The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

[PeanutGallery]

I literally wrote you the treason part of the constitution, if you can't read that's your problem. There has been 40 charges of Treason in this country, some with less reason to charge then Shitpants actions. Simply Type in any search engine "can Trump be charged with treason" and you will get thousands of results saying he can be charged , You are such a dumb fuck that your make believe made up world is blind stupid to everything you don't agree with. You are the typical MAGA Maggot,hate driven, stupid and having no values or morals. You simply have no clue. You simply are to fucking dumb to understand this but almost everyone else can and will. here is the part of the law that counts. (adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere.")

You can cut and paste, but just because someone supports a candidate doesn't make them guilty of treason. Ask yourself this question, if that was true, when why hasn't the DoJ put Trump supporters on trial for treason if it's SOOOOO obvious? He can be charged with treason because the Internet says so. Hello, there's a world of difference between "can he be charged with treason" and ACTUALLY be charged with treason. Has Jack Smith charged Trump with treason for Jan. 6? In fact, nobody has been charged with treason. That's why this whole remove him from the ballot is being done this way. If you criminally charge him, then you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he's guilty. Not even Jack Smith wants to go there. Maybe you should ask him why. Can you provide a link to Trump or any of his supporters being charged with treason? If not, get back to me whenever he or any of his supporters are charged as such.

I realized that I broke a cardinal rule. I was taught to never get into a battle of wits against an unarmed person. They think that they're the most intelligent person in the room, but don't realize how foolish they sound.

 

[PeanutGallery]

Are you saying this court is politically biased? What difference does the makeup of this court make in terms of holding uo the Constitution?

As far as it standing, I didn't say it would. My actual words were I don't know how they're going to rule. And quite frankly, neither do you. States decide the qualifications to be on their ballots beyond just being 35 or older, a natural born citizen, and a resident for the last 14 years.

I don't think it's politically biased, but there are plenty of people who thinks it is. If those people didnt think that SCOTUS was politically biased, then why have democrats pushed Biden to add more seats to the SCOTUS to "balance the court"? I think the SCOTUS won't ban him from the ballots because of the simple fact that he hasn't been charged or convicted under either The Insurrection Act of 1807 of 18 US Code 2383. If you're going to keep a candidate off a Presidential ballot, the bar to do should be real high, and I don't think that the Colorado or the Maine case are high enough to pass muster. I think the SCOTUS is going to say that, without a charge or conviction, if you think Trump is unfitting to be President again, then beat him in the voting booth.

 

[Faun]

I don't think it's politically biased, but there are plenty of people who thinks it is. If those people didnt think that SCOTUS was politically biased, then why have democrats pushed Biden to add more seats to the SCOTUS to "balance the court"? I think the SCOTUS won't ban him from the ballots because of the simple fact that he hasn't been charged or convicted under either The Insurrection Act of 1807 of 18 US Code 2383. If you're going to keep a candidate off a Presidential ballot, the bar to do should be real high, and I don't think that the Colorado or the Maine case are high enough to pass muster. I think the SCOTUS is going to say that, without a charge or conviction...

Some Democrats wanted Biden to expand the court because Republicans managed to deny Obama a replacement.

...if you think Trump is unfitting to be President again, then beat him in the voting booth.

Already did that and Trump proved he's not fit for that office.

 

[PeanutGallery]

Some Democrats wanted Biden to expand the court because Republicans managed to deny Obama a replacement.



Already did that and Trump proved he's not fit for that office.

The Senate, hate it or not, did its Constitutional duty when deciding not to bring Merrick Garland to a vote. The whole "advise and consent" thing. As for the second part of your comment, then why are people worried about him being on the ballot again if they also hold your opinion? If he was beaten once and he has shown he's unfit for office, then wouldn't the American people send a clear message by not voting for him again? Again, that's why I think the SCOTUS will strike down those cases and any other cases to keep him from the ballot in the primaries/caucuses & the general election in November. In my opinion, they have more faith in the American people than some democrats give them credit for.

 

[jbander]

You can cut and paste, but just because someone supports a candidate doesn't make them guilty of treason. Ask yourself this question, if that was true, when why hasn't the DoJ put Trump supporters on trial for treason if it's SOOOOO obvious? He can be charged with treason because the Internet says so. Hello, there's a world of difference between "can he be charged with treason" and ACTUALLY be charged with treason. Has Jack Smith charged Trump with treason for Jan. 6? In fact, nobody has been charged with treason. That's why this whole remove him from the ballot is being done this way. If you criminally charge him, then you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he's guilty. Not even Jack Smith wants to go there. Maybe you should ask him why. Can you provide a link to Trump or any of his supporters being charged with treason? If not, get back to me whenever he or any of his supporters are charged as such.

I realized that I broke a cardinal rule. I was taught to never get into a battle of wits against an unarmed person. They think that they're the most intelligent person in the room, but don't realize how foolish they sound.

Fuck you maggot , tell me where I ever said Trump was charged with Treason, I said he could be and of course we know he can be. so that ends that microbe. Like I said Haters type into your search engine can Trump be charged with treason. The answer is a definite yes. Who is Trump--------------------------------------
Who is Tump , he is a mentally ill rapist and criminal, who is charged with 91 felonies with more coming and when found guilty can be charged with over 700 years in jail. . ,he is a clown who shits in his pants so often that he has a diaper changing crew following him around to change his diapers when he lets loose. They say the biggest problem is his girdle he wears, That has him strapped in like an astronaut. He is a drug addict who smells so bad his own family won't get in a car with him. There is no one as scummy as he is . He is like standing next to an open sewer, that's what his son says anyway. Shitpants is the rights God and leader, You have to be kidding.

 

[Faun]

The Senate, hate it or not, did its Constitutional duty when deciding not to bring Merrick Garland to a vote. The whole "advise and consent" thing.

No Senate has ever denied a sitting president a confirmation hearing for about a year. Could they have done with they d legally? Yes. But it was wrong. Same is true for expanding SCOTUS. Could it have been done legally? Yes. But it would have been wrong.

By the way, what do you think the "advise" part of "advise and consent" means?

As for the second part of your comment, then why are people worried about him being on the ballot again if they also hold your opinion? If he was beaten once and he has shown he's unfit for office, then wouldn't the American people send a clear message by not voting for him again? Again, that's why I think the SCOTUS will strike down those cases and any other cases to keep him from the ballot in the primaries/caucuses & the general election in November. In my opinion, they have more faith in the American people than some democrats give them credit for.

Because Trump a) tried to steal an election he lost; and b) is confined by section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

 

[jbander]

By the way ,when it gets down to it ,the second part of my comment above is literally the only thing that counts.

 

[jbander]

No Senate has ever denied a sitting president a confirmation hearing for about a year. Could they have done with they d legally? Yes. But it was wrong. Same is true for expanding SCOTUS. Could it have been done legally? Yes. But it would have been wrong.



Because Trump a) tried to steal an election he lost; and b) is confined by section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

We have to get rid of the MAGA Maggot traitor and all other enemy's of this country, The why is obvious, they are anti American,anti democracy, anti constitution, anti American values. The best way to do it and the first thing is by totally erasing the majority these hate Nazi's have in the supreme court. Then pass a law setting that number as the limit for the supreme court. Fuck these traitors.

 

[BS Filter]

We have to get rid of the MAGA Maggot traitor and all other enemy's of this country, The why is obvious, they are anti American,anti democracy, anti constitution, anti American values. The best way to do it and the first thing is by totally erasing the majority these hate Nazi's have in the supreme court. Then pass a law setting that number as the limit for the supreme court. Fuck these traitors.

How are you going to erase the majority on the Supreme Court?

 

[PeanutGallery]

No Senate has ever denied a sitting president a confirmation hearing for about a year. Could they have done with they d legally? Yes. But it was wrong. Same is true for expanding SCOTUS. Could it have been done legally? Yes. But it would have been wrong.

By the way, what do you think the "advise" part of "advise and consent" means?

It's telling the President, in the case of Merrick Garland, don't waste either our time or his time by nominating him for the SCOTUS. He's not going to get the votes necessary to be confirmed (the voting would count as the "consent"). That would be considered the "advise" in "advise and consent". It's not as though Obama couldn't just name another judge for the vacant position in order to show how the Republicans how obstructionist they're being with an election year. However, I don't recall Obama doing that. Don't know why unless Turtle Boy told Obama that it won't matter who he nominates, they aren't getting the votes.

Because Trump a) tried to steal an election he lost; and b) is confined by section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

The problem I see is that Trump's 2nd impeachment was for "incitement of insurrection". The US Senate acquitted him of that charge. Maybe that's why Jack Smith hasn't charged Trump with insurrection. Trump's legal team would argue that this is double jeopardy because he had already been tried for that charge. So, Trump, through Constitutional methods, wasn't found guilty of insurrection. Now, the SCOTUS is somehow supposed to throw out that acquittal and rule that he's guilty of insurrection and/or rebellion and/or he gave aid and comfort to those who did. That runs into another problem. How's the SCOTUS going to rule that Trump is guilty of violating section 3 of the 14th Amendment, when nobody else who was there on Jan. 6th has ever been charged with either insurrection against the United States or rebellion against the United States (18 USC 2383)?

 

[PeanutGallery]

Fuck you maggot , tell me where I ever said Trump was charged with Treason, I said he could be and of course we know he can be. so that ends that microbe. Like I said Haters type into your search engine can Trump be charged with treason. The answer is a definite yes. Who is Trump--------------------------------------
Who is Tump , he is a mentally ill rapist and criminal, who is charged with 91 felonies with more coming and when found guilty can be charged with over 700 years in jail. . ,he is a clown who shits in his pants so often that he has a diaper changing crew following him around to change his diapers when he lets loose. They say the biggest problem is his girdle he wears, That has him strapped in like an astronaut. He is a drug addict who smells so bad his own family won't get in a car with him. There is no one as scummy as he is . He is like standing next to an open sewer, that's what his son says anyway. Shitpants is the rights God and leader, You have to be kidding.

Thank you for clearly showing that I was right in typing that I'm dealing in a battle of wits against an unarmed person.

 

[Faun]

It's telling the President, in the case of Merrick Garland, don't waste either our time or his time by nominating him for the SCOTUS. He's not going to get the votes necessary to be confirmed (the voting would count as the "consent"). That would be considered the "advise" in "advise and consent". It's not as though Obama couldn't just name another judge for the vacant position in order to show how the Republicans how obstructionist they're being with an election year. However, I don't recall Obama doing that. Don't know why unless Turtle Boy told Obama that it won't matter who he nominates, they aren't getting the votes.



The problem I see is that Trump's 2nd impeachment was for "incitement of insurrection". The US Senate acquitted him of that charge. Maybe that's why Jack Smith hasn't charged Trump with insurrection. Trump's legal team would argue that this is double jeopardy because he had already been tried for that charge. So, Trump, through Constitutional methods, wasn't found guilty of insurrection. Now, the SCOTUS is somehow supposed to throw out that acquittal and rule that he's guilty of insurrection and/or rebellion and/or he gave aid and comfort to those who did. That runs into another problem. How's the SCOTUS going to rule that Trump is guilty of violating section 3 of the 14th Amendment, when nobody else who was there on Jan. 6th has ever been charged with either insurrection against the United States or rebellion against the United States (18 USC 2383)?

But there was no vote for Garland. That means the Senate didn't "advise" the president as Constitutionally mandated.

As far as double jeopardy, Trump was never criminally charged or prosecuted on insurrection, so there is no risk of double jeopardy.

And yes, others were charged and convicted on charges relating to insurrection. They were convicted of seditious conspiracy, which is the planning or incitement of insurrection.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The problem I see is that Trump's 2nd impeachment was for "incitement of insurrection". The US Senate acquitted him of that charge. Maybe that's why Jack Smith hasn't charged Trump with insurrection. Trump's legal team would argue that this is double jeopardy because he had already been tried for that charge. So, Trump, through Constitutional methods, wasn't found guilty of insurrection. Now, the SCOTUS is somehow supposed to throw out that acquittal and rule that he's guilty of insurrection and/or rebellion and/or he gave aid and comfort to those who did. That runs into another problem. How's the SCOTUS going to rule that Trump is guilty of violating section 3 of the 14th Amendment, when nobody else who was there on Jan. 6th has ever been charged with either insurrection against the United States or rebellion against the United States (18 USC 2383)?

Just to make sure I understand. Is your claim that being impeached bars any application of indictment, trial, judgement, and punishment can't happen because of double jeopardy?

WW

 

[jbander]

Thank you for clearly showing that I was right in typing that I'm dealing in a battle of wits against an unarmed person.

I don't care what you think of me but I demand that you contribute something and don't try to hi jack the thread. If you can't do that you are gone.

 

[Concerned American]

I don't care what you think of me but I demand that you contribute something and don't try to hi jack the thread. If you can't do that you are gone.

LOL, now you're a billy badass. ROTFLMFAO.

 

[jbander]

I'm amazed why do people that I consider this countries biggest threat and this countries and mine worst enemy think I would care what they think of me to a point that they have nothing to say other then they don't like me or think I'm dumb or some other nonsense. I have never been able to understand this crap.

 

[PeanutGallery]

Just to make sure I understand. Is your claim that being impeached bars any application of indictment, trial, judgement, and punishment can't happen because of double jeopardy?

Criminally, I think the impeachment trial would bar any future trial for the same charge. It wouldn't apply for a civil suit, since it has already happened. What the SCOTUS would be asked to do is to ban a person from being on the ballot based on civil trial result and not a criminal trial. IMO, I don't think that's a high enough bar to uphold Colorado's Supreme Court decision.

 

[PeanutGallery]

I don't care what you think of me but I demand that you contribute something and don't try to hi jack the thread. If you can't do that you are gone.

Or else I'm gone? You and what army is going to do anything about it, keyboard commando.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just to make sure I understand. Is your claim that being impeached bars any application of indictment, trial, judgement, and punishment can't happen because of double jeopardy?

WW

Criminally, I think the impeachment trial would bar any future trial for the same charge. It wouldn't apply for a civil suit, since it has already happened. What the SCOTUS would be asked to do is to ban a person from being on the ballot based on civil trial result and not a criminal trial. IMO, I don't think that's a high enough bar to uphold Colorado's Supreme Court decision.

Constitution, Article I, Section 3.

This specifically address your claim.

The idea behind double jeopardy is that you can't be tried twice criminally for the same crime if you are convicted or found not guilty. The Constitution itself says that impeachment DOES NOT preclude criminal adjudication after impeachment, as a matter of fact it spells out quite clearly that criminal indictment and prosecution IS available after impeachment.

Also, it would make no logical sense to claim:

• If convicted as part of impeachment the individual is subject to criminal prosecution (goes against double jeopardy), but
• If not convicted as part of the impeachment the individual is NOT subject to criminal prosecution because of double jeopardy.

Double jeopardy applied to BOTH conviction and non-conviction of crimes. It has nothing to do with the political process of impeachment. Impeachment does not bar criminal prosecution.

WW

 

[jbander]

Or else I'm gone? You and what army is going to do anything about it, keyboard commando.

What a idiot , couldn't be simpler , contribute something and don't try to hijack the thread. This guy is one dumb fuck and he is gone. If you want this forum to be a place that is worth going to , dump these ass holes who won't contribute or just spend their time trying to hijack the thread.