Two conservative law scholars argue Trump should not be eligible to run again for president

[The5thHorseman]

My signature line tells you all you need to know about Biden's sexual fantasies. He's obsessed with inappropriately touching other men's wives and kids. He's a predator of the highest degree.

Your signature line is irrelevant.


Nod.


Grifty is a rapist looking at 92 counts.


Nod.

 

[ActionJackson]

Your signature line is irrelevant.


Nod.


Grifty is a rapist looking at 92 counts.


Nod.

Trumped up charges with zero evidence, while Biden's crimes are there for all to see. You can't even admit that Biden is clearly a very creepy and sick minded pedophile. Why is that? Do you share his fantasies?

 

[BS Filter]

From the article:

“Two conservative law professors argue that Donald Trump is ineligible to serve as president again due to a section of the Constitution that prohibits anyone who has engaged in insurrection from holding office.

William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas explain their conclusion in an article set to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. The constitutional scholars, both active in the conservative Federalist Society, studied the question for more than a year, according to The New York Times.

The answer, according to Baude: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”

The provision they studied is Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which states that any person who took an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” is prohibited from holding any government office.”

Billy000’s take:

I guess the knee jerk response to this from Republicans will be “they aren’t real conservatives!”, despite none of them even knowing who these guys are but that won’t stop me from posting the best possible source for this argument.

Trump Is Disqualified From Holding Office, Conservative Law Professors Argue

Two constitutional law academics determined that the Constitution bars Trump from becoming president again due to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

www.yahoo.com

This is bullshit. President Trump never engaged in a rebellion or insurrection.

 

[Billy000]

This is bullshit. President Trump never engaged in a rebellion or insurrection.

Yeah he would obviously be too much of a pussy for that. His moronic inbred base would do it for him.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Trumped up charges with zero evidence, while Biden's crimes are there for all to see. You can't even admit that Biden is clearly a very creepy and sick minded pedophile. Why is that? Do you share his fantasies?

Trumped up charges with zero evidence, while Biden's crimes are there for all to see

Take my word for this...

You're a moron, child.

 

[BS Filter]

Yeah he would obviously be too much of a pussy for that. His moronic inbred base would do it for him.

Boo

 

[The5thHorseman]

Boo

I'd say he nailed it.

 

[BS Filter]

I'd say he nailed it.

Of course. Good luck on election day.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Of course. Good luck on election day.

The way it's trending, the margin should be 14 million.

 

[BS Filter]

The way it's trending, the margin should be 14 million.

More like 20 million.

 

[The5thHorseman]

More like 20 million.

No...it is essentially doubling each time, so it would be 12-14 mill in 2024.

 

[BS Filter]

No...it is essentially doubling each time, so it would be 12-14 mill in 2024.

40 million.

 

[The5thHorseman]

40 million.

Nominate Loserstink and you may well prove correct.

 

[BS Filter]

Nominate Loserstink and you may well prove correct.

Done deal. Democrats are in for a rude awakening. Did you notice what happened to Budweiser and Target?

 

[The5thHorseman]

Done deal. Democrats are in for a rude awakening. Did you notice what happened to Budweiser and Target?

See what's happening to Grifty.....because he is too much of a loser to accept having lost.

 

[BS Filter]

See what's happening to Grifty.....because he is too much of a loser to accept having lost.

Nothing gonna happen to Trump. We're gonna see to it.

 

[TNHarley]

I guess he needs to engage in an "insurrection" first, dumbo.

 

[BackAgain]

From the article:

“Two conservative law professors argue that Donald Trump is ineligible to serve as president again due to a section of the Constitution that prohibits anyone who has engaged in insurrection from holding office.

William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas explain their conclusion in an article set to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. The constitutional scholars, both active in the conservative Federalist Society, studied the question for more than a year, according to The New York Times.

The answer, according to Baude: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”

The provision they studied is Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which states that any person who took an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” is prohibited from holding any government office.”

Billy000’s take:

I guess the knee jerk response to this from Republicans will be “they aren’t real conservatives!”, despite none of them even knowing who these guys are but that won’t stop me from posting the best possible source for this argument.

Trump Is Disqualified From Holding Office, Conservative Law Professors Argue

Two constitutional law academics determined that the Constitution bars Trump from becoming president again due to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

www.yahoo.com

Conservative law scholars ought to grasp the principle that one is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until and unless convicted of the crime.

I don’t believe Trump has even been so charged.

Bottom line: the conservative law scholars have dubious scholarship and little billie.zip is wrong again.

 

[Billy000]

Conservative law scholars ought to grasp the principle that one is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until and unless convicted of the crime.

I don’t believe Trump has even been so charged.

Bottom line: the conservative law scholars have dubious scholarship and little billie.zip is wrong again.

Lol your opinions are useless. What matters is what is in the constitution. According to the constitution, Trump is ineligible because he broke his oath by trying to overturn the election. A conviction would help, but since
We have audio evidence of him trying to subvert the results, we needn’t wait for it.

 

[BackAgain]

Lol your opinions are useless. What matters is what is in the constitution. According to the constitution, Trump is ineligible because he broke his oath by trying to overturn the election. A conviction would help, but since
We have audio evidence of him trying to subvert the results, we needn’t wait for it.

Wrong again, ya fuckin’ pinhead.

What matters isn’t your vapid opinion. What matters IS the Constitution.

And if the man who is accused of insurrection is not convicted of it (and isn’t even charged with it), then the Constitution says he remains innocent. That’s true whether a brainless twit like you likes that fact or not.

You’re dismissed, ya pinhead.