The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

[Faun]

Try reading. CONGRESS must declare an insurrection. Since fines and jail time are laid out, it is a CRIMINAL statute, not civil. Show us the civil statute involving insurrection. No charge, no conviction, and no hope when SCOTUS slaps you down again.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Ummm - OJ wasn't convicted.



There is no "conviction" provision in A14S3, the determination is "engaged" in.



Actually 4:

• Age 35+
• 14 Years a Resident
• Natural born citizen
• Not engaged in insurrection or rebellion and not provided aid and comfort to those who did

No it doesn't. Congress can make laws from a federal perspective. Article I, Section 4 places the responsibility for federal elections on the State (unless Congress enacts a rule/law that applies).

The Colorado action as based on State powers under A1S4.



Trump wasn't charged with a crime in Colorado, it was a civil/administrative matter as to qualifications for the CO ballot.

WW

Ummm - OJ wasn't convicted.

Ah yes, the juice is loose…I didn’t really follow all of that trial. But he was convicted in the civil trial, and still had to pay. If you ask me, id say that it does run afoul of double jeopardy, they just get around it by saying “criminal trial vs civil trial” and “murder vs “wrongful death”. The law says you can’t be held in jeopardy twice for the same offense. If he was acquitted of murder, then why did he have to pay? Again, I didn’t follow the trial.

It doesn’t compare to this because at the end of the day, OJ was still charged with with nothing and found liable for that thing. What the left are doing is trying to charge trump with one thing, but give him the penalties of another charge.

There is no "conviction" provision in A14S3, the determination is "engaged" in.

So who determines that he “engaged in” then? One court will say he did, another will say he didn’t. Also, you keep forgetting about section 5, which says that ALL of the provisions of the 14th amendment HAVE to be enforced by appropriate legislation. That means Congress has to take an action for section 3 to have any relevance. In other words, article 14 is not self enforcing.

Actually 4:

• Age 35+
• 14 Years a Resident
• Natural born citizen
• Not engaged in insurrection or rebellion and not provided aid and comfort to those who did

Ok…I thought we were talking DISqualification here. You know what I meant.

No it doesn't. Congress can make laws from a federal perspective. Article I, Section 4 places the responsibility for federal elections on the State (unless Congress enacts a rule/law that applies).

The Colorado action as based on State powers under A1S4.

Yes, it does. Article 1 section 4 prescribes that states are responsible for the time and manner of election of senators and representatives. It doesn’t give the state power to remove a candidate from the ballot via disqual. That is reserved for the Congress via A14S3 and S5

Trump wasn't charged with a crime in Colorado, it was a civil/administrative matter as to qualifications for the CO ballot.

Ok, so it was a civil matter? Then he was already held in jeopardy via the impeachment trial.

But, I disagree with your assertion here, since the penalty as prescribed by the congressionally passed law has prison time as one of its penalties, it has to be a criminal charge and trial. Also, we’ve still not gotten to the fact that Trump has yet to be charged with the relevant statutes to be disqualified.

 

[Dagosa]

Missouri vs Biden exposing WH/Dem censoring conservative speech.

Twitter/ Facebook

FBI hiding Hunter's laptop.

How about the 'hanging chads'?

Don't forget about Trump stole Hillary's election.

'Trump Russia' created by Hillary and paid for by the dems.



Much of the attention paid to allegations of interference in the 2020 election has focused on former President Donald Trump’s claims of voter fraud and malfeasance. However, potential fraud at the polls is far less disturbing than the growing body of evidence that Democrats, the FBI, Big Tech, and legacy media worked together — right out in the open — to put President Joe Biden in the White House.

Evidence of Democrats’ conspiracy to sway 2020 election getting too big to hide - Washington Examiner

Much of the attention paid to allegations of interference in the 2020 election has focused on former President Donald Trump’s claims of voter fraud and malfeasance. However, potential fraud at the polls is far less disturbing than the growing body of evidence that Democrats, the FBI, Big Tech...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Every time a Republican has been elected president over the last few decades, House Democrats have objected to the result
"Do you know that every Jan. 6, every four years, whenever any Republican has been elected president over the course of the last few decades, same date, same time, same place, we have had Democrats on the floor of the House of Representatives, objecting and debating?" Zeldin said Sept. 6. "All sorts of different objections, that’s been our process."
_________________________________
Attempts to object to election results have been made in some fashion by House Democrats in 2001, 2005, and 2017, following the successful campaigns of George W. Bush and Trump, both Republicans. One senator supported the objection in 2005, though the Senate and the House ultimately did not uphold that objection.

Yes, House Democrats have voiced objections to presidential

Rep. Lee Zeldin was one of 147 Republicans who voted against certifying election results after a mob stormed the U.S. Ca

www.politifact.com

Still waiting for evidence ! And so aren’t the 61 judges. Do you believe bullshit ? Tell us why the judges turned down hearings ! It’s called, NO EVIDENCE…..

 

[ThisIsMe]

It doesn’t have to be a criminal statute. It’s no different than the 35 year or older or need to be a natural citizen. It’s just the qualifications of holding office, like Obama being a natural citizen.

Ok…what are the penalties, under 18US2383? The insurrection and rebellion act.

 

[BS Filter]

It’s worse than that. You’re poorer, less informed and more likely to be a bigot. You are losers. It sucks to be you.

Dies your mommy know you're on an adult site?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ah yes, the juice is loose…I didn’t really follow all of that trial. But he was convicted in the civil trial, and still had to pay. If you ask me, id say that it does run afoul of double jeopardy, they just get around it by saying “criminal trial vs civil trial” and “murder vs “wrongful death”. The law says you can’t be held in jeopardy twice for the same offense. If he was acquitted of murder, then why did he have to pay? Again, I didn’t follow the trial.

No it doesn't. It says you can't be held to answer for the same "crime". For the entire history of this country civil actions have not been part of the "crime" restriction of the 5th Amendment.

So who determines that he “engaged in” then? One court will say he did, another will say he didn’t. Also, you keep forgetting about section 5, which says that ALL of the provisions of the 14th amendment HAVE to be enforced by appropriate legislation. That means Congress has to take an action for section 3 to have any relevance. In other words, article 14 is not self enforcing.

That is not was A14S5 says Congress shall have the power. It does not say:

• They have sole power, where such power is precluded from the state in state matters.
• It also does not says it removed the states A1S4 power to administer federal elections.

Ok…I thought we were talking DISqualification here. You know what I meant.

We are. If a person engages in insurrection, rebellion, or provides aid or comfort to those that do - that is a DISqualification.

Yes, it does. Article 1 section 4 prescribes that states are responsible for the time and manner of election of senators and representatives. It doesn’t give the state power to remove a candidate from the ballot via disqual. That is reserved for the Congress via A14S3 and S5

Of course it does, as Justice Gorsuch noted while on the 10th Circuit in the Hassen v. Colorado case. A state has a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and process of elections to exclude candidates who are prohibited from holding the office.

Ok, so it was a civil matter? Then he was already held in jeopardy via the impeachment trial.

Double Jeopardy doesn't apply to civil matters, only criminal. Neither impeachment nor the Colorado court action are criminal trials.

But, I disagree with your assertion here, since the penalty as prescribed by the congressionally passed law has prison time as one of its penalties, it has to be a criminal charge and trial. Also, we’ve still not gotten to the fact that Trump has yet to be charged with the relevant statutes to be disqualified.

There is no requirement in A14S3 that a criminal conviction have resulted, only that the person "engaged".


WW

 

[jc456]

This OP is Disinformation

 

[jc456]

It’s worse than that. You’re poorer, less informed and more likely to be a bigot. You are losers. It sucks to be you.

In other words, you can’t discuss the op

 

[Faun]

Ah yes, the juice is loose…I didn’t really follow all of that trial. But he was convicted in the civil trial, and still had to pay. If you ask me, id say that it does run afoul of double jeopardy, they just get around it by saying “criminal trial vs civil trial” and “murder vs “wrongful death”. The law says you can’t be held in jeopardy twice for the same offense. If he was acquitted of murder, then why did he have to pay? Again, I didn’t follow the trial.

It doesn’t compare to this because at the end of the day, OJ was still charged with with nothing and found liable for that thing. What the left are doing is trying to charge trump with one thing, but give him the penalties of another charge.



So who determines that he “engaged in” then? One court will say he did, another will say he didn’t. Also, you keep forgetting about section 5, which says that ALL of the provisions of the 14th amendment HAVE to be enforced by appropriate legislation. That means Congress has to take an action for section 3 to have any relevance. In other words, article 14 is not self enforcing.

Ok…I thought we were talking DISqualification here. You know what I meant.



Yes, it does. Article 1 section 4 prescribes that states are responsible for the time and manner of election of senators and representatives. It doesn’t give the state power to remove a candidate from the ballot via disqual. That is reserved for the Congress via A14S3 and S5



Ok, so it was a civil matter? Then he was already held in jeopardy via the impeachment trial.

But, I disagree with your assertion here, since the penalty as prescribed by the congressionally passed law has prison time as one of its penalties, it has to be a criminal charge and trial. Also, we’ve still not gotten to the fact that Trump has yet to be charged with the relevant statutes to be disqualified.

Utter nonsense. It's not double jeopardy and like OJ, Trump was not charged with anything in his civil trial.

 

[jc456]

We are. If a person engages in insurrection, rebellion, or provides aid or comfort to those that do - that is a DISqualification

Who did that?

 

[scruffy]

There is no requirement in A14S3 that a criminal conviction have resulted, only that the person "engaged".

How entirely un-American of you.

Are you a foreigner?

 

[Faun]

Ok…what are the penalties, under 18US2383? The insurrection and rebellion act.

Trump was not charged with that.

 

[Faun]

Who did that?

Trump, according to Colorado.

 

[Dagosa]

In other words, you can’t discuss the op

Already did. You can’t read.

 

[bripat9643]

Merely a matter of degree.

In both cases we are talking about violence against the United States in order to cancel or forestall Federal proceedings.

If the United States Supreme Court determines that Jan 6th meets that particular "sniff test" then that's the end of it.

No it didn't, shit for brains.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump, according to Colorado.

It had no authority to do such a thing.

 

[jc456]

Already did. You can’t read.

Still no op discussion! See, I still haven’t seen anyone post who was charged with insurrection? That’s what the constitution says

 

[Faun]

It had no authority to do such a thing.

Of course it did, ******* moron.

 

[Faun]

Still no op discussion! See, I still haven’t seen anyone post who was charged with insurrection? That’s what the constitution says

Show where the 14th Amendment states he has to be charged with committing insurrection...

 

[bripat9643]

Of course it did, ******* moron.

NOT.