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

[otto105]

They aren't real conservatives.

One

Kiss the ring post.

 

[otto105]

Two idiots, one has been in the throes of TDS since 2016.

And they are dead wrong.

Don't make me spank you proving I'm right and they're both wrong!

Two

Kiss the ring posts...

 

[otto105]

Hey Stoopid--- --- if none of the people actually arrested at the Capitol and convicted have been charged with "insurrection," then how can Trump be? He wasn't even there! Worse, it is admitted now that they not only withheld security, they withheld information from the head of capitol police! And some of the cops are on tape admitting they planned to infiltrate the crowd as Antifa! And the FBI infiltrated the Proud Boys to set them up as well.

But you and these two boobs think that makes Trump ineligible for office?!


View attachment 814270

Three!

Kiss the ring posts...

 

[otto105]

There was no insurrection.

Four!

Kiss the ring posts...

 

[Independentthinker]

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

And yet Democrats all believe Trump will be the nominee in 2024.

 

[otto105]

And yet Democrats all believe Trump will be the nominee in 2024.

For jail

 

[Independentthinker]

For jail

And yet Democrats all believe Trump will be the nominee in 2024.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden_vs_west-8249.html

 

[Arlette]

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

Since he is running they are just flapping their gums on tv

 

[otto105]

And yet Democrats all believe Trump will be the nominee in 2024.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden_vs_west-8249.html

Actually, you are misreading believe for hope. We want to republic party to try to example a vote for a convict.

 

[Independentthinker]

Actually, you are misreading believe for hope. We want to republic party to try to example a vote for a convict.

Can you post in English please?

 

[otto105]

Can you post in English please?

Actually, you are misreading believe for hope. We want the republic party voters to try to explain a vote for a convict.

 

[Independentthinker]

Actually, you are misreading believe for hope. We want the republic party voters to try to explain a vote for a convict.

I don't know any convicts running. But, put this in your pipe and smoke it:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden_vs_west-8249.html

 

[otto105]

I don't know any convicts running. But, put this in your pipe and smoke it:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden_vs_west-8249.html

Polls in August 2023 for an election in November 2024.


Very weak sauce.

 

[Orangecat]

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

Trump didn’t engage in an insurrection.

 

[Orangecat]

Was it when he tried to “grab the steering wheel” to drive to the Capitol?

The narrative fed to the useful idiots used the word “lunged” for maximum emotional punch.

 

[Billy000]

Trump didn’t engage in an insurrection.

He tried to overturn the election fraudulently. That’s insurrection. You can claim he didn’t if you like, but the alleged behavior still fits the definition

 

[theHawk]

He tried to overturn the election fraudulently. That’s insurrection. You can claim he didn’t if you like, but the alleged behavior still fits the definition

Asking states to review possible and obvious fraud is not an “insurrection”. An insurrection is an armed rebellion that overthrows a government by force. Using constitutional means to overturn an election is no a “coup”.

 

[Independentthinker]

Polls in August 2023 for an election in November 2024.


Very weak sauce.

So, you don't know any convicts running either. Why did you lie?

 

[Billy000]

Asking states to review possible and obvious fraud is not an “insurrection”. An insurrection is an armed rebellion that overthrows a government by force. Using constitutional means to overturn an election is no a “coup”.

That’s not the actual activity these charges are based on. The actual charges is based on him creating false electors pressuring officials to change the vote count.

Don’t be so childish about this. There were three recounts in a red state ran by Republican officials and the election results stayed the same. You’re a sore loser. Man up and accept he lost.

 

[2aguy]

That’s not the actual activity these charges are based on. The actual charges is based on him creating false electors pressuring officials to change the vote count.

Don’t be so childish about this. There were three recounts in a red state ran by Republican officials and the election results stayed the same. You’re a sore loser. Man up and accept he lost.

Hilary did the same thing in 2016