Trump barred from running?

[Auld Phart]

It would be raced to the SCOTUS, and ruled unconstitutional. Why should DEMOCRATS be the ones to decide whether their #1 political opponent, likely to beat them, is “fit”? What a joke.

They should be more concerned about their own candidate, and his vp, being 'fit'.

 

[Auld Phart]

Didn't ask.

try rereading your post.

 

[konradv]

It would be raced to the SCOTUS, and ruled unconstitutional. Why should DEMOCRATS be the ones to decide whether their #1 political opponent, likely to beat them, is “fit” to be on the ballot? What a joke.

Not Democrats, a jury of Trump’s peers.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

My 'day job' is watching tv and posting, I retired 32 years ago from the military, and 10 years ago from the state.

Thank you for your service

 

[Hellbilly]

try rereading your post.

I said not to quit your day job, which is not asking what your day job is.

 

[Auld Phart]

try rereading your post.

thumbs down?

OK. have someone read it to you then.

 

[Hellbilly]

Thank you for your service

Why? Anyone can learn how to kill.

 

[Hellbilly]

thumbs down?

OK. have someone read it to you then.

I think I'll do better. Since your too old and feeble to be a mod, I can ignore you.
Skoden!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Why? Anyone can learn how to kill.

Get lost, flamer

 

[Hellbilly]

Get lost, flamer

Nope.

 

[Magnus]

I always know when I've won an argument when you have to resort to name calling. Apparently that's the best you've got.

Sure, retard. Claim victory while slinking away. Nope, never saw that before.

 

[bripat9643]

To me it just shows that he is arguing in good faith. Sometimes that means you change your mind. It speaks to his intellectual honesty and the complexity of the argument.

I also want to add that that quality makes it incredibly hard to intelligently discuss it's merits on here. Without even considering the complete lack of intellectual honesty on here.

You are one of the main culprits, shit for brains.

 

[Independent thinker]

Sure, retard. Claim victory while slinking away. Great for your image.

Where did I slink away? You're the one who's best argument is to call the other person names.

 

[Magnus]

Where did I slink away? You're the one who's best argument is to call the other person names.

Awww... did I hurt your feelings... Awww

Well, retard - next time don't behave like one and I won't call you a retard. Deal?

 

[Synthaholic]

Convicted of what? No one, even the looniest of loony Dem hyperpartisan prosecutors has charged him with insurrection. In fact, out of the 1,000 the DOJ have prosecuted for the riot on January 6th, not one has been charged with insurrection.

 

[Lisa558]

Not Democrats, a jury of Trump’s peers.

Riiiight……”peers” like you?

 

[Auld Phart]

Riiiight……”peers” like you?

no
the 'peers' that held a kangaroo court and impeached him.

 

[Lisa558]

no
the 'peers' that held a kangaroo court and impeached him.

What about the “peers” who convicted Trump of a crime that a woman said happened 30 years ago, and for which there was no evidence? Another jury of “peers”!

This over-the-top hatred for ONE man, a man who by the way had a lot of successes as president - is completely deranged. Sad how so many people have been brainwashed.

 

[Rawley]

Seems like that's how you guys roll. Pretty fucked up if you ask me, but hey, you can live your life the way you want.

 

[meaner gene]

An About-Face on Whether the 14th Amendment Bars Trump From Office

WASHINGTON — A little more than a month ago, a law professor who helped found the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, enthusiastically endorsed a new law review article arguing that Donald Trump was ineligible to be president. The article was “a tour de force,” the professor...

www.yahoo.com

Apparently, he can't be.

Professor went from:

"“Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them,” said Calabresi, who teaches at Northwestern University."

to:
"Former President Donald Trump isn’t covered by the disqualification clause, and he is eligible to be on the ballot in the 2024 presidential election,” Calabresi wrote. “I am correcting the public record on this important issue by sending you this letter.”

Thoughts? Whines?

He's obviously wrong. An offer of the United States includes all officers, whether elected or appointed. If they wished to exclude the president (and vice president) from "officer" of the United States, they would have stated that.

Similarly the language for officers of the states, by the appointed only read of the definition would exclude many state offices both executive and judicial, that states chose by election. This would create a states where they would only be ineligible for some offices, and eligible for others. The list changing from state to state.

In addition it would allow states to get around the 14th, by changing state offices from appointed to elected. And such a get around clearly in anthisis to the intention of the 3rd clause of the 14th amendment.

Hence why his interpretation that those who wrote the amendment wanted it to contain loopholes has to be rejected.