Is Donald Trump disqualified? Only Congress can decide!

[toobfreak]

Washinton D.C. where Trump & his crew plotted to overturn the election.

Hey Dummy. The election was overturned back on Nov. 3, 2020. They even admitted it in national print bragging about how, who, and when. All the people were doing on J6 was protesting the certification of that travesty before a thorough investigation could be vetted! As to Trump, he wasn't even there, Moron, had nothing to do with it unless you are so fucked in the head from watching your subversive news that you think Trump controls them all by wireless psychokinesis?!

Jackass.

 

[Clipper]

Hey Dummy. The election was overturned back on Nov. 3, 2020. They even admitted it in national print bragging about how, who, and when. All the people were doing on J6 was protesting the certification of that travesty before a thorough investigation could be vetted! As to Trump, he wasn't even there, Moron, had nothing to do with it unless you are so fucked in the head from watching your subversive news that you think Trump controls them all by wireless psychokinesis?!

Jackass.

Hey fucktwit, Biden won, get it you moron? I know you're not too bright but try not to prove it for all the world to see with your bullshit.

Take your head out of your ass for once & up your meds.

 

[toobfreak]

Hey fucktwit, Biden won, get it you moron?

Oh, yeah, jackhole, you mean Biden was SELECTED, then CERTIFIED ASAP, despite 10,000 reasons to believe otherwise?

Without strict legal votes, elections where "anything goes" just becomes a joke.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The election was legal and fair.

What Harris is going to do on count the electoral votes day will be legal but make MAGA scream.

 

[BlindBoo]

The only thing Congress can do is remove the restriction on Benedict Donald "The Insurrectionist in Chief" by 2/3rd majority of votes in each chamber. That he tried to illegally overturn the election and constitutional order of 2020 is something we all saw in real time. The feds are necessarily limited in what they can force the state to do in their elections.

Let's get it on, with the Jan 6th trial. Expedite any and all attempts to stall the trial of Benedict Donald.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The only thing Congress can do is remove the restriction on Benedict Donald "The Insurrectionist in Chief" by 2/3rd majority of votes in each chamber. That he tried to illegally overturn the election and constitutional order of 2020 is something we all saw in real time. The feds are necessarily limited in what they can force the state to do in their elections.

Let's get it on, with the Jan 6th trial. Expedite any and all attempts to stall the trial of Benedict Donald.

There was no insurrection on Jan 6th.. Stupid ***** just keep on spreading the lie that it was...

 

[BlindBoo]

There was no insurrection on Jan 6th.. Stupid ***** just keep on spreading the lie that it was...

Overturning the valid, certified EC votes of various states with fraudulent Certifications, to change the outcome of the election, was an insurrection and rebellion against the US Constitution.

 

[Clipper]

Oh, yeah, jackhole, you mean Biden was SELECTED, then CERTIFIED ASAP, despite 10,000 reasons to believe otherwise?

Without strict legal votes, elections where "anything goes" just becomes a joke.

And you've been certified as nuts.

 

[toobfreak]

And you've been certified as nuts.

Sure Clomper. Certified crazy by a raging kook like you? Ow. That hurts.

 

[Care4all]

Any legal penalty requires due process. Fourth amendment.

Any CRIMINAL charge and criminal PENALTY requires due process under the constitution, but section 3 of the 14th is not a crime, and there is no criminal penalty...no one is locked up, no one is criminally charged with any statutory crime.... nor are they required to be....

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You get the 'due process' argument from this brainless clue when talking about MLB mandated penalties for beating up your spouse.

It's in the owners and players contract.

In the OP's case, the contract is the 14th Amendment. It is regulatory and does not require due process.

 

[Concerned American]

Any CRIMINAL charge and criminal PENALTY requires due process under the constitution, but section 3 of the 14th is not a crime, and there is no criminal penalty...no one is locked up, no one is criminally charged with any statutory crime.... nor are they required to be....

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.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't give a shit what they bleeeeeved. That didn't give them the right to beat police officers, maraud thru the Capital hunting down members of Congress & the V.P., steal documents etc, & defame that building & destroy public property.

If they had the right to do that LEGALLY, cite a law on the books outlining it.

Just read the Declaration of Independence.
The rights of individuals are infinite, and you have it totally backwards to instead claim that actions are not legal unless there is legislation authorizing it.
The authority to protest their belief in election fraud is inherent.
It is what the 1st amendment specifically was intended to protect.

 

[Rigby5]

The Supreme Court recognizes very few requirements on it, unless clearly spelled out, in The Constitution. Though they recognize lots of rights, especially theirs. One of their favorites is the right to decline to even hear a case, leaving it where it stands on things they would rather not be involved in.

Correct.
And in this case, where the courts can just delay and defer to the voters in an election, that is the best strategy.
If the SCOTUS were to instead step in and select one way or the other, it would cause anger and divisiveness.

But the 14th amendment forces the whole "Penumbra Principle" concept, where justices have to try to determine what individual rights may be, by looking at the shadow those rights may have cast on previous ruling.
For example, while the Bill of Right originally were just restrictions on federal jurisdiction, they likely also should be restrictions against arbitrary abuse by states, municipalities, or even other individuals.

{...
In United States constitutional law, the penumbra includes a group of rights derived, by implication, from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights. These rights have been identified through a process of "reasoning-by-interpolation", where specific principles are recognized from "general idea" that are explicitly expressed in other constitutional provisions. Although researchers have traced the origin of the term to the nineteenth century, the term first gained significant popular attention in 1965, when Justice William O. Douglas's majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut identified a right to privacy in the penumbra of the constitution.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

There is not "right to be on the ballot".

If there were, then an individual could rock up and say "I want to be on the ballot" and there would be NOTHING the state could do to stop them.

As it is, Ballot access for presidential candidates

Anyone under 35 cannot be on the ballot. The US Constitution says IT'S NOT A RIGHT. Rights are limited to minors, but not to adults.

The US Constitution says if you've served two terms, you cannot be on the ballot. If it were a right, that would be a contradictory piece of Constitution.

Wrong.
It is a right to be on the ballot if you meet the same requirements of others on the ballots.
All possible candidates have to be treated equally with all requirements listed ahead of time, to ensure blind justice.
The fact rights have limits, does not mean the rights do not exist.

Your argument obviously fails on your own example, age.
The 2nd amendment clearly makes firearm ownership an individual right, even though it is denied to those under 18.
Reasonable restrictions on rights are perfectly legal as long as they are codified ahead of time, makes sense, and are applied uniformly.

Term limits are not a violation of rights because their intent and purpose is to ensure better support for those others who want to serve a term.
Moderating rights to better defend the rights of others, does not diminish a right, but enhances it.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

If conviction of insurrection was a requirement in the Amendment it would read "shall have been convicted of insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof..... " not "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof..... "

 

[Rigby5]

The 14th Amendment does not require a conviction in court.

It does if contested.
Of course those southern politicians after the civil war could not contest anything, since they could have been easily convicted and hung for their actions.
But if contested, then YES, you would need a court verdict.
No arbitrary decision by any government official is ever legal on its own, and is a sure sign of a dictatorship.

The part of the 14th amendment in question was obviously intended to prevent the same secessionists getting back into power and repeating the whole secession thing.
So the motivation was to prevent the death of half a million people.
The capital occupation not only killed no one but the demonstrators, but was a good thing that should have happened to stop the Spanish American war, WWI, Prohibition, Vietnam, the War on Drugs, etc.
We need MORE popular input, not less.
It is Congress that now is murdering innocent people, and the protestors are an improvement.
The fact they were likely wrong about significant voter fraud, does not at all matter.

 

[BlindBoo]

The authority to protest their belief in election fraud is inherent.

Not a single court would agree that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" applies to the violent rioters who overran the Capitol on Jan 6th. Not one.

 

[Rigby5]

The 14th Amendment does not require a conviction in court.

Anything restricting anyone over anything requires a court verdict if challenged.

 

[Rigby5]

Are there any law or court cases pertaining to the matter? brought in by MAGA's? NO - then it's just unfounded gossip

No - the law does not simply allow for "any" means. Especially not, if there is no proof towards accusations of "illegal"

No - even demonstrations need to be permitted. Any protest needs to follow the law. Those that did not, faced the wrath of the law and it's enforcers. Check yourself onto how many e.g. Anti-Vietnam protestors were beaten up, arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned.

The election occurred under the TRUMP administration - you want to blame or claim anything, you need to address his administration first.

Wrong.
The whole point of a republic is that representatives are supposed to do what the population wants, and the population has any and all means necessary to ensure their will is known by their representatives.

There no only was tons of proof of SOME voter fraud, but we all know there always is some.
To NOT investigate the depth of voter fraud is illegal.
It is criminal.
And the population is authorized as the source of all legal authority, to use whatever means necessary or possible.
The whole point of the Declaration of Independence is to prove that violent rebellion is legal when warranted.

Protestors ARE the source of all law.
Legislators are not, are instead inherently corrupt, and require constant correction by the population, through protest.
If not for violent protests, we would still have segregation, discrimination against religions, illegal colonial wars, child labor, unsafe work conditions, etc.
The fact Vietnam protestors were beaten up, imprisoned, etc., is why we need MORE violent protests, not less.

It is impossible to blame Trump for voter fraud since it is under state jurisdiction.
Personally I think all political party aspects of the vote, like primaries, are totally illegal, fraudulent, and should be elminated.
We should do it like other countries, and have one open election where you rank all candidates.
That way Bernie would have won instead of Hillary losing.