The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

[ThisIsMe]

Wrong. It’s a political/ civil determination. Like any civil case with no trial , the courts decide if the offenses and punishment is warranted. Geesus,it’s all spelled out in the 14 amendment.

Yes, it is spelled out in the 14th amendment, but you have to read ALL of it, not just stop at the part you like..

Please, show me the civil statute for insurrection.

What you all are trying to do is enforce the penalties for an action that you are not charging him for. What you WANT is for states to be able to say “he did insurrection and is disqualified”, but not actually charge him with insurrection.

That’s not how it works. And there is no civil statute for insurrection, only a criminal one.

Even if it were a civil case, you STILL have to be charged with an offense to be penalized under that offense….

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why don’t you read the charges. We know fix News won’t provide them and you’re not allowed to think for yourself….wtf.

I haven’t watched Fox News in years…so…you claim he impaneled electors, please show that. I was under the impression that there were people posing as fake electors, but that group was acting on their own.

 

[Dagosa]

Right…so what are we arguing for? Until he is charged with it, you can’t disqualify him..

The courts can, and they are.

“shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

That’s pretty clear.

and the article is, continue..

Yes, it is spelled out in the 14th amendment, but you have to read ALL of it, not just stop at the part you like..

I did, you obviously did not.

Please, show me the civil statute for insurrection.

in the 14 amendment.

What you all are trying to do is enforce the penalties for an action that you are not charging him for. What you WANT is for states to be able to say “he did insurrection and is disqualified”, but not actually charge him with insurrection.

I want the states to do what the 14 allows.

That’s not how it works. And there is no civil statute for insurrection, only a criminal one.

There is. There is no provision for imprisonment so it’s a civil adjudication. Look up the word “civil”.

Even if it were a civil case, you STILL have to be charged with an offense to be penalized under that offense….r

No you don’t. That’s ridiculous. It’s no different than any disqualification and is adjudge civilly By the courts. There need not be an arrest or fine. Habitual offense for Speeding disqualifies you holding a drivers license. Insurrection disqualifies you from being president.,the FKER IS A TRAITOR. WE HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEARS. Nothing has changed.,
…
read it.

 

[Dagosa]

I haven’t watched Fox News in years…so…you claim he impaneled electors, please show that. I was under the impression that there were people posing as fake electors, but that group was acting on their own.

Ha ha
Nope.

 

[Dagosa]

I haven’t watched Fox News in years…so…you claim he impaneled electors, please show that. I was under the impression that there were people posing as fake electors, but that group was acting on their own.

How the Trump fake electors scheme became a 'corrupt plan,' according to the indictment

The role fake electors played in Donald Trump’s desperate effort to cling to power after...

www.sfgate.com

 

[Faun]

Correct, which is why there are no grounds to disqual him.

Sure there are. The 14th Amendment doesn't state he must first be convicted in criminal court. And some have been previously banned from public office without being charged.

 

[Faun]

Ok, then please explain section 5…what is that there for?

To indicate Congress can pass legislation in regards to that Amendment.

 

[Delldude]

Why did Trump have to impanel "fake" electors. When the republican party already chose the dozen "real" electors. All Trump had to do, was to get the real electors to swear to his victory. But as you can see, they would not do such a thing. So he needed people with so little integrity, not only would they claim to be electors, when they weren't, but that Trump won, when he didn't.

Guess your handlers haven't shown you why.........why's that?

 

[Dagosa]

To indicate Congress can pass legislation in regards to that Amendment.

This fake elector scheme took place in several states 7nder the direction of Trump and his allies. That is ORGANIZED ELECTION FRAUD. That is a federal crime. The fake electors are paying the price and it’s part of his indictment.
It’s a fking big deal

 

[Dagosa]

Guess your handlers haven't shown you why.........why's that?

Election fraud is a big fking deal and in his indictment.

How the Trump fake electors scheme became a 'corrupt plan,' according to the indictment

The role fake electors played in Donald Trump’s desperate effort to cling to power after...

www.sfgate.com

 

[Delldude]

So foolish. Are you denying trump is on trial in several venues that include 91/ indictments ?

Any findings yet?

 

[ThisIsMe]

The courts can, and they are.

and the article is, continue..

I did, you obviously did not.

in the 14 amendment.


I want the states to do what the 14 allows.


There is. There is no provision for imprisonment so it’s a civil adjudication. Look up the word “civil”.

No you don’t. That’s ridiculous. It’s no different than any disqualification and is adjudge civilly By the courts. There need not be an arrest or fine. Habitual offense for Speeding disqualifies you holding a drivers license. Insurrection disqualifies you from being president.,the FKER IS A TRAITOR. WE HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEARS. Nothing has changed.,
…
read it.

The courts can, and they are

Ok, what did Colorado charge Trump with? They charged him under the 14th amendment. That amendment doesn’t give states power to determine guilt of insurrection.

and the article is, continue..

The whole of the 14th amendment…the 4 preceding sections.

I did, you obviously did no

If you had, then you wouldn’t be claiming that insurrection is a civil matter and that states can declare one guilty of it. You read section 3, and then completely dismiss section 5, which is the enforcement provision of the entire amendment.

in the 14 amendment.

18 US 2383 is a criminal code that Congress passed to outline the penalties for insurrection. It says:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; AND shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

So, the code that Congress passed IS a criminal code as it requires either a fine, or imprisonment, or both, AND disqualification. The fact that imprisonment is a possibility makes it a criminal code.

Title 18 of U.S. code is related to crimes and criminal procedures, not civil issues

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/

I want the states to do what the 14 allows.

Me too..so far, Colorado hasn’t.

There is. There is no provision for imprisonment so it’s a civil adjudication. Look up the word “civil”.

RE: 18 US code 2383, and section 5 of the 14th amendment which says Congress shall have the power to enforce, WITH APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION, the provisions of this article (meaning section 3), hence they passed 2383.

No you don’t. That’s ridiculous. It’s no different than any disqualification and is adjudge civilly By the courts. There need not be an arrest or fine. Habitual offense for Speeding disqualifies you holding a drivers license. Insurrection disqualifies you from being president.,the FKER IS A TRAITOR. WE HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEARS. Nothing has changed.,

Yes, but if your license was taken away for speeding, it’s because you were charged with..speeding. If the officer didn’t write you a ticket for speeding but said they were going to take your license away for speeding…what do you think the courts would do?

In the case of insurrection, there has to be an arrest or a fine because it says so in the criminal code regarding insurrection, passed by congress.

Insurrection disqualifies you from being president.

Correct, if you are charged and convicted of insurrection, you are disqualified from holding office, and you pay a fine or go to prison, or both. I’ve no problem with that, but you can’t just determine that someone has committed a crime..without first charging them with that crime.

You want the court (jury) to make a judgment without having an actual trial

Also, honestly, you REALLY don’t want this Colorado charge to stick, because if it does, then it nullifies Jack smiths case. Since insurrection is a criminal statute, not a civil one, if Colorado ruling stands, then Trump will have been convicted in court, and therefore, under double jeopardy, cannot be tried again for the same crime.

This also means that each state that is trying to disqualify him under the same statute cannot do so, because each new case would put him in jeopardy if the same crime.

I know what you’re going to say already “but the smith case is a criminal one and the states are civil”…explain how that can be? How can you be charged in civil court, for a criminal statute? How can Jack smith charge Trump criminally under the exact same article that Colorado charged him civilly?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Ha ha
Nope.

Ok, well at the moment it’s just an allegation and they will work through that in the criminal trial.

If he’s found to be guilty of that, they need to roll out 2383..

 

[Faun]

The operative word here is “shall”, which means there is a mandate. It doesn’t say “may”, which would imply “they could but don’t have to”

Congress “shall” have the power..

Definition of SHALL

—used to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the future; —used to express simple futurity; —used to express determination… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

That clause doesn’t imply any shared power with any state. It says that the congress is responsible for creating legislation to enforce the provisions of the article 14

I did not change or alter the meaning. I stated exactly what it says, In proper context, in proper meaning.

You lying skeeve, you totally changed the meaning. It says Congress shall have the power to enforce, which mean Congress can enforce it with legislation if they want to. You omitted the words, have the power to, which intentionally, and dishonestly, shifts the obligation bestowed on "shall" from Congress can enforce it, to, Congress has to enforce it.

And no, Congress is not the only body which can enforce it. For that to be the case, it would have to say something along the lines of, Congress shall have sole power to enforce. Just like you so eloquently elaborated about the House having sole power to impeach.

You destroyed your own argument with that one. Deal with it and mosey on.

 

[Kilroy2]

Ok, then please explain section 5…what is that there for?

section 5 of what article. you could have quoted it.

 

[San Souci]

J. Michael Luttig is a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University.

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.

Trump Is Constitutionally Prohibited From the Presidency​

I agree with Luttig and Tribe. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution seem clear to me! What will SCOTUS do? What do you think?

The 14th is a rotten Amendment. Has been litigated more than all the others combined. But who cares? This bad decision will be overturned by SCOTUS. 6-3 vote. Maybe 7-2.

 

[jbander]

You and your stooge cronies are trying to prevent people from voting for a candidate of their own choosing.

IIRC, the democrats are always crying about republicans disenfranchising voters.......my my, looks like we've come full circle now.

SCOTUS is going to tell you and your stooge cronies that 'YALL fulla crap.

BEAT YOU SO BAD THAT YOU HAD TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT, YOU KNOW YOU GOT THESE WORMS WHEN THAT'S ALL THEY HAVE. Everyone look at his post 586 and tell me what his answer has to do with what he is responding to. pound him down to nothing. Diaper dell is like his god and leader Diaper Don, or better known as shit pants.

 

[jbander]

Jbander has doubled down on his stupidity in claiming Trump wasn’t President on Jan 6. Laughing at your impotence. Still here asshole.

Never said that , and we made it clear that he will have to go if all he has is lies , I will wave good bye , it has been a slice, Its Dump a lantern day,it will be celebrated through out history. if he had just made one comment n this whole thread that was true ,but these worms are incapable of doing that.

 

[lantern2814]

Never said that , and we made it clear that he will have to go if all he has is lies , I will wave good bye , it has been a slice, Its Dump a lantern day,it will be celebrated through out history. if he had just made one comment n this whole thread that was true ,but these worms are incapable of doing that.

You stated that saying Trump was President on Jan 6 was a stupid statement. Now just tripling down on your utter stupidity. Run away little liar. Run away,

 

[Dagosa]

Delldude

The 14th is a rotten Amendment. Has been litigated more than all the others combined. But who cares? This bad decision will be overturned by SCOTUS. 6-3 vote. Maybe 7-2.

if it’s overturned, it is more likely to be 5-4, Even the court plays politics. Anything more than that just tells you how low the entire gop has sunk. Other than being more immigrant friendly, the bush admin was not much less beholding to the rich than Trump.