States may move to keep Trump off the ballot based on 14th Amendment disqualification (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    4,944
    Reaction score
    12,571
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

    1692502254516.png


    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:


     
    Last edited:
    I won’t waste any more effort than this:


    Mueller:

    1000004759.jpg
     
    With both of those as yeses I don't understand where the breakdown or objection is to how I characterize it all when I call it an attempted coup and an insurrection.

    It's simply what occurred and it seems like you actually agree in principal but have difficulty applying those sorts of terms in defining it.
    Since you and many here constantly talk about a peaceful transfer of power, does this sound like a peaceful transfer of power to you?

    It's laughable that the media and the left constantly talk about a peaceful transfer of power when Hillary, the media, US intelligence services, the corrupt leadership in the FBI cooked up a Tom Clancy like narrative that Trump was a Russian agent under the control of Putin.

    Hillary and her minions like Charles Dolan made up the Trump is a Russian agent narrative that the corrupt FBI ran with and launched an investigation. Obama was briefed by Brennan about Hillary's plan. This was all done to try to get Trump removed and/or hamstring his Administration so he would be unable to focus on his agenda because he would be tied up in investigations.
     
    Since you and many here constantly talk about a peaceful transfer of power, does this sound like a peaceful transfer of power to you?

    It's laughable that the media and the left constantly talk about a peaceful transfer of power when Hillary, the media, US intelligence services, the corrupt leadership in the FBI cooked up a Tom Clancy like narrative that Trump was a Russian agent under the control of Putin.

    Hillary and her minions like Charles Dolan made up the Trump is a Russian agent narrative that the corrupt FBI ran with and launched an investigation. Obama was briefed by Brennan about Hillary's plan. This was all done to try to get Trump removed and/or hamstring his Administration so he would be unable to focus on his agenda because he would be tied up in investigations.
    Should I take that as a concession on the point?
     
    You realize that it says Russia offered to help, and the campaign accepted it?
    Clearly, context isn't your strong suit as you conveniently ignored the comments immediately prior to the highlighted.
    Huge own goal right here. Lol
    Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in it's election-interference activities.
     
    Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in it's election-interference activities.
    Do you understand that highlighting/bolding a particular line does not, in fact, negate all of the other lines?

    Like, do you think you read a book if you read one highlighted sentence?
     
    Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in it's election-interference activities.
    Do you remember why they couldn’t establish it? Anything about obstruction of justice ring a bell? Anything? You’re attempts are pretty pathetic actually.
     
    Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in it's election-interference activities.

    Hypothetical: I enter into a conspiracy and my co-conspirators and I successfully cover our tracks, thus preventing investigators from establishing concrete proof of the conspiracy. Does this lack of established, concrete proof mean that I did not enter into a conspiracy?
     
    Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in it's election-interference activities.

    You realize it says that Russia offered to help, and the campaign welcomed it?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom