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

[Billy000]

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.

Lol why are you just pretending he hasn’t been charged with trying to subvert the election in Georgia? I mean talk about dumb.

 

[ActionJackson]

I'd say he nailed it.

You and Billy000 should keep your private lives to yourselves.

 

[The5thHorseman]

You and Billy000 should keep your private lives to yourselves.

You should be less of a pussy.

 

[BackAgain]

Lol why are you just pretending he hasn’t been charged with trying to subvert the election in Georgia? I mean talk about dumb.

Why are you pretending that is a conviction and not a mere charge?

Why are you pretending that a state charge has fuck all to do with “insurrection?”

 

[themirrorthief]

forty eight medical experts say that bidens brain is basically oatmeal at this point....one compared it to a huge infected zit about to explode the next time he falls on his ask

 

[The5thHorseman]

Why are you pretending that is a conviction and not a mere charge?

Why are you pretending that a state charge has fuck all to do with “insurrection?”

It's called a "mosaic", Strip Mall.

 

[Billy000]

Why are you pretending that is a conviction and not a mere charge?

Why are you pretending that a state charge has fuck all to do with “insurrection?”

Lol idiot a charge can be a thing without a conviction. I never claimed he got convicted. How dense are you exactly? Of course a state charge can relate to insurrection. Even if it didn’t, he still being charged federally for the same evidence.

 

[Rawley]

You don’t have an explanation lol

THey let their emotions and not rational thought guide their opinions.

 

[BackAgain]

Lol idiot a charge can be a thing without a conviction. I never claimed he got convicted. How dense are you exactly? Of course a state charge can relate to insurrection. Even if it didn’t, he still being charged federally for the same evidence.

If one isn’t convicted of a charged crime, you fucking moron, then one is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law.

No. The State of Ga cannot charge Trump for any insurrection. And it didn’t.

And no. Nothing in any of the federal indictments charges Trump with insurrection.

You remain massively retarded and dishonest.

 

[Billy000]

If one isn’t convicted of a charged crime, you fucking moron, then one is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law.

No. The State of Ga cannot charge Trump for any insurrection. And it didn’t.

And no. Nothing in any of the federal indictments charges Trump with insurrection.

You remain massively retarded and dishonest.

Lol hey dipshit, the charge doesn’t have to be called insurrection in order to relate to insurrection. What he did still amounts to an insurrection act. What those scholars wrote reflected this. The constitution doesn’t even mention a conviction as part of that criteria.

 

[BackAgain]

Lol hey dipshit, the charge doesn’t have to be called insurrection in order to relate to insurrection.

Hey fuckchop: The charge has to be insurrection for anyone to ever be convicted of insurrection. And once again for you “hard of thinking” types, a conviction would be required to make him ineligible for office.

What he did still amounts to an insurrection act.

False. What you claim he did might amount to something akin to it. But what you claim has never been proved at trial.

What those scholars wrote reflected this.

What they wrote is bullshit.

The constitution doesn’t even mention a conviction as part of that criteria.

It need not. Mere accusations have never mattered in this republic.

Sucks to be you and always wrong, as you are.

 

[Billy000]

Hey fuckchop: The charge has to be insurrection for anyone to ever be convicted of insurrection. And once again for you “hard of thinking” types, a conviction would be required to make him ineligible for office.

False. What you claim he did might amount to something akin to it. But what you claim has never been proved at trial.

What they wrote is bullshit.

It need not. Mere accusations have never mattered in this republic.

Sucks to be you and always wrong, as you are.

Lol you’re just making up your own rules as you go along. Yes, obviously what he did was an insurrection act. There’s no denying that. The charge does not have to be called “insurrection” in order to fit the definition of it. It was a rebellious act against an established authority. The established authority was the certification of the Georgia election results.

Lol I lose how you say what they wrote is bull shit yet you haven’t even cited anything in the constitution that contradicts what they are saying. You’re just making up your own rules on the spot.

 

[BackAgain]

Lol you’re just making up your own rules as you go along.

No, fuckwit. I’m disputing yours.

Yes, obviously what he did was an insurrection act.

No it is not obvious and it remains unproved, anyway.

There’s no denying that.

There is denying that. It’s a false claim. You specialize in those, ya moron.

The charge does not have to be called “insurrection” in order to fit the definition of it.

Yeah. It does.

It was a rebellious act against an established authority.

What was? The mob incident on 1/6 of which Trump was not a part? You idiot.

The established authority was the certification of the Georgia election results.

The one no candidate is ever allowed to challenge? Another rule you make up as you go along?

Lol I lose how you say what they wrote is bull shit yet you haven’t even cited anything in the constitution that contradicts what they are saying.

False. What I noted was in the Constitution. It’s called the right to trial. Maybe even a fuckwit like you has heard of it.

You’re just making up your own rules on the spot.

You’re projecting.

 

[Billy000]

No, fuckwit. I’m disputing yours.

No it is not obvious and it remains unproved, anyway.

There is denying that. It’s a false claim. You specialize in those, ya moron.


Yeah. It does.


What was? The mob incident on 1/6 of which Trump was not a part? You idiot.

The one no candidate is ever allowed to challenge? Another rule you make up as you go along?

False. What I noted was in the Constitution. It’s called the right to trial. Maybe even a fuckwit like you has heard of it.


You’re projecting.

Lol I love how you think breaking my post down phrase by phrase owns me or whatever.

Dozens of the inbred mob morons have been convicted of seditious conspiracy which is something that obviously relates to insurrection but that’s besides the point. We aren’t talking about that. We are talking about Trump creating fraudulent electors to change the results of the entire election. He also pressured an official to change the vote tally illegally. That is insurrection. Obviously that goes beyond simply legally “challenging” the election. He challenged the election with fraudulent electors. Lol did you even read these indictments?

Let me break this down for you: what the scholars cited said nothing about a conviction. They cited behavior that amounted to insurrection. You talking about a charge needing to be called “insurrection” and then a conviction that follows isn’t what’s in the constitution as far as what this criteria is. You just made that up on the spot lol

 

[2aguy]

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

then they are really stupid scholars because he didn't engage in an insurrection......

 

[2aguy]

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

It would be helpful if the democrats in D.C. would actually charge him with insurrection first, then convict him.....that might be a start for those dumb ass "scholars."

 

[BackAgain]

Lol I love how you think breaking my post down phrase by phrase owns me or whatever.

Wrong again, fuckwit. I do it to be clear as to which point I’m replying. If you imagine that I do it just to you “own” you, you’re a truly pathetic loser at life.

Dozens of the inbred mob morons have been convicted of seditious conspiracy which is something that obviously relates to insurrection but that’s besides the point.

That’s their problem.

We aren’t talking about that.

Funny. You just did.

We are talking about Trump creating fraudulent electors to change the results of the entire election.

He didn’t. Again, you confuse an allegation with a conviction. And alternative skates of electors have been submitted in prior elections. It’s not sedition. It certainly isn’t an insurrection.

He also pressured an official to change the vote tally illegally.

Not what he said. I know. I heard it as well as read it. Why do you lie so much?

That is insurrection.

No. It isn’t. Words have meanings. Except when you use them.

Obviously that goes beyond simply legally “challenging” the election. He challenged the election with fraudulent electors.

Nope. It is only an allegation. And proposing an alternative slate of electors isn’t a fraud.

Lol did you even read these indictments?

Yes. Unlike you, I understood them.

Let me break this down for you: what the scholars cited said nothing about a conviction.

Which makes their alleged “scholarship” something to laugh about.

They cited behavior that amounted to insurrection.

In their vapid opinions. But even if conduct did amount to a crime, a conviction would still be required. You dunce.

You talking about a charge needing to be called “insurrection” and then a conviction that follows isn’t what’s in the constitution as far as what this criteria is.

Wrong. Your label doesn’t control. A criminal conviction would control. You’re an absolute joke.

You just made that up on the spot lol

Still wrong. No conviction means innocence in the eyes of the law.

I know our history of common law and our constitution and legislated laws mean nothing to Antwerp line you. But that’s just tough shit on you.

You’re an assclown and you prove it again and again with each of your baseless idiotic posts.

 

[Billy000]

Wrong again, fuckwit. I do it to be clear as to which point I’m replying. If you imagine that I do it just to you “own” you, you’re a truly pathetic loser at life.

That’s their problem.

Funny. You just did.

He didn’t. Again, you confuse an allegation with a conviction. And alternative skates of electors have been submitted in prior elections. It’s not sedition. It certainly isn’t an insurrection.

Not what he said. I know. I heard it as well as read it. Why do you lie so much?


No. It isn’t. Words have meanings. Except when you use them.


Nope. It is only an allegation. And proposing an alternative slate of electors isn’t a fraud.

Yes. Unlike you, I understood them.

Which makes their alleged “scholarship” something to laugh about.

In their vapid opinions. But even if conduct did amount to a crime, a conviction would still be required. You dunce.

Wrong. Your label doesn’t control. A criminal conviction would control. You’re an absolute joke.

Still wrong. No conviction means innocence in the eyes of the law.

I know our history of common law and our constitution and legislated laws mean nothing to Antwerp line you. But that’s just tough shit on you.

You’re an assclown and you prove it again and again with each of your baseless idiotic posts.

Lol you brought the mob up - not me idiot. Derp!

Lol I love how you so easily contradict yourself. You say it’s an unproven allegation yet you still insist it was legal for him to do it because in the past “alternate” electors were done with previous elections. Once again something you are making up on the spot either way lol.

Again I’ll sum this up for you: they are citing language in the constitution. You make shit up.

 

[BackAgain]

Lol you brought the mob up - not me idiot. Derp!

Lol I love how you so easily contradict yourself. You say it’s an unproven allegation yet you still insist it was legal for him to do it because in the past “alternate” electors were done with previous elections. Once again something you are making up on the spot either way lol.

Again I’ll sum this up for you: they are citing language in the constitution. You make shit up.

You add nothing with your latest petty screed.

 

[2aguy]

Wrong again, fuckwit. I do it to be clear as to which point I’m replying. If you imagine that I do it just to you “own” you, you’re a truly pathetic loser at life.

That’s their problem.

Funny. You just did.

He didn’t. Again, you confuse an allegation with a conviction. And alternative skates of electors have been submitted in prior elections. It’s not sedition. It certainly isn’t an insurrection.

Not what he said. I know. I heard it as well as read it. Why do you lie so much?


No. It isn’t. Words have meanings. Except when you use them.


Nope. It is only an allegation. And proposing an alternative slate of electors isn’t a fraud.

Yes. Unlike you, I understood them.

Which makes their alleged “scholarship” something to laugh about.

In their vapid opinions. But even if conduct did amount to a crime, a conviction would still be required. You dunce.

Wrong. Your label doesn’t control. A criminal conviction would control. You’re an absolute joke.

Still wrong. No conviction means innocence in the eyes of the law.

I know our history of common law and our constitution and legislated laws mean nothing to Antwerp line you. But that’s just tough shit on you.

You’re an assclown and you prove it again and again with each of your baseless idiotic posts.

Lol you brought the mob up - not me idiot. Derp!

Lol I love how you so easily contradict yourself. You say it’s an unproven allegation yet you still insist it was legal for him to do it because in the past “alternate” electors were done with previous elections. Once again something you are making up on the spot either way lol.

Again I’ll sum this up for you: they are citing language in the constitution. You make shit up.

Get back to us as soon as some democrat in D.C. finally decides to charge him with insurrection.....