Legally preventing Trump from running is unconstitutional and is net detrimental to our nation.

Wrong.
Trump left office in 2020, and the charges did not come up until 3 years later, which is "ancient".
And obviously Presidential immunity does apply since when president, Trump had the complete authority over classified docs and could give permanent copies to whomever he wanted, including himself.

Odd that he hasn’t made this defense before the Court. He hasn’t filed a motion to dismiss based upon this. When the Special Master Trump requested asked about it, Trump objected that it wasn’t any of his business.
 
... Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. ...

SavvannahMann, I doubt that you would deliberately misquote the U.S. Constitution, but I'm unable to find your stated quote, within the text of the U.S. Constitution. Please provide the specific Article and section numbers of your quote. Respectfully, Supposn
 
SavvannahMann, I doubt that you would deliberately misquote the U.S. Constitution, but I'm unable to find your stated quote, within the text of the U.S. Constitution. Please provide the specific Article and section numbers of your quote. Respectfully, Supposn

Amendment 14.


The part that pertains to Trump. You know. The part you are ignoring?
 
Legally preventing Trump from running is unconstitutional and is net detrimental to our nation.

It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall, (not Voltaire) who wrote, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". She better than all others expressed the essence of the “Bill of Rights first amendment to the USA's constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

A democratic republic must and is always vulnerable due to its dependence upon the judgment of its citizens who elect the government's officeholders. We seldom if ever have had lesser, and sometimes have had better government than we deserve. Among those us who believe ex-president Donald Trump to be inferior to all others who are or have ever been president, they only pay lip service to our constitution and our democratic republic if they advocate Trump be legally prevented from again seeking federal office.

Only until he's tried and convicted of sedition against the United States of America, should he be legally prevented from running for that office.
Respectfully, Supposn
You really want a traitor to be out president ? Get real !
 
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. ...

SavvannahMann, I doubt that you would deliberately misquote the U.S. Constitution, but I'm unable to find your stated quote within the text of the U.S. Constitution. Please provide the specific Article and section numbers of your quote. Respectfully, Supposn
 
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. ...

Ok. Let’s take a Time Machine to history. When the Idea of Service, public Service, in Government or the Military was considered an Honor. The Amendment is written for those who did not honor their oath. Those who swore an oath as a political leader, or officer in the Military, to support and defend the Constitution. You may have heard of this oath.



The Amendment was written for those who had taken the oath, and then betrayed it by working against the nation.

They had dishonored themselves. They had no right to expect that anyone would accept their honorable oath in the future.

In other words. You lied and betrayed me before. I won’t let you do it to me twice.


Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Congress could restore the honor of the individual. Congress could decide that the individual was worthy of the honor of service again.

It doesn’t say Pardon which is what would be needed to get rid of a conviction. It doesn’t talk of overturning or forgiving a conviction.

It talks about the tens of thousands who had taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then betrayed it.

Our Ancestors didn’t view Political office as a Right. They viewed it as a Privilege. An Honor.

Those who betrayed that Oath. Who demonstrated they had no Honor. Those people did not deserve further Honorable service in the future.


SavvannahMann, and to many other readers of this thread:
SavvannahMann, you quoted the 3d but not the 1st section of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“Section1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.

You all would disregard USA's assumption of innocence until proven guilty? Both USA's federal and states' governments', (and particularly our courts) consider that to be a basic right of all persons. Respectfully, Supposn
 
SavvannahMann, and to many other readers of this thread:
SavvannahMann, you quoted the 3d but not the 1st section of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“Section1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.

You all would disregard USA's assumption of innocence until proven guilty? Both USA's federal and states' governments', (and particularly our courts) consider that to be a basic right of all persons. Respectfully, Supposn

You don’t have a right to be entrusted with any office.

Interestingly enough, a couple replies before you had never heard of the insurrection clause. Now you are a constitutional expert on something you had no inkling about less than an hour before.

Well help me out. How is it that there was a trial. Trump’s attorneys participated. And the trial determined it had been an insurrection and Trump was a participant. Doesn’t that meet your demand of due process of law? Or didn’t they cover that on the RW propaganda sites?
 
You really want a traitor to be out president ? Get real !

Stann, a democratic republic must and is always vulnerable due to its dependence upon the judgment of its citizens who elect the government's officeholders. We seldom if ever have had lesser, and sometimes have had better government than we deserve.

If USA chooses to deliberately disregard individuals' legal rights of due process and innocence until proven guilty, we wll not remain a democratic republic. Is that what you want? Respectfully, Supposn
 
I disagree because part of your due process right is to allow for a judge to take mitigating circumstances into account, for what YOU actually did and what YOUR actual intent was.
If you allow legislation to made punishments, you no longer have a judicial system at all, but a draconian dictatorship.

Legislation sets the base punishments. Loss of franchise is an acceptable punishment for being convicted of a felony.

Of Course there should be methods for a felon to restore their franchise, and to me it should be automatic once their ENTIRE term is completed, including parole.
 
Trump never said that Pence could do anything at all except to not certify the vote results.
The President of the Senate, and master of the ceremony, has no authority to unilaterally not count the already certified votes of any state. That power rests on a Congressional vote alone. What Benedict Donald was asking of the VP was an unconstitutional act.

You're just making this stuff up on the fly aren't you?
 
I guess you missed the fact that the Constitution sets limits on who can be President in a number of ways and one of them is INSURRECTION
Even if true...
That doesn't mean he can't run.
that doesn't mean people can;t vote for him.
That doesn't mean he can't win.
It just means he can't take office.
 
Well help me out. How is it that there was a trial. Trump’s attorneys participated. And the trial determined it had been an insurrection and Trump was a participant.
Apparently, he was the -only- participant, as exactly zero of the several several hundred people who were charged for their action on that day were charged with insurrection.
Why do you suppose that is?


 
:lol:
"Insurrection" is a specific federal crime,
Exactly -zero- people were charged with it.
And "seditious conspiracy" doesn't make you ineligible for office.
Dumbass.

Please: demonstrate your ignorance some more.
:lol:
No . But then the Amendment doesn’t require. Conviction
 
:lol:
"Insurrection" is a specific federal crime,
Exactly -zero- people were charged with it.
And "seditious conspiracy" doesn't make you ineligible for office.
Dumbass.

Please: demonstrate your ignorance some more.
:lol:
The 14th Sec 3 states insurrection or rebellion.

Sedition is an act of rebellion. Look it up troll
 

Forum List

Back
Top