Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst

[jbander]

Depends on who you think the traitors are. You haven’t made that clear, IMO.

Funny , not confusing at all, if you have the capacity to think!

 

[jbander]

This really isn't that confusing, the insurrection law is clear, just isn't used because you need a scum bag like Trump to be the insurrectionist and they just aren't out there and haven't been through out our history. it takes a certain type of scum to be a Trump or one of his supporters. It is clear to me what type of asshole trump and his supporters are , complete and total traitors to this country. Like I said there will be a case in every state that will decide whether Trump is a insurrectionist or not. Simple as that , 50 trial 50 court decisions .Only thing that will stop it is if all aspects of the charges probably dozens, are found to be unconstitutional. The 50 states will come at the insurrection charges from many angles. Every angle has to be a dressed by the high court to over ride that states court decision on whether the piece of shit is a insurrectionist or not.

 

[konradv]

Funny , not confusing at all, if you have the capacity to think!

The courts say it’s the J6 crowd, so I’ll go with that.

 

[Rawley]

The argument that the 14th doesn't apply to him because his oath to the constitution is even greater than a Senator's etc???? Not only does he have to defend it, but the duty of preserving it....both through the DOJ and legal system of the Executive branch..... He does have to support it....to say he doesn't, is silly.

This idea that everyone who participated in an insurrection or aided and abetted the enemy from within, does not include the president or vice president aiding the enemy is ridiculous.

Want to reconsider this? LOL

313. Here, after considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that “officers of the United States” did not include the President of the United States.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf

 

[Care4all]

Want to reconsider this? LOL

313. Here, after considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that “officers of the United States” did not include the President of the United States.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf

Yeah....it will be appealed.

Kinda crazy that everyone who takes an oath to defend the constitution is barred if they participated in an insurrection coup de'tat or aided an enemy of the constitution, from holding office again,

EXCEPT, according to this ruling, the president, the chief executive officer and Commander and chief of the military CAN participate in aiding our enemies and inciting an insurrection, and run again for office....

Tell me HOW that makes any sense at all....? Why would the Founders do something like that? Give one sound reason why a president who was involved in a coup de'tat insurrection, breaking his constitutional oath to protect and defend the constitution, be allowed to run for political office again? Why would the founders WANT THAT?

I'm contending, THEY WOULDN'T....

See you in appellate court, and SC!!!!

 

[Lastamender]

Yeah....it will be appealed.

Kinda crazy that everyone who takes an oath to defend the constitution is barred if they participated in an insurrection coup de'tat or aided an enemy of the constitution, from holding office again,

EXCEPT, according to this ruling, the president, the chief executive officer and Commander and chief of the military CAN participate in aiding our enemies and inciting an insurrection, and run again for office....

Tell me HOW that makes any sense at all....? Why would the Founders do something like that? Give one sound reason why a president who was involved in a coup de'tat insurrection, breaking his constitutional oath to protect and defend the constitution, be allowed to run for political office again? Why would the founders WANT THAT?

I'm contending, THEY WOULDN'T....

See you in appellate court, and SC!!!!

You got to ask yourself if Congress upheld their end of that oath when they voted not to investigate the election. They sided with the alleged fraud. They should be thrown out of office.

 

[jbander]

Want to reconsider this? LOL

313. Here, after considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that “officers of the United States” did not include the President of the United States.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf

There is 50 states ace , the next two are coming us soon Minnesota then Michigan and they will keep coming. One decision is one decision , literally the same states can go after scum bag for multiple reason all attacking his ability to run , and in every case they can go right up the court system for everyone of the cases, in fact every approach has to be decided by the supreme court because all the charges are coming from states.

 

[Care4all]

You got to ask yourself if Congress upheld their end of that oath when they voted not to investigate the election. They sided with the alleged fraud. They should be thrown out of office.

That investigation period passed, long before 1/6 and the States who run their individual elections already investigated and certified their election results.

 

[Lastamender]

That investigation period passed, long before 1/6 and the States who run their individual elections already investigated and certified their election results.

No it did not. All the swing states had open cases. No forensic audits. Just recounts.

 

[konradv]

Want to reconsider this? LOL

313. Here, after considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that “officers of the United States” did not include the President of the United States.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf

Stupidest ruling I’ve heard in a while. That clause was poorly written, but that shouldn’t get anyone off the hook. Trump was clearly an officer of the United States and took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

 

[Care4all]

No it did not. All the swing states had open cases. No forensic audits. Just recounts.

Election rule challenges do not require forensic audits. There is no such election apparatus or rule to conduct one, whatever a "forensic audit" is....? Cyber Ninja allegedly performed one in Arizona, and the results was Biden got even more votes, a couple of handfuls more, than the certified results.

Not a single contested election or any of our elections in our entire history as a Nation, has ever had a so called, forensic audit.

 

[Lastamender]

Election rule challenges do not require forensic audits. There is no such election apparatus or rule to conduct one, whatever a "forensic audit" is....? Cyber Ninja allegedly performed one in Arizona, and the results was Biden got even more votes, a couple of handfuls more, than the certified results.

Not a single contested election or any of our elections in our entire history as a Nation, has ever had a so called, forensic audit.

Why? Can't we see if the job was done properly? Remember they work for us.

 

[konradv]

Why? Can't we see if the job was done properly? Remember they work for us.

It seems to be a waste of time and resources to meet the demands of a group that won’t accept a negative outcome.

 

[Lastamender]

It seems to be a waste of time and resources to meet the demands of a group that won’t accept a negative outcome.

It seems that people who cannot prove they did their jobs should not have them.

 

[konradv]

It seems that people who cannot prove they did their jobs should not have them.

Where’s YOUR proof?

 

[Billo_Really]

Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst​

Bid to Keep Trump Off '24 Ballot Is Naked Lawfare, Unconstitutional

These anti-Trump ballot challenges are lawfare at its worst, trying to use the law and the courts as a political weapon.

www.dailysignal.com

2 Nov 2023 ~~ By Hans von Spakovsky

As state court proceedings get under way in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota in lawsuits aimed at barring Donald Trump from appearing as a presidential candidate on the ballot in next year’s presidential election, the judges in those cases should understand that the text, history, and application of the 14th Amendment make it clear that they have no legal authority to take any such action.
Due to Trump’s supposed actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the challengers are trying to argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the disqualification clause, prevents him from being president even if he is elected, so he should be removed from the ballot by state election officials.
Section 3 provides that:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector for President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same … . But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.​

Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3.
There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
Trump Didn’t Hold An Applicable Office
First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official. Trump has never been any of those.
He has never held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the federal government.
Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3.
~Snip~

No Conviction for ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’​

Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2383, which makes it a crime to engage in “any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States.”
More importantly, in the second impeachment resolution of Trump on Jan. 11, 2021, he was charged by the House of Representatives in Article I with “Incitement of Insurrection.” Yet, he was acquitted by the Senate.
Given our federal constitutional system, state and federal courts should not gainsay the findings of Congress on this issue. The risk of inconsistent rulings from state and county election officials, as well as from the many different courts hearing these challenges, could cause electoral chaos.
~Snip~

Section 3 No Longer Extant?​

Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already adopted by one federal court—that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.
Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the end of the Civil War. It was aimed at the former members of the Confederate government and military who had previously been in Congress or held executive posts.
All of the challengers filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from their state ballots are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3, which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign officials.


Commentary:
Excellent, reasoned and backed by historical fact, SCOTUS rulings and Congressional Acts by the author Hans von Spakovsky.
Democrat Socialists of America Commies use of Lawfare is obviously subjective and unconstitutional. Any judge participating in such shenanigans, should face pushback and disbarment.

What do you mean "supposed actions"? That POS tried a coup against the United States of America. That mother-fucker should be in prison.

 

[Lastamender]

Where’s YOUR proof?

There is proof in GA. They cannot produce ballots or images for about 150,000 votes. Fulton County lawyers just quit the case because they know they have lost.

 

[konradv]

There is proof in GA. They cannot produce ballots or images for about 150,000 votes. Fulton County lawyers just quit the case because they know they have lost.

The only proof I know of is that Rudy lied and has to pay off the people he defamed. I think that’s also proof you’re full of shit.

 

[Lastamender]

The only proof I know of is that Rudy lied and has to pay off the people he defamed. I think that’s also proof you’re full of shit.

Then you better read up on Harrison Floyd who has tapes of Ruby Freeman singing a different tune. He released one and the GA. DA revoked his bond. I wonder why. If you do not know, I am sure you don't, he is one of Trump's co defendants in GA.

You should not comment when you are not informed.

 

[Rawley]

Yeah....it will be appealed.

Kinda crazy that everyone who takes an oath to defend the constitution is barred if they participated in an insurrection coup de'tat or aided an enemy of the constitution, from holding office again,

EXCEPT, according to this ruling, the president, the chief executive officer and Commander and chief of the military CAN participate in aiding our enemies and inciting an insurrection, and run again for office....

Tell me HOW that makes any sense at all....? Why would the Founders do something like that? Give one sound reason why a president who was involved in a coup de'tat insurrection, breaking his constitutional oath to protect and defend the constitution, be allowed to run for political office again? Why would the founders WANT THAT?

I'm contending, THEY WOULDN'T....

See you in appellate court, and SC!!!!

Because the President is in charge of the country. Why would he lead an insurrection against this own administration?

As you been told time and time and time and time again, the word are plain. Your TDS is the only thing counting on an appeal.