Historians Brief: Twenty-five historians of the civil war and Reconstruction filed a US supreme court brief

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yup, Exactly what I said

Hate to break it to you, but this bullshit is going down 9-0 , or at worst 8-1.

Doesn't clear Trump of charges and a Dem led House is coming.

and there is the case with Meadows:

Still, Meadows’s murky status has been a source of consternation in Trump world. Two close associates of the former president acknowledged to me that opinions in that community were sharply divided on the matter of Meadows’s fidelity. Another Trump confidant conveyed to me the suspicion that Meadows was wearing a wire. In addressing the possibility that his former chief of staff had cut a deal to avoid a prison sentence, Trump confessed uncertainty about the matter on his social media platform, Truth Social, in a way that was most unlike him, posting on Oct. 24: “Some people would make that deal, but they are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation. I don’t think that Mark Meadows is one of them, but who really knows?”

There is reason for Trump to be fretful about Meadows. Court documents that remain under seal but whose contents I’m familiar with confirm that Meadows did in fact receive an immunity order, signed on March 20, 2023, by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the District Court in Washington, to testify before a federal grand jury three days later. The order acknowledges that Meadows would most likely have taken the Fifth Amendment if not granted immunity to testify. Meadows did not simply honor a subpoena request with a single obligatory interview with federal prosecutors; rather, he spoke expansively to them and then, the next day, testified before the grand jury for approximately six hours. It is also the case that Meadows is not named as a co-defendant in the Trump indictment, which instead describes him more than once in the favorable terms of a truth-telling chief of staff who did not indulge Trump’s fever dream of a stolen election.

 

[Rawley]

Doesn't clear Trump of charges and a Dem led House is coming.

and there is the case with Meadows:

Still, Meadows’s murky status has been a source of consternation in Trump world. Two close associates of the former president acknowledged to me that opinions in that community were sharply divided on the matter of Meadows’s fidelity. Another Trump confidant conveyed to me the suspicion that Meadows was wearing a wire. In addressing the possibility that his former chief of staff had cut a deal to avoid a prison sentence, Trump confessed uncertainty about the matter on his social media platform, Truth Social, in a way that was most unlike him, posting on Oct. 24: “Some people would make that deal, but they are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation. I don’t think that Mark Meadows is one of them, but who really knows?”

There is reason for Trump to be fretful about Meadows. Court documents that remain under seal but whose contents I’m familiar with confirm that Meadows did in fact receive an immunity order, signed on March 20, 2023, by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the District Court in Washington, to testify before a federal grand jury three days later. The order acknowledges that Meadows would most likely have taken the Fifth Amendment if not granted immunity to testify. Meadows did not simply honor a subpoena request with a single obligatory interview with federal prosecutors; rather, he spoke expansively to them and then, the next day, testified before the grand jury for approximately six hours. It is also the case that Meadows is not named as a co-defendant in the Trump indictment, which instead describes him more than once in the favorable terms of a truth-telling chief of staff who did not indulge Trump’s fever dream of a stolen election.

LOL Smart move giving up on your bullshit about the CO case.

 

[Lakhota]

The conservative majority of the supreme court and the historical legacy of the [Chief Justice John] Roberts court have reached a point of no return. The law, no matter the diversions and claptrap of Trump’s lawyers and the pundits, is crystal clear, on incontestable historical as well as originalist grounds … the conservatives face a choice between disqualifying Trump or shredding the foundation of their judicial methodology.”

Amen!

 

[westwall]

and of course, Lawrence has a superb take on it all.

Canadians. Ughh.

 

[Libby von H]

This is a must read for anyone looking to make sense out of the history of the 14th Amendment, and how it is being asked to apply to Donald J. Trump.

Lots of people speaking about this are doing so with little to no understanding of the actual history. It's a fair and brilliant analysis, and of course like all analysis it comes down on a side. It has to. There are no two or many sides to this. Facts are facts.

US historians sign brief to support Coloradoâs removal of Trump from ballot

Twenty-five civil war and Reconstruction scholars support invoking 14th amendment to bar Trump from ballot over January 6

www.theguardian.com

The brief:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298895/20240126151819211_23-719%20Brief.pdf

Massive bullshit...I did a class on that about 3 years ago. You will always find historians whose main allegiance is political , it was during the passage of those bills too.

I will bet, speaking of the 14th Amendment, you oppose its pro-life founding

Professors John M. Finnis and Robert P. George also explored the original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment in an amicus curiae brief filed in Dobbs. Finnis and George conclude: “The original public meaning of ‘persons’ encompassed all human beings.”

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2970761

Protecting Prenatal Persons: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Prohibit Abortion?​

40 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 539 (2017)
33 Pages Posted: 20 May 2017 Last revised: 30 Mar 2021

AND OF COURSE THE SAME APPROACH AS YOU POINT TO LEADS TO THIS

"When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, the states widely recognized unborn children as persons. Twenty-three states and six territories referred to the fetus as a “child” in their laws prohibiting abortion. Twenty-eight classified abortion as an “offense against the person,” or a functionally equivalent classification. These statutes were enacted in recognition of unborn human beings’ full and equal membership in the human family. In Ohio, the same legislature that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in January 1867 passed legislation criminalizing abortion at all stages just three months later. Several senators who voted for the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification sat on the committee that reviewed the anti-abortion bill. They acknowledged in their report that “physicians have now arrived at the unanimous opinion that the foetus in utero is alive from the very moment of conception,” and declared on that basis that abortion “at any stage of existence” is “child-murder.” In light of the historical evidence, there can be little doubt that the original public meaning of the term “person” in 1868 included unborn children."

So if you agree with me, we are using the same reasoning; if you disagree with me, you repudiate your own reasoning

 

[marvin martian]

Yet many courts and people say there was.

You conspiracy loons also believe men can get pregnant, vaccinated people can't get covid, and Trump carjacked the Secret Service on 1/6. Your insanity doesn't make any of this true just because you want it to be.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Massive bullshit...I did a class on that about 3 years ago. You will always find historians whose main allegiance is political , it was during the passage of those bills too.

I will bet, speaking of the 14th Amendment, you oppose its pro-life founding

Professors John M. Finnis and Robert P. George also explored the original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment in an amicus curiae brief filed in Dobbs. Finnis and George conclude: “The original public meaning of ‘persons’ encompassed all human beings.”

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2970761

Protecting Prenatal Persons: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Prohibit Abortion?​

40 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 539 (2017)
33 Pages Posted: 20 May 2017 Last revised: 30 Mar 2021

AND OF COURSE THE SAME APPROACH AS YOU POINT TO LEADS TO THIS

"When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, the states widely recognized unborn children as persons. Twenty-three states and six territories referred to the fetus as a “child” in their laws prohibiting abortion. Twenty-eight classified abortion as an “offense against the person,” or a functionally equivalent classification. These statutes were enacted in recognition of unborn human beings’ full and equal membership in the human family. In Ohio, the same legislature that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in January 1867 passed legislation criminalizing abortion at all stages just three months later. Several senators who voted for the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification sat on the committee that reviewed the anti-abortion bill. They acknowledged in their report that “physicians have now arrived at the unanimous opinion that the foetus in utero is alive from the very moment of conception,” and declared on that basis that abortion “at any stage of existence” is “child-murder.” In light of the historical evidence, there can be little doubt that the original public meaning of the term “person” in 1868 included unborn children."

So if you agree with me, we are using the same reasoning; if you disagree with me, you repudiate your own reasoning

Jesus, some states favored keeping slaves and some outlawed marriage between races.

And the unborn persons nonsense is .. they're unborn. Not human beings.

and you teaching a class? Give me a break. Any nut can teach a class, depending on where they are -- people teach classes in prisons.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You conspiracy loons also believe men can get pregnant, vaccinated people can't get covid, and Trump carjacked the Secret Service on 1/6. Your insanity doesn't make any of this true just because you want it to be.

really?

Hmm... calling out bullshit

 

[westwall]

really?

Hmm... calling out bullshit

Ahh, dainty. You're being hard on yourself.

I would classify you more as horseshit, than bullshit.

 

[Libby von H]

Jesus, some states favored keeping slaves and some outlawed marriage between races.

And the unborn persons nonsense is .. they're unborn. Not human beings.

and you teaching a class? Give me a break. Any nut can teach a class, depending on where they are -- people teach classes in prisons.

Great to illustrate with your own words what a lazy illogical moron you are
Some states favored NOT keeping slaves and that is why freedom won out.
Some states favored marriage between races and that is why freedom won out
You are what I call a Hillary NUTTER, if others can't produce instant perfection you blame thel people you should be congratulating !! and you excuse the bastards you supposedly dislike A stupid person indeed.

Here you oppose the Constitution.
Joshua Craddock (Harvard Law Review) has shown that people like you said the unborn are fully human at the time of the 14th Amendment.

And , STUPID MORON, your last sentence recoils on you: IF all teachers are as stupid as you say, then 3 things follow
1) It explains why you are stupid
2) It exposes you as a hypocrite for not trying to reform that mess ( I always speak against it)
3) So I can't be a genius Mensa member because once you take up teaching your IQ and mental endowments shed like snake skin.

Good. Readers, meettTHE MORON

 

[Robert W]

Jesus, some states favored keeping slaves and some outlawed marriage between races.

And the unborn persons nonsense is .. they're unborn. Not human beings.

and you teaching a class? Give me a break. Any nut can teach a class, depending on where they are -- people teach classes in prisons.

So your the product of your teachers? Tip, this nation has many books that vary in views. A Democrat historian tells history to favor their party. Republican historians do it too. But this nation has a critical shortage of Republican historians.

I am the father of 2 daughters and when my wives said we are going to have a baby, they never told me they were not humans. We immediately considered the two girls as humans and never would have killed them off. Why don't you kill chickens if you must take lives? You insulted a very fine woman poster who is really a top notch contributor to this forum. Bet you felt your muscle after doing it. Are you stronger?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Great to illustrate with your own words what a lazy illogical moron you are
Some states favored NOT keeping slaves and that is why freedom won out.
Some states favored marriage between races and that is why freedom won out
You are what I call a Hillary NUTTER, if others can't produce instant perfection you blame thel people you should be congratulating !! and you excuse the bastards you supposedly dislike A stupid person indeed.

Here you oppose the Constitution.
Joshua Craddock (Harvard Law Review) has shown that people like you said the unborn are fully human at the time of the 14th Amendment.

And , STUPID MORON, your last sentence recoils on you: IF all teachers are as stupid as you say, then 3 things follow
1) It explains why you are stupid
2) It exposes you as a hypocrite for not trying to reform that mess ( I always speak against it)
3) So I can't be a genius Mensa member because once you take up teaching your IQ and mental endowments shed like snake skin.

Good. Readers, meettTHE MORON
View attachment 929579

Do you believe in evolution?