Let's make something clear.

[SweetSue92]

The willfully ignorant right.

In addition to not requiring a criminal conviction, disqualification pursuant to Section 3 doesn’t require the disqualified individual to be afforded due process.

Disqualification isn’t a criminal prosecution; one’s life, liberty, or property are not in jeopardy.

The disqualified individual doesn’t go to jail, isn’t executed, and doesn’t have his private property taken by government – he continues to live his private life absent seeking public office.

I can't wait til Red States do this to Biden and you all howl down the moon.

I mean, we can do that on the Hunter business alone. Or for no reason at all. Maybe the Open Borders are an insurrection, huh?


Your game.

Your rules.

You will hate it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I can't wait til Red States do this to Biden and you all howl down the moon.

I mean, we can do that on the Hunter business alone. Or for no reason at all. Maybe the Open Borders are an insurrection, huh?


Your game.

Your rules.

You will hate it.

Me too, it is going to be so much fun to watch!

Which red state do you think will be the first?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Goody, wait til you hear what the Red States remove Biden from the ballot for.

Your rules.

Your game.

You will hate it.

Wrong.

President Biden hasn’t engaged in treasonous insurrection as did Trump; President Biden isn’t disqualified pursuant to Section 3, as is Trump.

President Biden will be on the ballot of every state – including red states.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

President Biden will be on the ballot of every state – including red states.

So will Trump.

 

[SweetSue92]

Wrong.

President Biden hasn’t engaged in treasonous insurrection as did Trump; President Biden isn’t disqualified pursuant to Section 3, as is Trump.

President Biden will be on the ballot of every state – including red states.

Oh looky here: "Given aid or comfort". Be easy as pie for the Red States to say he did that through the open borders, yes? All we need is a few judges to agree.

Your game.

Your rules.

You will hate it.

 

[Oddball]

The willfully ignorant right.

In addition to not requiring a criminal conviction, disqualification pursuant to Section 3 doesn’t require the disqualified individual to be afforded due process.

Disqualification isn’t a criminal prosecution; one’s life, liberty, or property are not in jeopardy.

The disqualified individual doesn’t go to jail, isn’t executed, and doesn’t have his private property taken by government – he continues to live his private life absent seeking public office.

The willfully Stalinist left.

Section 5 says it's the congress that determines the criteria for disqualification; a criminal conviction....A blatant lie of omission.

If you assholes couldn't lie, you'd have nothing to say.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So will Trump.

No doubt, the benefit of the Supreme Court.

And the ‘argument’ that a criminal conviction is required for disqualification if in fact false.

 

[MisterBeale]

Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw out his espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groups and organizations have challenged the eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress, arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate. A New Mexico state court, however, has removed Otero County Commissioner County Griffin from office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for, the January 6 interruption of the election certification.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

Absent evidence in contradiction of CREW's assertion I suspect Trumpleton's will ineffectually attack CREW and or the CRS. It is the Trumpian way. When facts and evidence fail them they rely on what amounts to character assassination. Which is why Trump attacks the media, anyone who opposes him, and most especially those like Jack Smith who are working to hold Don accountable for his illegal actions.

Furthermore, quite a bit has been made about the removal of a candidate's name from the ballot being anti-democratic. Yet the Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic. From the moment Trump began the anti-democratic act of conspiring to steal the election he violated his oath of office and forfeited his right to once again run to be the prez.

 

[Burgermeister]

Her attempt to make public policy based on her interpretation of the US Constitution will be short-lived. That's why she paused her decision pending a potential appeal in state court. It will be rejected quickly.

The clause in question (below) doesn't mention the president and the Constitution is explicit by that omission that it does not pertain to the president. It specifies US Senators and Representatives and State legislators. If they wanted this to apply to the president, it would have been spelled out. The Colorado ruling that the term "officer of the United States" means that this clause applies to the president will be overturned.

Then of course you have the facts that that wasn't an insurrection and Trump publicly encouraged peaceful and law-abiding protest.

The good part of the Jack Smith persecution will be exposing Pelosi and how this was a setup.

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

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.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[berg80]

From the OP link>>>

As the Supreme Court has observed in the context of the Insurrection Act, it is generally up to the President to determine whether a civil disturbance rises to the level of an insurrection or obstruction of the laws serious enough to overcome the ability of civil authorities to suppress it. Consequently, a presidential invocation of the Insurrection Act would likely suffice to establish the existence of an insurrection for Fourteenth Amendment disqualification purposes. However, presidential invocation of the act might not be necessary.

an interesting niggley , given Trump was still potus 1/6

~S~

In that context is has to do with the prez's authority to invoke the Insurrection Act in order to use federal troops for the purpose of subduing protests. As Trump has promised to do when protests break out after he takes office should he be re-elected.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh looky here: "Given aid or comfort". Be easy as pie for the Red States to say he did that through the open borders, yes? All we need is a few judges to agree.

Your game.

Your rules.

You will hate it.

There’s no legitimate reason to keep President Biden off of any state ballot; there is a legitimate reason to keep Trump off of a state’s ballot – Trump having engaged in treasonous insurrection.

 

[Oddball]

Her attempt to make public policy based on her interpretation of the US Constitution will be short-lived. That's why she paused her decision pending a potential appeal in state court. It will be rejected quickly.

The clause in question (below) doesn't mention the president and the Constitution is explicit by that omission that it does not pertain to the president. It specifies US Senators and Representatives and State legislators. If they wanted this to apply to the president, it would have been spelled out. The Colorado ruling that the term "officer of the United States" means that this clause applies to the president will be overturned.

Then of course you have the facts that that wasn't an insurrection and Trump publicly encouraged peaceful and law-abiding protest.

The good part of the Jack Smith persecution will be exposing Pelosi and how this was a setup.

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

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.

All irrelevant....There was no "insurrection".

Everything else is arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[Oddball]

In that context is has to do with the prez's authority to invoke the Insurrection Act in order to use federal troops for the purpose of subduing protests. As Trump has promised to do when protests break out after he takes office should he be re-elected.

The context is "insurrection"....There wasn't one.

 

[berg80]

The willfully ignorant right.

In addition to not requiring a criminal conviction, disqualification pursuant to Section 3 doesn’t require the disqualified individual to be afforded due process.

Disqualification isn’t a criminal prosecution; one’s life, liberty, or property are not in jeopardy.

The disqualified individual doesn’t go to jail, isn’t executed, and doesn’t have his private property taken by government – he continues to live his private life absent seeking public office.

Willful ignorance being a prerequisite for members of Cult 45.

 

[sparky]

Disqualification isn’t a criminal prosecution; one’s life, liberty, or property are not in jeopardy.

In that context is has to do with the prez's authority to invoke the Insurrection Act

what is the term for when only ONE entity within government gets to make 'the call'???

~S~
~S~

 

[eagle1462010]

There’s no legitimate reason to keep President Biden off of any state ballot; there is a legitimate reason to keep Trump off of a state’s ballot – Trump having engaged in treasonous insurrection.

I say Biden is guilty of Insurrection from his encouraging BLM riots.

Hes never been convicted ...those rules dont apply anymore.

 

[Oddball]

Willful ignorance being a prerequisite for members of Cult 45.

Willful dishonesty being the prerequisite for shitlibs.

 

[Lisa558]

Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw out his espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groups and organizations have challenged the eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress, arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate. A New Mexico state court, however, has removed Otero County Commissioner County Griffin from office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for, the January 6 interruption of the election certification.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

Absent evidence in contradiction of CREW's assertion I suspect Trumpleton's will ineffectually attack CREW and or the CRS. It is the Trumpian way. When facts and evidence fail them they rely on what amounts to character assassination. Which is why Trump attacks the media, anyone who opposes him, and most especially those like Jack Smith who are working to hold Don accountable for his illegal actions.

Furthermore, quite a bit has been made about the removal of a candidate's name from the ballot being anti-democratic. Yet the Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic. From the moment Trump began the anti-democratic act of conspiring to steal the election he violated his oath of office and forfeited his right to once again run to be the prez.

A criminal conviction?? He hasn’t even been CHARGED with what the Dems are using to throw him off the ballot.

Why not just the Americans vote for whom they want as president? You people as so scared that the voters will reject the Biden agenda and go back with Trump that you are robbing tens of millions of people of their vote!!