Let's make something clear.

[Marener]

Your ignorance was cute……a few years ago. Now it’s just sad.

Section 5.​

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

That says nothing about exclusivity.

 

[BackAgain]

That says nothing about exclusivity.

If it wasn’t intended to be exclusive, it would be expected to say so. It doesn’t.

“Potestas stricte interpretatur. A power is strictly interpreted. In dubiis, non præsumitur pro potentia. In cases of doubt, the presumption is not in favor of a power.”

See: Principles of Constitutional Construction

The power of Congress to make laws to enforce the Amendment has to be strictly interpreted. So, that would be Congress alone. But further, if your question even were to raise a “doubt,” the presumption would be against any body but Congress having the power.

 

[Nostra]

That says nothing about exclusivity.

Yes, it does. Who else does it list, Simp?

 

[OKTexas]

Then why aren't Trump's attorneys making that assertion?

Maybe they're like you, stupid fucks. I just know for a fact that, under current judicial precedent, individual voters have no standing to challenge a candidates constitutional qualifications to be on a ballot. The first CO judge dismissed the suit. Feel free to try to prove me wrong, then I'll shove a few more facts up your...

.

 

[Kondor3]

There are state crimes. The Feds can’t prosecute those.

There are federal crimes. The States can’t prosecute those.

I’m sure even some of our liberals have heard about that legal concept of “jurisdiction.”

Standard and familiar notions of statutory and Constitutional construction require that words are interpreted as intending to convey their ordinary meaning unless otherwise explicitly stated.

I’d love to see a rational and coherent effort (by one of our liberals) to dissect the 14th Amendment which allows for a construction of the phrase “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” which doesn’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt at a full fair trial in a court of competent jurisdiction of those criminal allegations.

(By the way. Congress did remove that disability for the confederate soldiers.)

Indeed. States have no jurisdiction over Federal crimes. But they CAN ban from their own ballots citing Federal crimes if the status of 'crime' has been adjudicated or proclaimed by competent Federal authority... glaringly lacking in this particular case.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Maybe they're like you, stupid fucks. I just know for a fact that, under current judicial precedent, individual voters have no standing to challenge a candidates constitutional qualifications to be on a ballot. The first CO judge dismissed the suit. Feel free to try to prove me wrong, then I'll shove a few more facts up your...

.

You have failed to prove yourself right.

 

[scruffy]

From only the attendees who went through security checkpoints at the Ellipse, the Secret Service confiscated hundreds of weapons and prohibited items, including 269 knives or blades, 242 canisters of pepper spray, 18 brass knuckles, 18p. 4141 tasers, 6 pieces of body armor, 3 gas masks, 30 batons or blunt instruments, and 17 miscellaneous items like scissors, needles, or screwdrivers.

That's a lot of shit for a peaceful protest.

No Molotovs?

Heck, that's barely even a protest!

 

[OKTexas]

You have failed to prove yourself right.

Actually I've posted a link to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in several treads on this topic. Their decision was individual voters have no standing to challenge the constitutional qualifications of a presidential candidate. And since both the CO and Maine cases were challenges by individual voters, neither case should have extended beyond a dismissal. The case in question was started by birthers that were challenging you dear leader maobama's constitutional qualifications to be president, claiming he was not a natural born citizen.

Drake, et al. v. Obama, et al.; Barnett, et al. v. Obama, et al., No. 09-56827 (9th Cir. 2011)

Plaintiffs contended that Barack Obama was constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States. In addition to plaintiffs' constitutional claims, as well as their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their quo warranto claims for...

law.justia.com

.

 

[berg80]

Maybe they're like you, stupid fucks. I just know for a fact that, under current judicial precedent, individual voters have no standing to challenge a candidates constitutional qualifications to be on a ballot. The first CO judge dismissed the suit. Feel free to try to prove me wrong, then I'll shove a few more facts up your...

.

On September 6, 2023, four Republican and two unaffiliated Colorado voters sued the Colorado Secretary of State and Trump using a state law procedure that allows Colorado voters to challenge qualifications of primary candidates seeking to be on the ballot. After extensive pretrial briefing and disclosures, the district court held a five-day evidentiary hearing beginning on October 30. It issued a decision on November 17. The trial court found that the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, was an insurrection against the Constitution and that Trump engaged in that insurrection but that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to him.

The Colorado Supreme Court accepted Trump’s and the Anderson Respondents’ applications for review on November 21, heard argument on December 6, and issued its opinion on December 19, holding that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualified Trump from appearing on Colorado’s primary ballot. The court stayed its order through January 4, the day before the Colorado deadline to certify the ballot, and held: “If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires, it shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.”

Anderson/Respondents' Motion to Expedite

www.documentcloud.org

That's what due process looks like.

 

[berg80]

Actually I've posted a link to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in several treads on this topic. Their decision was individual voters have no standing to challenge the constitutional qualifications of a presidential candidate. And since both the CO and Maine cases were challenges by individual voters, neither case should have extended beyond a dismissal. The case in question was started by birthers that were challenging you dear leader maobama's constitutional qualifications to be president, claiming he was not a natural born citizen.

Drake, et al. v. Obama, et al.; Barnett, et al. v. Obama, et al., No. 09-56827 (9th Cir. 2011)

Plaintiffs contended that Barack Obama was constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States. In addition to plaintiffs' constitutional claims, as well as their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their quo warranto claims for...

law.justia.com

.

From your link.........

The court adopted the district court's classification of the parties and held that each plaintiff lacked standing; the proper venue for plaintiffs' quo warranto claims was in the District of Columbia, pursuant to D.C. Code 16-3503

The plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not file their case in the proper venue.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[Lesh]

There are state crimes. The Feds can’t prosecute those.

There are federal crimes. The States can’t prosecute those.

I’m sure even some of our liberals have heard about that legal concept of “jurisdiction.”

Standard and familiar notions of statutory and Constitutional construction require that words are interpreted as intending to convey their ordinary meaning unless otherwise explicitly stated.

I’d love to see a rational and coherent effort (by one of our liberals) to dissect the 14th Amendment which allows for a construction of the phrase “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” which doesn’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt at a full fair trial in a court of competent jurisdiction of those criminal allegations.



(By the way. Congress did remove that disability for the confederate soldiers.)

The states are NOT prosecuting.

They are blocking ballot access.

Huge difference

 

[postman]

I’d love to see a rational and coherent effort (by one of our liberals) to dissect the 14th Amendment which allows for a construction of the phrase “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” which doesn’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt at a full fair trial in a court of competent jurisdiction of those criminal allegations.

Because "due process" is only required in cases involving "life, limb or property"

Being denied a job, doesn't require due process, or a court hearing, with a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

A common example. Get a traffic ticket.

 

[berg80]

View attachment 882269

It's nice that they allow you enough time out of your restraints to post that nonsense.

 

[berg80]

I’d love to see a rational and coherent effort (by one of our liberals) to dissect the 14th Amendment which allows for a construction of the phrase “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” which doesn’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt at a full fair trial in a court of competent jurisdiction of those criminal allegations.

See post #1 of this thread.

 

[konradv]

There are state crimes. The Feds can’t prosecute those.

There are federal crimes. The States can’t prosecute those.

I’m sure even some of our liberals have heard about that legal concept of “jurisdiction.”

Standard and familiar notions of statutory and Constitutional construction require that words are interpreted as intending to convey their ordinary meaning unless otherwise explicitly stated.

I’d love to see a rational and coherent effort (by one of our liberals) to dissect the 14th Amendment which allows for a construction of the phrase “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” which doesn’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt at a full fair trial in a court of competent jurisdiction of those criminal allegations.



(By the way. Congress did remove that disability for the confederate soldiers.)

Being on the ballot isn’t a right. It’s a privilege based on for one thing, not having given comfort to those who attempted to overthrow an election(aborted coup, since ‘insurrection’ is a no-no). The language is irrelevant. Trump’s actions, lack of actions and words were clear. This is an administrative ruling, akin to losing a business license, and not a criminal action requiring a trial.

 

[postman]

The states are NOT prosecuting.

They are blocking ballot access.

Huge difference

Actually they are determining ballot "eligibility".

Such as if the person has enough qualifying ballot petition signatures. That the person is a citizen, and that they are of the required age.

 

[Foolardi]

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.

Yer not even singing to a choir of elder Seniors who onced
sang along with the Vienna Boys choir.But rather to a rabid
and hatefully misinformed pack of either Never Trumpers or
worsened.A pack of salivating Democrats who don't even bother
with cheating at Poker.Just Cheat any which way plus Loose.
The Biden way.Because the MSM don't give two Fuchs.
And it shows.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Foolardi, why do you ignore the wording of the 14th Amendment.

Either the appellate court or SCOTUS will decide this for you.

 

[postman]

Foolardi, why do you ignore the wording of the 14th Amendment.

Either the appellate court or SCOTUS will decide this for you.

This is why I miss Justice Antonin Scalia. He was a conservative, but he believed in stare decisis. And would work his legal magic into a decision that didn't overturn previous precedents.