The Ever Brilliant Legal Scholar Jonathan Turley: January 6 Wasn’t Insurrection or Rebellion — 14th Amendment Doesn’t Apply

[konradv]

No, the Colorado court.

If it applies to one, why not the other? Trump stacked the court with his flunkies.

 

[martybegan]

If it applies to one, why not the other? Trump stacked the court with his flunkies.

He appointed them as per the Constituion.

Stacking the court is something only the Dems want to attempt.

 

[konradv]

He appointed them as per the Constituion.

Stacking the court is something only the Dems want to attempt.

The COSC chosen according to a constitution, too.

 

[martybegan]

The COSC chosen according to a constitution, too.

That doesn't prevent them from being fucking hacks.

You used the term "Stacking" wrong, don't blame me you fucking dullard.

 

[konradv]

That doesn't prevent them from being fucking hacks.

You used the term "Stacking" wrong, don't blame me you fucking dullard.

You still haven’t provided an argument for why I couldn’t say the same thing about the USSC.

 

[martybegan]

You still haven’t provided an argument for why I couldn’t say the same thing about the USSC.

You can say whatever you want about them being hacks.

What you can't say is Trump Packed/Stacked the court, which he didn't do, and only Dems claim to want to do.

 

[konradv]

You can say whatever you want about them being hacks.

What you can't say is Trump Packed/Stacked the court, which he didn't do, and only Dems claim to want to do.

If they’re hacks, he’s the one that stacked then in there. How do you so easily deny reality?

 

[ThisIsMe]

What makes Turdley "brilliant"?

In fact, what makes him a "legal scholar"?

Probably the same thing that makes Luttig and Tribe brilliant Legal’s scholars..

 

[martybegan]

If they’re hacks, he’s the one that stacked then in there. How do you so easily deny reality?

He didn't stack the court. That requires adding to the # of Justices.

Words mean things.

 

[ThisIsMe]

He's Fox's MAGA lawyer. And that's about it.

Well, and a George Washington university law professor and a legal scholar..also

“Since the 1990s, he has been a legal analyst for NBC News, CBS News, the BBC and Fox News”

So, not just Fox…

 

[j-mac]

Dead cops are molehills to Republicans.

Got it.

As if you care about 'dead cops'.... Don't make me laugh...

 

[konradv]

He didn't stack the court. That requires adding to the # of Justices.

Words mean things.

You have your definition; I have mine. I don’t believe there’s been a legal ruling on the definition or that the term can found in any legislation. It’s merely common parlance.

 

[martybegan]

You have your definition; I have mine. I don’t believe there’s been a legal ruling on the definition or that the term can found in any legislation. It’s merely common parlance.

Your definition is wrong. Stacking/packing the court refers to attempts to increase the number of justices to dilute the voting power of each Justice when the President in power doesn't like the court's current balance.

 

[konradv]

Your definition is wrong. Stacking/packing the court refers to attempts to increase the number of justices to dilute the voting power of each Justice when the President in power doesn't like the court's current balance.

Reference?

 

[martybegan]

Reference?

 

[konradv]

FAIL!

 

[j-mac]

Reference?

Democrats are mad because Trump at the time as President appointed ACB, when a few years earlier Republican's blocked Merrick Garland's appointment.

Looking back, and knowing about Garland what we know today, thank God, he didn't get in...

So, Trump appointed a justice to the court that he is constitutionally mandated to do...and the democrat response to that, was what you would expect from demos...to increase the size of the court to wipe out any perceived imbalance...Showing America that when demos get beat at their own game, they want to cheat.

 

[MinTrut]

But the democrat planned January 6 WAS an Insurrection that day. An insurrection as mentioned in the 14A has to be declared by a relevant authority. The Insurrection Act of 1807 gives the president that power.

((Calling an insurrection allows him certain powers, such as federalizing the national guard.))

Did he?

Did Donald Trump call an insurrection on himself? No! January 6 was a planned counterintelligence operation orchestrated by our own government. Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff were becoming Junior G-Men acting as CIA agents.

Turley: January 6 Wasn't Insurrection or Rebellion — 14th Amendment Doesn't Apply

Thursday on FNC's "The Story," network contributor Jonathan Turley questioned the merits of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to bar former President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary election ballot. |

www.breitbart.com

It was a protest that ended with some trespassing.

That's it.

1/10,000th as serious/costly/deadly/ruinous as the Democrat-fueled Covid Lockdown Riots.

 

[multivita-man]

But the democrat planned January 6 WAS an Insurrection that day. An insurrection as mentioned in the 14A has to be declared by a relevant authority. The Insurrection Act of 1807 gives the president that power.

((Calling an insurrection allows him certain powers, such as federalizing the national guard.))

Did he?

Did Donald Trump call an insurrection on himself? No! January 6 was a planned counterintelligence operation orchestrated by our own government. Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff were becoming Junior G-Men acting as CIA agents.

Turley: January 6 Wasn't Insurrection or Rebellion — 14th Amendment Doesn't Apply

Thursday on FNC's "The Story," network contributor Jonathan Turley questioned the merits of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to bar former President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary election ballot. |

www.breitbart.com

This one time, I actually agree with Turley that the 14th Amendment's disability clause can't be used by states to disqualify Trump, even though his reasoning makes me think he's a terrible legal analyst.

The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to Trump because it wasn't meant to apply to presidents or former presidents; it was meant to apply to a pretty specific group of people: former confederates running for federal offices whose eligibility wasn't covered by the impeachment and disqualification powers under Article II. Article I states that members of Congress can be expelled but it doesn't state that they can be barred for their participation in an insurrection. That is probably why the 14th Amendment's disability clause was written.

More to the point, though, it is Congress, not states, that can determine disability or remove disability. Colorado and Maine don't have the power to do what they did. Their power to administer elections is restricted. They can (and indeed they must) determine whether someone is qualified under the Constitution to be on a federal ballot, but they can't make the determination that someone is guilty of insurrection on their own, independent of a federal criminal conviction or a conviction in the US Senate.