Legally preventing Trump from running is unconstitutional and is net detrimental to our nation.

[M14 Shooter]

No . But then the Amendment doesn’t require. Conviction

The amendment requires an insurrection.
Apparently, DJT was the -only- participant, as exactly zero of the several several hundred people who were charged for their action on that day were charged with insurrection.
Why do you suppose that is?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 14th Sec 3 states insurrection or rebellion.
Sedition is an act of rebellion. Look it up troll

Oooooh... so now its sedition, not insurrection;
Never mind the fact sedition - a specific federal crime - is the incitement of rebellion, not an act of rebellion.
And as far as I know, you're the only person talking about "sedition conspiracy".

Move the goalpost much, bigot?

 

[Lesh]

Oooooh... so now its sedition, not insurrection;
Never mind the fact sedition - a specific federal crime - is the incitement of rebellion, not an act of rebellion.
And as far as I know, you're the only person talking about "sedition conspiracy".

Move the goalpost much, bigot?

Incitement is an act you moron

 

[M14 Shooter]

Incitement is an act you moron

But not the act of rebellion, bigot.

I love how your bigotry forces you to embarrass yourself.

Run away now, missy - you're past due.

 

[Supposn]

You don’t have a right to be entrusted with any office.

Interestingly enough, a couple replies before you had never heard of the insurrection clause. Now you are a constitutional expert on something you had no inkling about less than an hour before.

Well help me out. How is it that there was a trial. Trump’s attorneys participated. And the trial determined it had been an insurrection and Trump was a participant. Doesn’t that meet your demand of due process of law? Or didn’t they cover that on the RW propaganda sites?

SavvannahMann, regarding this of your posts I'm quoting, how are you able to evaluate my qualifications for what specific “office”? What qualifies you to evaluate me or what's required to fulfill the needs of that particular office? Why are my qualifications for whatever office you had in mind, germane to what I'm contending?
I contend USA's constitution entitles ALL persons to rights of due legal process and USA criminal courts assume persons' innocence until they've been tried and proven guilty.
I further contend if we deliberately deny persons those rights, we're on the “slippery slope” and seriously risk sustaining as a democratic republic. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

You don’t have a right to be entrusted with any office.

Interestingly enough, a couple of replies before you had never heard of the insurrection clause. Now you are a constitutional expert on something you had no inkling about less than an hour before.

Well help me out. How is it that there was a trial. Trump’s attorneys participated. And the trial determined it had been an insurrection and Trump was a participant. Doesn’t that meet your demand of due process of law? Or didn’t they cover that on the RW propaganda sites?

SavvannahMann, you presume to know (with certainty), a great deal about me; otherwise, your paragraph, “Interestingly enough, a couple of replies before you had never heard of the insurrection clause. Now you are a constitutional expert on something you had no inkling about less than an hour before”, is inexplicable.

I'm aware of Trump being accused and trials will be conducted to determine if Donald Trump did attempt to cause interferences within the state of Georgia's and Washington's District of Columbia's elections and certification procedures. Those trials haven't yet begun.

I cannot help you out until you explain what trials you were referring to when you posted, “How is it that there was a trial. Trump’s attorneys participated. And the trial determined it had been an insurrection and Trump was a participant”. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[M14 Shooter]

Demanding that Pence throw out enough votes on Jan 6th to swing the election to Trump was a rebellion against the Constitutional order, making it unconstitutional for him to ever hold public office again without the consent of 2/3rds of Congress.

This is an -awfully- low bar for "rebellion".
Are you sure this is where you want it set?

 

[BlindBoo]

This is an -awfully- low bar for "rebellion".
Are you sure this is where you want it set?

I don't think it was a low bar. No other losing president has ever engaged in such a lame brain attempt to subvert the Constitution by having the President of the Senate unilaterally throw out certified state votes. Not to mention his inaction during the riot and assault on the Capitol. If it was such a low bar certainly other losers would have tried to jump over it.

 

[SavannahMann]

SavvannahMann, regarding this of your posts I'm quoting, how are you able to evaluate my qualifications for what specific “office”? What qualifies you to evaluate me or what's required to fulfill the needs of that particular office? Why are my qualifications for whatever office you had in mind, germane to what I'm contending?
I contend USA's constitution entitles ALL persons to rights of due legal process and USA criminal courts assume persons' innocence until they've been tried and proven guilty.
I further contend if we deliberately deny persons those rights, we're on the “slippery slope” and seriously risk sustaining as a democratic republic. Respectfully, Supposn

There was a trial. The Judge ruled that it was an insurrection and Trump participated. Trump appealed. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled. That is the literal definition of due process.

But you are confusing two things. Qualifications for office. According to the Constitution the candidate must be at least 35 years of age, a natural born citizen, and has not violated his oath of office in an insurrection.

That has nothing to do with criminal convictions. It has everything to do with honor. Integrity.

But let me ask you this. You object to this question being answered now. Would it be worse to find that Trump was disqualified by the 14th after he won the election? When Congress refused to certify his election? When the Supreme Court ruled that he was disqualified?

Or is it better to settle this now? While the Courts have time to consider the matter?

What worries you is that the Supremes will find Trump is disqualified. That worries all the Trump Fanboys. But not to worry. Biden won New Hampshire as a write in. I’m sure Trump can too. Aren’t you?

 

[Billo_Really]

Legally preventing Trump from running is unconstitutional and is net detrimental to our nation.

It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall, (not Voltaire) who wrote, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". She better than all others expressed the essence of the “Bill of Rights first amendment to the USA's constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

A democratic republic must and is always vulnerable due to its dependence upon the judgment of its citizens who elect the government's officeholders. We seldom if ever have had lesser, and sometimes have had better government than we deserve. Among those us who believe ex-president Donald Trump to be inferior to all others who are or have ever been president, they only pay lip service to our constitution and our democratic republic if they advocate Trump be legally prevented from again seeking federal office.

Only until he's tried and convicted of sedition against the United States of America, should he be legally prevented from running for that office.
Respectfully, Supposn

He engaged in an insurrection against the United States of America and therefore is ineligible to hold public office.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But let me ask you this. You object to this question being answered now. Would it be worse to find that Trump was disqualified by the 14th after he won the election? When Congress refused to certify his election? When the Supreme Court ruled that he was disqualified?

There's a process for this.
Trump wins.
He takes office.
Someone sues. He is removed from office.
The VP takes over.

The fact people can still vote for him and he can still win, means there's no sound legal reason for any state to take him off the ballot -- doing so only serves to suppress those votes.

Which is why the Democrats want to do it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't think it was a low bar.

The bar you set:
Demanding that a person do something he does not have the power to do, which, if done, would be against the Constitutional Order and qualify as a rebellion.

Set aside the current context and think about that for a moment.

 

[BlindBoo]

The bar you set:
Demanding that a person do something he does not have the power to do, which, if done, would be against the Constitutional Order and qualify as a rebellion.

Set aside the current context and think about that for a moment.

Get VP Pence on the stand to explain the type of pressure Trump was bringing to bear to get him to play ball. Let a jury decide.

 

[postman]

There's a process for this.
Trump wins.
He takes office.
Someone sues. He is removed from office.
The VP takes over.

The fact people can still vote for him and he can still win, means there's no sound legal reason for any state to take him off the ballot -- doing so only serves to suppress those votes.

Which is why the Democrats want to do it.

If you want Trump on the ballot, they need only follow the 14th amendment, and get 2/3rds of both houses of congress to remove his insurrection disability. Congress can override the 14th section 3.

Get them to do so, and problem solved.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Get VP Pence on the stand to explain the type of pressure Trump was bringing to bear to get him to play ball. Let a jury decide.

I see you didn't think about it for a split second.

Trump has no authority over Pence in the matter in question -- Pence, an elected official, constitutionally holds the position as President of the senate;; as such, Trump does not have the power to force him to do anything.

That is, Trump "demanding" Pence to throw away the votes has as much relationship to a rebellion as YOU "demanding" he do so.

 

[SavannahMann]

There's a process for this.
Trump wins.
He takes office.
Someone sues. He is removed from office.
The VP takes over.

The fact people can still vote for him and he can still win, means there's no sound legal reason for any state to take him off the ballot -- doing so only serves to suppress those votes.

Which is why the Democrats want to do it.

That’s not the process.

One of the few Precedent cases on this issue is Hassan. Gorsuch wrote the opinion. There Gorsuch said it was in the Interest of a State to prevent the inclusion on a ballot of an unqualified candidate.

But going your way would be a disaster. Let’s say it took a year to order Trump removed. That means that for the year Trump was ineligible to be President. That means all laws signed by him. All orders issued. All policies would be invalid as Trump didn’t have the Constitutional authority to issue those orders.

But I repeat. Why are you guys so afraid of it going to the Supremes? I don’t know how they will rule. They may say it wasn’t an insurrection and Trump is eligible. They may say it was but since President isn’t mentioned Trump is eligible. They may say that Trump is ineligible. I honestly have no idea. I wouldn’t bet a dollar on either side of it.

If you guys are so sure this is bullshit why the outrage that it is going to the Supremes?

 

[berg80]

Legally preventing Trump from running is unconstitutional

That's an oxymoron.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Let me get this straight... (pertaining to the President)...

#1 If someone is under 35 years of age they have to be allowed on the ballot, can win the election, seated in office, and has to be removed only if someone complains.

#2 If someone is not a resident of the United States for 14 years, they have to be allowed on the ballot, can win the election, seated in office, and has to be removed only if someone complains.

#3 If someone is not a natural born citizen they have to be allowed on the ballot, can win the election, seated in office, and has to be removed only if someone complains.

#4 If someone engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or provided air or comfort to those that did they have to be allowed on the ballot, can win the election, seated in office, and has to be removed only if someone complains.

#5 If someone is impeached and barred from holding office they have to be allowed on the ballot, can win the election, seated in office, and has to be removed only if someone complains.

#6 If someone is elected to the Office of President twice they have to be allowed on the ballot for the 3rd time, can win the election, seated in office, and has to be removed only if someone complains.
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry, that's not how eligibility requirements work.

WW

 

[M14 Shooter]

One of the few Precedent cases on this issue is Hassan. Gorsuch wrote the opinion. There Gorsuch said it was in the Interest of a State to prevent the inclusion on a ballot of an unqualified candidate.

Interesting. Was not aware.
But, also not binding on the USSC.

But I repeat. Why are you guys so afraid of it going to the Supremes?

I'm not. Send it. Rule he can't be on the ballot. Apply to to 50 states + DC.
Trump can't win, so getting someone else in there is better for everyone.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sorry, that's not how eligibility requirements work.

Problem is...
People can still vote for that someone, so that someone can still win the election.
Further, electors form the states won by that person, can still vote for him.