do understand that people are dumb and their 'explanations' are often wrong, especially here...

I see that as an accurate statement, but don't think you are accurately applying it.

 

[MT15]

Meaning "this is something I don't agree with and cant rationally counter".

You do understand that people are dumb and their 'explanations' are often wrong, especially here, so the number times something wrong is repeated does not make it true. You do understand that right? I am not sure you do, because you use the 'it have been explained to you multiple times' way to much for you to argue otherwise.

The lack of self-awareness is simply stunning here. Yes, I exquisitely understand how many times people just repeat particular lies over and over. I see it every time. It never changes. At some point one just has to assume the law of diminishing returns takes over and it’s just not worth it to keep going over the same lies ad infinitum. This is the point I have reached here. Also, I think the recent tendency to call out people’s intelligence is a nifty little piece of projection. Possibly unconscious even, but there it is.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Kind of like May 31st 2020 or no?

but there were also lots of arrests, and there were convictions from those. And there are many people who woudl say those people were not peaceful. You won't find the president of the USA claiming those that were arrested and charged are hostages. Also, most weren't idiotic and filmed themselves doing it, posting their faces on Facebook bragging about it. So of course the arrests % wasn't as high. Those people on Jan 6th truly thought they were gonna be taken care of by the president because most of them assumed he told them to do it.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Al Capone was never tried for bootlegging or murder. Does that mean he was never responsible for these crimes being committed?

and OJ and Casy Anthony were innocent of Murder. lol

 

[Farb]

How would you describe Jan6?

I already have

 

[Farb]

Al Capone was never tried for bootlegging or murder. Does that mean he was never responsible for these crimes being committed?

Hey, look, a squirrel.