Findings of fact: Insurrection?

[martybegan]

Does that mean Arnold Schwarzenegger should be allowed to run for president?
And let the voters decide the constitutional question?

The Terminator violates a clear requirement of the office.

Not someone just calling someone an insurrectionist because "reasons"

Arnold being born outside the US to non US Citizens is a fact.

 

[meaner gene]

Do you always speak in circles? Is your OP about "findings of fact" or not? And if so, what is your question, point, argument that which you expect to discuss?

States make up the election laws that control the election. And the states courts are the interpreters of state law.
Which is why Bush v Gore was so controversial, in that the USSC decided the intentions of the Florida legislature, and the interpretation of Florida election law.

 

[meaner gene]

The Terminator violates a clear requirement of the office.

Not someone just calling someone an insurrectionist because "reasons"

Arnold being born outside the US to non US Citizens is a fact.

There has never been a court ruling to that fact.

So who makes the decision that Schwarzenegger isn't eligible?

 

[Rawley]

States make up the election laws that control the election. And the states courts are the interpreters of state law.
Which is why Bush v Gore was so controversial, in that the USSC decided the intentions of the Florida legislature, and the interpretation of Florida election law.

Kudos Ratty Keep the record alive.

 

[Dante]

Do you always speak in circles? Is your OP about "findings of fact" or not? And if so, what is your question, point, argument that which you expect to discuss?

You jumped in over a reply to a post from Donald H.

I'm just wondering why so many self-described legal experts have argued around the District Court's ruling and the Supreme Court's ruling (Colorado courts), without acknowledging or arguing with the phrase 'findings of fact' .

does that sound like Dante was looking to hear arguments? Wondering why, looks to be seeking explanations, not arguments to debate over.

 

[meaner gene]

Sit down, child.

Who decides that Schwarzenegger isn't eligible to be on a states ballot?

Answer that question, since no court has made that finding of fact.

 

[meaner gene]

What's the Consitutional question Ratty?

If Arnold Schwarzenegger is eligible to run for President of the United States.

 

[Dante]

Do you always speak in circles? Is your OP about "findings of fact" or not? And if so, what is your question, point, argument that which you expect to discuss?

Is this really the only thread you've started?

NYTimes acknowledges scam of "affirming care" for kids

When the NYTimes starts exposing the scam of experimenting on kids, you know it's the beginning of the end. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/new-york-times-confirms-st-louis-gender-clinic-whistleblower-s-claim-that-adolescents-were-rushed-into-affirming-care/ar-AA1fFvyB

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[meaner gene]

Jim Crow laws were found to be unconstitutional. Bad reference.

Signatures are such a low bar that they have never really been challenged.

What has been challenged and defeated are things like some States attempting to require tax returns be released before a person is on a ballot.

Actually Jim Crow laws were MADE to be unconstitutional by the 14th amendment.
They did not violate the original constitution.

 

[Dante]

The Terminator violates a clear requirement of the office.

Not someone just calling someone an insurrectionist because "reasons"

Arnold being born outside the US to non US Citizens is a fact.

You people tried that on McCain, and on Obama.

 

[Rawley]

You jumped in over a reply to a post from Donald H.

I'm just wondering why so many self-described legal experts have argued around the District Court's ruling and the Supreme Court's ruling (Colorado courts), without acknowledging or arguing with the phrase 'findings of fact' .

does that sound like Dante was looking to hear arguments? Wondering why, looks to be seeking explanations, not arguments to debate over.

WTF? "Do people see how this affect posts they've made, ideas they've expressed, opinions?"

 

[Rawley]

Is this really the only thread you've started?

NYTimes acknowledges scam of "affirming care" for kids

When the NYTimes starts exposing the scam of experimenting on kids, you know it's the beginning of the end. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/new-york-times-confirms-st-louis-gender-clinic-whistleblower-s-claim-that-adolescents-were-rushed-into-affirming-care/ar-AA1fFvyB

www.usmessageboard.com

You seem upset by that. Why?

 

[Dante]

Actually Jim Crow laws were MADE to be unconstitutional by the 14th amendment.
They did not violate the original constitution.

careful

Marty is known to hijack threads

 

[martybegan]

There has never been a court ruling to that fact.

So who makes the decision that Schwarzenegger isn't eligible?

The actual words of the Constitution which are explicit and clear?

And actually there has been a recent commission ruling on it that didn't go any further.

State Ballot Law Commission upholds barring Cenk Uygur from NH Primary ballot

Secretary of State David Scanlan rejected Uygur’s campaign filing last month because Uygur, who was born in Turkey and is a naturalized US citizen, crossed out passages on the legally required filing form — including language noting that a presidential candidate is required to be a natural-born citizen.

 

[Dante]

You seem upset by that. Why?

Your intuitions are as good as those of Jean Dixon

 

[martybegan]

Actually Jim Crow laws were MADE to be unconstitutional by the 14th amendment.
They did not violate the original constitution.

You do realize they came AFTER the 14th amendment was passed, and were thus were unconstitutional from the get go, right?

Unless of course you agree with the judgement in Plessey.

 

[martybegan]

You people tried that on McCain, and on Obama.

McCain was born in the Canal Zone of a US Citizen, fathered by a US Naval Officer. The Canal Zone at the time was US territory. That makes him a natural US Citizen.

The real fun one is if Ted Cruz is eligible or not.

 

[Rawley]

Your intuitions are as good as those of Jean Dixon

Have a blessed day

 

[Dante]

WTF? "Do people see how this affect posts they've made, ideas they've expressed, opinions?"

That is not what you commented on.

 

[Dante]

Have a blessed day

You are excused. You've been dismissed.

finding of fact​

finding

www.law.cornell.edu

conclusion of fact

www.law.cornell.edu

finding of fact

www.law.cornell.edu

Primary tabs​

A finding of fact, also known as a conclusion of fact, refers to decisions made by the trier of fact on questions of fact in a case.
Questions of fact arise when parties disagree on facts, and after presenting evidence, the trier of fact must decide what the facts actually are. Findings of fact may be made by either a jury or a judge depending on whether the case is criminal or civil and/or if there is an agreement between the parties. These conclusions often dictate the outcome of a trial. Because questions of fact must be analyzed and decided, if there is a question of fact, a judge cannot enter a summary judgment until the factual dispute is resolved.

Trial courts are considered finders of facts and, therefore, their findings of fact are given a high degree of deference by the higher courts. On appeal, an appellate court will only overturn a conclusion of fact if the trier of fact’s decision was clearly erroneous. This is to be contrasted with a conclusion of law which will receive higher scrutiny.

[Last updated in December of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]



With so many here professing legal expertise, I'm left wondering why I don't see this mentioned in most all posts (though that's a whole 'nother thread). I do see it in a signature of postman: "The most important difference between an appellate court and a trial court is that the appellate court generally does not decide issues of fact. In a trial court, the factfinder—usually a judge or jury—will make findings of fact."

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/president-biden-making-america-normal-again.876476/page-17603#post-33235844

Do people see how this affect posts they've made, ideas they've expressed, opinions?