The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

[Hollie]

“The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again”

True.

But a corrupt and partisan Supreme Court will ignore that fact.

The problem with your silly, "... because I say so", whining is that it's comically ineffectual.

 

[ThisIsMe]

J. Michael Luttig is a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University.

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

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.

Trump Is Constitutionally Prohibited From the Presidency​

I agree with Luttig and Tribe. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution seem clear to me! What will SCOTUS do? What do you think?

It’s amazing what highly credentialed lawyers and judges will say when hate is a motivating factor…

 

[forkup]

It’s amazing what highly credentialed lawyers and judges will say when hate is a motivating factor…

You know what I find interesting.

-Trump can argue more than 60 times in court that the election was stolen from him. That's alright.

-Those lawsuits can be lost, his lawyers sanctioned for arguing them, some of them being disbarred in the process. And that's alright.

-Then despite him having lost those lawsuits he can still argue all those judges were wrong. And that's alright.

-Then he can demand the DOJ lie to the states about the findings of the investigations done by them. Something he thinks better off after these officials threaten to quit. And that's alright.

- After that he can come up with an unsupported assertion that the Vice-president has the right to ignore the certified election results if he so chooses. And that's alright.

-Then when he refuses to do that he can try to pressure him by asking his supporters to go to the Capitol and that's alright.

Of course he can't be held responsible for those supporters breaking into the Capitol as a result.



Yet the only way "highly credentialed lawyers and judges" can decide that Trump is an insurrectionist, and insurrectionist are barred from running for president is 'hate'.

 

[DudleySmith]

lol it's fun watching these deranged gimps and deviants slowly choking to death on their own shit. They really think if they destroy this country they will somehow get free houses, Kill Whitey, free dope, and rape little boys any time they want, and suffer zero consequences. I hope they do succeed; it will be hilarious seeing the looks on their faces when the real results come home to roost.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The only way out of this is for the US Supreme Court to formally rule on whether January 6, 2021 was an Insurrection at law.

If they rule that January 6, 2021 was NOT an Insurrection at law, then Trump can go back on the ballot.

If they rule that January 6, 2021 WAS an Insurrection at law, then Trump will stay OFF the ballot.

Without formal charges of "Insurrection"? Yes.

Without a conviction on such charges? Yes.

Precedent?

A great many Confederates were prohibited from ever again holding office merely by PARTICIPATING in Insurrection.

Even though they were never formally charged or convicted.

Fast-forward 150 years or so, and that same safeguard may be conveniently applied here.

the civil war was somewhat different than that confrontation on jan 6.......

 

[Harry Dresden]

“The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again”

True.

But a corrupt and partisan Supreme Court will ignore that fact.

its only corrupt and partisan if they dont rule your way....right jones?....

 

[Kondor3]

the civil war was somewhat different than that confrontation on jan 6.......

Merely a matter of degree.

In both cases we are talking about violence against the United States in order to cancel or forestall Federal proceedings.

If the United States Supreme Court determines that Jan 6th meets that particular "sniff test" then that's the end of it.

 

[22lcidw]

The Constitution tells us about freedom. And we have a collectivism installed potentate at the White House.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

J. Michael Luttig is a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University.

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

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.

Trump Is Constitutionally Prohibited From the Presidency​

I agree with Luttig and Tribe. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution seem clear to me! What will SCOTUS do? What do you think?

Tribe personally took the Bar exam for Obama

 

[dudmuck]

It’s amazing what highly credentialed lawyers and judges will say when hate is a motivating factor…

one thing our justice system is good at is leaving emotions out of it.

 

[Kondor3]

The Constitution tells us about freedom. And we have a collectivism installed potentate at the White House.

Sleepy Old Uncle Joe would never had made it this far if your Orange Baboon-God wasn't such an autocrat and a$$hole.

 

[JWBooth]

J. Michael Luttig is a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University.

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

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.

Trump Is Constitutionally Prohibited From the Presidency​

I agree with Luttig and Tribe. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution seem clear to me! What will SCOTUS do? What do you think?

You fucktards with your silly shit belong in an inescapable sub forum.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Merely a matter of degree.

In both cases we are talking about violence against the United States in order to cancel or forestall Federal proceedings.

If the United States Supreme Court determines that Jan 6th meets that particular "sniff test" then that's the end of it.

a matter of degree?....how long did the Civil war last and how many died compared to that small riot on Jan 6th?...

 

[Oddball]

J. Michael Luttig is a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University.

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

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.

Trump Is Constitutionally Prohibited From the Presidency​

I agree with Luttig and Tribe. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution seem clear to me! What will SCOTUS do? What do you think?

I think you, like Tribe and Luttig, a total fucking moron.

Section 5 sets forth that it's congress that creates the enabling legislation, which calls for a finding of the courts.

 

[Kondor3]

a matter of degree?....how long did the Civil war last and how many died compared to that small riot on Jan 6th?...

It doesn't matter if the Civil War lasted for a thousand years and January 6th only lasted for a thousand seconds...

If the Supreme Court rules that January 6, 2021 meets the legal criteria to be defined as an Insurrection, then that's the end of it...

This is a matter of law... of legal definitions... not scale nor equivalency...

Law...

I am content to let the Supreme Court... our highest arbiter OF The Law... rule on this matter...

I will accept their ruling.

So will you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The only way out of this is for the US Supreme Court to formally rule on whether January 6, 2021 was an Insurrection at law.

Not quite true.

The SCOTUS could rule that the President does not fall under the "any officer, civil or military" provision making the "engaged in insurrection" provision irrelevant.

Such a ruling would bypass any need to rule on insurrection as that become a moot point since it wouldn't apply.

WW

 

[Harry Dresden]

It doesn't matter if the Civil War lasted for a thousand years and January 6th only lasted for a thousand seconds...

If the Supreme Court rules that January 6, 2021 meets the legal criteria to be defined as an Insurrection, then that's the end of it...

This is a matter of law... of legal definitions... not scale nor equivalency...

Law...

I am content to let the Supreme Court... our highest arbiter OF The Law... rule on this matter...

I will accept their ruling.

So will you.

I will accept their ruling. So will you.
did you get that attitude from taking a "how to be a submissive person" class?.....or was it the "principals of being a good dictator" class? .....

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

J. Michael Luttig is a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University.

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

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.

Trump Is Constitutionally Prohibited From the Presidency​

I agree with Luttig and Tribe. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution seem clear to me! What will SCOTUS do? What do you think?

Wow, how scared are these american hating democrats? So scared they will do anything and i mean anything to prevent his return to the white house. Are you an American or a Democrat . Get out and vote Red.

 

[Oddball]

Sleepy Old Uncle Joe would never had made it this far if your Orange Baboon-God wasn't such an autocrat and a$$hole.

He wouldn't have made it this far if his party hadn't cheated in the tens of millions column.

 

[martybegan]

The only way out of this is for the US Supreme Court to formally rule on whether January 6, 2021 was an Insurrection at law.

If they rule that January 6, 2021 was NOT an Insurrection at law, then Trump can go back on the ballot.

If they rule that January 6, 2021 WAS an Insurrection at law, then Trump will stay OFF the ballot.

Without formal charges of "Insurrection"? Yes.

Without a conviction on such charges? Yes.

Precedent?

A great many Confederates were prohibited from ever again holding office merely by PARTICIPATING in Insurrection.

Even though they were never formally charged or convicted.

Fast-forward 150 years or so, and that same safeguard may be conveniently applied here.

That had signed notices of secession, and said people actually holding office or military rank in an insurrectionist government.

And how many were later allowed to serve as congressmen or Senators, or in federal cabinets after the Compromise of 1877?

Was the amendment actually ever enforced?