The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

[forkup]

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? .....

I think it's how a person wanting a Constitutional Republic acts. The Constitution is pretty clear on how one finds redress of grievances. You want other ways?

 

[Harry Dresden]

I think it's how a person wanting a Constitutional Republic acts. The Constitution is pretty clear on how one finds redress of grievances. You want other ways?

i dont have to accept anybodies ruling.....if i dont agree with it,then i dont agree with it.....when someone tells you......you will agree with it whether you like it or not....i kinda go....yea fuck you too...

 

[forkup]

i dont have to accept anybodies ruling.....if i dont agree with it,then i dont agree with it.....when someone tells you......you will agree with it whether you like it or not....i kinda go....yea fuck you too...

Unless you plan on revolting I argue that you are accepting the rulings.

I often disagree with rulings the court makes. I tend to have better reasons for doing so than " I don't like who they're ruling against." But the point is, I accept those rulings.

If tomorrow the Supreme Court decides that Trump is immune from Federal Prosecution for criminal actions he took during his presidency, I will vehemently disagree. Yet I won't try to subvert the government as a response.

The reason I accept what the court decides is because I feel that not doing so leads to anarchy. I don't have to like or agree with it, but I do have to accept it.


The tragedy and danger of Trump is that he's made his supporters immune to actual reason. If a ruling is to his benefit. It's a good ruling. A ruling to his detriment, proof that the system is rigged against him.


If he claims the election was stolen. His supporters accept that. If he can't prove it in court. The judges are biased.

It's perfectly sealed and as such can't be argued against.

 

[bodecea]

No doubt the 3 dem appt justices will follow Soros, Zuckerberg, Gates etc.

(((SOROS)))

 

[BluesLegend]

Biden encouraging 10 million illegals to pour across our border and kill 200,000+ Americans is a real insurrection. Now fuck off Dems.

 

[Mac-7]

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?

Anti MAGA libs are insane

Just because you declare “insurrection” doesent mean it was

 

[forkup]

Anti MAGA libs are insane

Just because you declare “insurrection” doesent mean it was

You are right. Judges decide what fall under the legal definition of insurrection. Luckily judges did as part of ruling wether or not Trump was eligible too run.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

No doubt the 3 dem appt justices will follow Soros, Zuckerberg, Gates etc.

Democrats = WEF

If you want to know what Democrats will bring to America, just watch a Devos meeting.

Banned livestock

Banned cars

Banned ac units

And much more Democrats will bring America.

Democrats will bring the great reset to your community.

 

[JohnDB]

Does he not understand that this is illegal, unethical, and immoral?

 

[AMart]

Trump never engaged in an insurrection or rebellion. The people that impeached Trump did engage in this, so did the FBI, CIA, and these judges in Colorado.

 

[citygator]

It's impossible for Trump to be President. Either he was right and Kamala can throw out votes keeping Joe in office, or Trump was wrong and he attempted a coup and is disqualified from office.

 

[Mac-7]

You are right. Judges decide what fall under the legal definition of insurrection. Luckily judges did as part of ruling wether or not Trump was eligible too run.

The judges are largely full of crap also

After years on the bench they become convinced they are all-knowing gods in their own right

 

[AMart]

 

[Harry Dresden]

Unless you plan on revolting I argue that you are accepting the rulings.

I often disagree with rulings the court makes. I tend to have better reasons for doing so than " I don't like who they're ruling against." But the point is, I accept those rulings.

If tomorrow the Supreme Court decides that Trump is immune from Federal Prosecution for criminal actions he took during his presidency, I will vehemently disagree. Yet I won't try to subvert the government as a response.

The reason I accept what the court decides is because I feel that not doing so leads to anarchy. I don't have to like or agree with it, but I do have to accept it.


The tragedy and danger of Trump is that he's made his supporters immune to actual reason. If a ruling is to his benefit. It's a good ruling. A ruling to his detriment, proof that the system is rigged against him.


If he claims the election was stolen. His supporters accept that. If he can't prove it in court. The judges are biased.

It's perfectly sealed and as such can't be argued against.

Trump is that he's made his supporters immune to actual reason.
the same can be said of the die hard party people....

 

[whitehall]

Watch out when liberals quote scripture or the Constitution. Nothing good can ever come of it.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

I see you're wanting us to be a third world shithole. I guess it would be okay for the SCOTUS to rule that Biden is a traitor and be arrested.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

Then Hillary should also be tried for Insurrection after her saying the election was stolen from her. Her loons tried to breach the Whitehouse.

 

[miketx]

Colorado has the right to run the election in their state.
If found guilty of being responsible for taking part in a plot to overthrow the election, ending in sending a mob to march on The Capital. He definitively went back on his oath to protect and defend the constitution and should be disqualified to run for any office, across the country.

Delusional, keep on traitor.

 

[toobfreak]

Debs was convicted under the Espionage Act of interfering with military recruitment. He never waged insurrection against the constitution.

You just admitted that he was CONVICTED of ESPIONAGE. Yet he was allowed to run for president, no question--- from PRISON. Trump has not been proven much less convicted of a parking ticket, asshole, just your blathering, mindless bullshit.

 

[Orangecat]

No.

The left vehemently opposes the Democrats and their unprecedented, dangerous sedition in Colorado.

Even the Democrat-led Confederacy did not deny Lincoln's victory, choosing instead secession.

SCOTUS must act with lightning speed to strike Colorado's treason down.

Intelligent people can see right through their desperation. Trump has turned the lot of them into childish blithering idiots. Just look at the sample posting here for proof.