Constitutionally Speaking, Trump Is Toast

[MagicMike]

Constitutionally speaking, he hasn't been found guilty of insurrection.

THREAD FAIL.

Being convicted of defrauding The United States is close enough.

 

[Rigby5]

Article II of the Constitution pertains to the Office of the President and Executive Powers. It makes clear the fact that the Presidency is indeed an Office.

Constitutionally speaking, Trump is toast.

Article II of the Constitution pertains to the Office of the President and Executive Powers. It makes clear the fact that the Presidency is indeed an Office. Section 1: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of...

www.dailykos.com

Yep. The OFFICE of the Presidency. That makes him an OFFICER.

Now the Roberts court will be forced to rule for, or against the Constitution. If they rule against, then they are clearly saying the Presidency is not an office, AND saying they can inject themselves into the states decisions on federal elections.

Choose wisely John. The court won't always be conservative, and once it flips, your decision will have consequences.

Wrong.
If there was any voter fraud ignored, and there was, then it is Congress who is was guilty of "insurrection" by deliberately ignoring it.
It is only the feds that can establish what insurrection is and who is guilty of it, not the states.
The fact president is a federal office prevents any state interference with anyone who wants to be on the ballot.
The article made no sense at all, as if an elected office of the federal executive somehow could make states able to have jurisdiction over it.
That is totally irrational.

 

[Rigby5]

Unfortunately for Trump it doesn't say any of that, and you have to make it up out-of thin air. That's not going to cut it.

Wrong.
The civil war participants did not need any additional definition because admitted to insurrection.
Since Trump did not, then you have prove what Trump did met the legal definition as intended by the 14th amendment legislators.
Which can't be done without a court trial and conviction.

 

[eagle7-31]

Article II of the Constitution pertains to the Office of the President and Executive Powers. It makes clear the fact that the Presidency is indeed an Office.

Constitutionally speaking, Trump is toast.

Article II of the Constitution pertains to the Office of the President and Executive Powers. It makes clear the fact that the Presidency is indeed an Office. Section 1: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of...

www.dailykos.com

Yep. The OFFICE of the Presidency. That makes him an OFFICER.

Now the Roberts court will be forced to rule for, or against the Constitution. If they rule against, then they are clearly saying the Presidency is not an office, AND saying they can inject themselves into the states decisions on federal elections.

Choose wisely John. The court won't always be conservative, and once it flips, your decision will have consequences.

1920 Eugene Debs ran for President from prison and was on the ballot.

 

[Rigby5]

The letter of the law says yes.

No the "letter of the law" says no.
Clearly what Trump did in no way can possibly be defined as "insurrection", which is:

{...
Insurrection, an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt. An insurrection may facilitate or bring about a revolution, which is a radical change in the form of government or political system of a state, and it may be initiated or provoked by an act of sedition, which is an incitement to revolt or rebellion.
...}

So an "insurrection" is an armed rebellion or revolt, which clearly did NOT happen.

 

[Rigby5]

Being convicted of defrauding The United States is close enough.

Depends on if a felony or not?
But there is no fraud conviction yet either.

 

[Rigby5]

Well, does the Constitution define "who" it is that must find him to be guilty?
Is it State Secretaries of State?
The Senate?
The House?
Any other entity that would qualify for finding a President "guilty of insurrection"?

Right now, legally....we have to SOS's declaring him guilty.
Is that enough?

No state Secretary of State, Senate, House, can ever proclaim anyone guilty of anything.
Only a court presided over by a judge, and a jury can do that.

 

[Lesh]

Article II of the Constitution pertains to the Office of the President and Executive Powers. It makes clear the fact that the Presidency is indeed an Office.

Constitutionally speaking, Trump is toast.

Article II of the Constitution pertains to the Office of the President and Executive Powers. It makes clear the fact that the Presidency is indeed an Office. Section 1: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of...

www.dailykos.com

Yep. The OFFICE of the Presidency. That makes him an OFFICER.

Now the Roberts court will be forced to rule for, or against the Constitution. If they rule against, then they are clearly saying the Presidency is not an office, AND saying they can inject themselves into the states decisions on federal elections.

Choose wisely John. The court won't always be conservative, and once it flips, your decision will have consequences.

While that is true… this remains in the hands of a very right wing SCOTUS

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Article II of the Constitution pertains to the Office of the President and Executive Powers. It makes clear the fact that the Presidency is indeed an Office.

Constitutionally speaking, Trump is toast.

Article II of the Constitution pertains to the Office of the President and Executive Powers. It makes clear the fact that the Presidency is indeed an Office. Section 1: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of...

www.dailykos.com

Yep. The OFFICE of the Presidency. That makes him an OFFICER.

Now the Roberts court will be forced to rule for, or against the Constitution. If they rule against, then they are clearly saying the Presidency is not an office, AND saying they can inject themselves into the states decisions on federal elections.

Choose wisely John. The court won't always be conservative, and once it flips, your decision will have consequences.

I'm not likely to take Constitutional advice from the Daily Kook

 

[Lesh]

I'm not likely to take Constitutional advice from the Daily Kook

You bleeve only what you WANT to bleeve

 

[BS Filter]

Article II of the Constitution pertains to the Office of the President and Executive Powers. It makes clear the fact that the Presidency is indeed an Office.

Constitutionally speaking, Trump is toast.

Article II of the Constitution pertains to the Office of the President and Executive Powers. It makes clear the fact that the Presidency is indeed an Office. Section 1: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of...

www.dailykos.com

Yep. The OFFICE of the Presidency. That makes him an OFFICER.

Now the Roberts court will be forced to rule for, or against the Constitution. If they rule against, then they are clearly saying the Presidency is not an office, AND saying they can inject themselves into the states decisions on federal elections.

Choose wisely John. The court won't always be conservative, and once it flips, your decision will have consequences.

President Trump: " Protest peacefully and patriotically". It was a protest, not an insurrection.

 

[Lesh]

President Trump: " Protest peacefully and patriotically". It was a protest, not an insurrection.

One utterance in an hour long speech does not absolve him.

And his actions in not stopping that insurrection say everything

 

[BS Filter]

One utterance in an hour long speech does not absolve him.

And his actions in not stopping that insurrection say everything

Why didn't democrats stop the protest riots of 2020? Hypocrites.

 

[OKTexas]

Fortunately for Trump, he has a Supreme Court dominated by corrupt, dishonest conservative ideologues who will once again ignore precedent and the Constitution.

You stupid little commie, all he needs is precedent from the 9th circuit court of appeals and their 2011 dismissal of the birther suit. They said individual voters lack standing to challenge the constitutional qualifications of a candidate.

.

 

[BS Filter]

While that is true… this remains in the hands of a very right wing SCOTUS

Democracy. Got a problem with it?

 

[Rigby5]

I'm not likely to take Constitutional advice from the Daily Kook

You do not need to take any legal advice from anyone.
The laws have to be easy to understand, or else then "ignorance of the law" would become a valid excuse.
The point is that the first amendment is not just about political speech, but the whole political process, including running for office.
So it is a right that can not be violated on an arbitrary basis.
It can not just be someone's opinion, but a judgement of a legal court.

 

[Rigby5]

You stupid little commie, all he needs is precedent from the 9th circuit court of appeals and their 2011 dismissal of the birther suit. They said individual voters lack standing to challenge the constitutional qualifications of a candidate.

.

I agree with Trump being required to be on the ballot, but the Colorado and Maine Sec of State are not just "individual voters".

 

[Rigby5]

One utterance in an hour long speech does not absolve him.

And his actions in not stopping that insurrection say everything

Whether or not there was voter fraud, it is not illegal to believe there was, and it is not illegal to want to force a delay in certification if you do believe there was significant voter fraud. It is certifying an election without ensuring there was no significant voter fraud, that is criminal.

 

[OKTexas]

I agree with Trump being required to be on the ballot, but the Colorado and Maine Sec of State are not just "individual voters".

Poor little commie, individual voters are the ones that sued. The cases should have been dismissed for lack of standing.

.

 

[BluesLegend]

Democracy. Got a problem with it?

Democrats hate democracy. Hence the stolen election and bastardizing of the law.