Is Donald Trump disqualified? Only Congress can decide!

[Care4all]

No. The ONLY qualification criteria that exist are the ones that are in the US constitution. Like I said, there's no need for any state to hold an election in the first place.

But one thing has occurred to me. This isn't even the general election, this about a Primary. Primaries are strictly actions by political parties. So really, it's all the more reason for the courts not to be involved.

Except states legislated the popular vote in each state to choose the electors.

If they want to go back to not using the popular vote, they need to legislate it.

 

[Lesh]

Oh really? So when President Trump gets back into office, he can charge you with an insurrection and without a conviction, toss your sorry ass into a jail without due process and leave you to rot for the rest of your sorry life?

No doubt he would try

He’s a vindictive motherfucker

 

[Lesh]

There was no insurrection. No one has been charged with insurrection or convicted of insurrection. There has been no official recognition of an insurrection. You guys and your pretzel logic are comical.

Seditious conspiracy. Look it up

 

[Care4all]

Insurrection is a statutory crime, which Trump nor anyone else has been charged with but that is what they are summarily penalizing him for. There is no need to belabor the point. The SCOTUS will decide it and the straw grasping will come to an end.

Yes, the Scotus will have to work through it, and decide, without changing what the section 3 says, in the Constitution.... it'll be tricky.

 

[Concerned American]

Yes, the Scotus will have to work through it, and decide, without changing what the section 3 says, in the Constitution.... it'll be tricky.

Nothing tricky about it at all if you don't try to redefine words and disregard other amendments to the constitution--like the 4th, 5th and 6th amendment clauses dealing with DUE PROCESS. You know, that stuff you democrats are always whining about until it comes back to bite you in the derriere.

 

[Care4all]

Nothing tricky about it at all if you don't try to redefine words and disregard other amendments to the constitution--like the 4th, 5th and 6th amendment clauses dealing with DUE PROCESS. You know, that stuff you democrats are always whining about until it comes back to bite you in the derriere.

As mentioned to you several times, due process in the constitution is for CRIMINAL offenses. Section 3 is not a criminal offense....nor a criminal penalty...

Scotus needs to somehow, find a way to standardize how the State's handle this imo....

And most states give both parties in the suit a civil court process... and section 3 gives relief to the candidate deemed ineligible to run, a means to remove the disability, through both houses of Congress...is the way the section 3 is written.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

As mentioned to you several times, due process in the constitution is for CRIMINAL offenses. Section 3 is not a criminal offense....nor a criminal penalty...

Scotus needs to somehow, find a way to standardize how the State's handle this imo....

And most states give both parties in the suit a civil court process... and section 3 gives relief to the candidate deemed ineligible to run, a means to remove the disability, through both houses of Congress...is the way the section 3 is written.

So what you are saying is that when 45 becomes 47th president the Marxists/Demofascists who pushed the Russian Collusion hoax will not get any due process? Glory days are coming.. Did you push that hoax? I think you did....

 

[Care4all]

That just proved that the dead man was a better choice than the Marxists dumbass you ran against him.

I don't think people are as stupid as y'all are making them out to be. They knew a SPECIAL election with new and old candidates would have to take place.

 

[Concerned American]

As mentioned to you several times, due process in the constitution is for CRIMINAL offenses.

And as I've mentioned to you mentally challenged on this board. The insurrection that you claim happened without any OFFICIAL recognition of such, is a CRIMINAL offense according to US law. I linked the law and you still can't get around it. The civil war clause that you keep hanging your hat on was for people who DECLARED WAR ON THE US. No such declaration was made or even hinted at on Jan. 6. Try again. LOL, I can't wait to see your flood of tears when the SCOTUS schools you outhouse lawyers. Are you also going to disqualify all of these democrats?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I don't think people are as stupid as y'all are making them out to be. They knew a SPECIAL election with new and old candidates would have to take place.

<---Uhmmm, only these guys are that stupid....

 

[Care4all]

So what you are saying is that when 45 becomes 47th president the Marxists/Demofascists who pushed the Russian Collusion hoax will not get any due process? Glory days are coming.. Did you push that hoax? I think you did....

There is no such thing in the legal sense, as collusion.

The Russians DID interfere in the 2016 election, and the Trump Campaign did welcome the Russian help.

 

[Concerned American]

And most states give both parties in the suit a civil court process..

States have no standing in the enforcement of the 14th as it clearly states that is the purview of the congress.

 

[Concerned American]

The Russians DID interfere in the 2016 election,

The democrat's own Mueller report disagrees with you. You just can't get past bbbbut, bbbbut, bbbbut, can you?

 

[Care4all]

And as I've mentioned to you mentally challenged on this board. The insurrection that you claim happened without any OFFICIAL recognition of such, is a CRIMINAL offense according to US law. I linked the law and you still can't get around it. The civil war clause that you keep hanging your hat on was for people who DECLARED WAR ON THE US. No such declaration was made or even hinted at on Jan. 6. Try again. LOL, I can't wait to see your flood of tears when the SCOTUS schools you outhouse lawyers. Are you also going to disqualify all of these democrats?

I'm not going to cry or weap when SCOTUS gives a decision on this, I will accept their decision....i just think it will be trickier to make, than you do....

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

There is no such thing in the legal sense, as collusion.

The Russians DID interfere in the 2016 election, and the Trump Campaign did welcome the Russian help.

Trump was right: 'Russian collusion' was a hoax. Good luck regaining public's trust.

Trump was right: 'Russian collusion' was a hoax. Good luck regaining public's trust.​

The FBI does not dispute the special counsel's findings, but says it has already taken action and added safeguards in its investigations.​

Are you calling the FBI, Liars?​

 

[Care4all]

States have no standing in the enforcement of the 14th as it clearly states that is the purview of the congress.

The section 3 of the 14th, gives Congress a roll in removing the disability of disqualification....that's it.

 

[Care4all]

Trump was right: 'Russian collusion' was a hoax. Good luck regaining public's trust.

Are you calling the FBI, Liars?​

No, I simply read the Mueller report.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

No, I simply read the Mueller report.

Bwaaaahhhaaaaa...The Report that was supposed to bring President Trump to impeachment, that one?

 

[Concerned American]

The section 3 of the 14th, gives Congress a roll in removing the disability of disqualification....that's it.

I'm not going to get into a legal argument with someone who is obviously not competent to understand. Suffice it to say, that the 14th amendment is grasping to begin with and I am not going to lend credence to this nonsense.

 

[Care4all]

Trump was right: 'Russian collusion' was a hoax. Good luck regaining public's trust.

Are you calling the FBI, Liars?​

Yours is an opinion piece, from a Conservative opinion writer.... with very little information and facts about the Durham report.

Here is a news article, with much more information and facts, with little in the realm of opinion, like your piece.

Takeaways from the Durham report on the Trump-Russia probe

Why Durham played defense, who gave him the cold shoulder and what the report means for a key surveillance authority.

www.politico.com