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

[jbander]

18 U.S.C. 2383 - Explained​

Insurrection refers to acts of violence, but it's not the only charge that could apply. Seditious conspiracy, for example, is an effort to overthrow the United States government. People can be charged with sedition and conspiracy even if they never carry out the planned violence.

What Is Considered Insurrection?


"While the term "insurrection" is not explicitly defined by federal law, courts and legal scholars generally interpret it as a violent uprising or organized resistance against the government or its regulations.


Insurrection often involves acts intended to overthrow, disrupt, or challenge the authority of the United States or impede the enforcement of federal laws."
Love these goofballs that make up their own laws or interpretation of laws to argue their weak ass comments.

Rebellion or Insurrection | 18 U.S. Code § 2383

Review 18 U.S.C. 2383 rebellion or insurrection law which makes it a crime to incite, assist with, or participate in a rebellion against United States authority.

www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com

 

[jbander]

Bring down America? Your Democrats are doing that quite well tbh. As for the constitution, didn't you guys claim, "Not our president", when Trump won? So is being undemocratic by not accepting a duly elected president is ok in the constitution? You guys are as bad as each other.

I'm a Brit in the UK, but thank you in trying to pigeon hole me as being American Republican, lol

Funny , three American said like in every election in American history that they won't except the elected president as their leader. That is proof to microbes that its the democrats who don't support the constitution. These lame brain dead think they are geniuses and their Microbial opinions override even logic.

 

[Leviticus]

One more time since you aren't listening , The attempt to bring down our country and constitution on jan6th is not the only reason that trump can be charged with insurrection., Here is the law "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." Scum, bag took a oath of office to the constitution any act against the constitution is insurrection or rebellion. The courts that have been used already to stop scum bag (Colorado,Minnesota, Michigan) are getting retrials or going to higher courts and there is still 47 other states that can and most will have the same trials to stop scum bag.

The charges he's facing are not for insurrection. Insurrection is the use of violence to try to Impede government function. You say i'm not listening but you're the one Who is obviously completely ignorant of what interaction is

 

[jbander]

The charges he's facing are not for insurrection. Insurrection is the use of violence to try to Impede government function. You say i'm not listening but you're the one Who is obviously completely ignorant of what interaction is

Idiot he doesn't have to be found guilty of insurrection by a court to have the 14th amendment take away his right to be a candidate. By the way the first 14th amendment Colorado case the judge said he was a insurrectionist , so even after the judge said that he could still be on the ballet he found him guilty of being a insurrectionist. You have no clue what you are talking about and I've buried you nonsense in every post I've made responding to you theories. You won't argue against what I'm saying proving your last point is garbage but simply move onto another silly opinion.
Here is what you have to respond to or go away. A. he doesn't have to be found guilty of being a insurrectionist , to have that clause take away his ability to be a candidate. Which of course makes you comment I'm responding to stupid. B. The Colorado judge who presided over his first case. has said Trump is a insurrectionist again making your comment stupid. If you can't argue these two points you have lost the argument. Don't move onto some other bogus point.

 

[jbander]

Some People mostly right wingers can't lose a argument and when they do the insanity and the attempted responses to work around the fact that they have been buried are so ridiculous and based on bullshit. that it is comical.

 

[Leviticus]

Idiot he doesn't have to be found guilty of insurrection by a court to have the 14th amendment take away his right to be a candidate. By the way the first 14th amendment Colorado case the judge said he was a insurrectionist , so even after the judge said that he could still be on the ballet he found him guilty of being a insurrectionist. You have no clue what you are talking about and I've buried you nonsense in every post I've made responding to you theories. You won't argue against what I'm saying proving your last point is garbage but simply move onto another silly opinion.
Here is what you have to respond to or go away. A. he doesn't have to be found guilty of being a insurrectionist , to have that clause take away his ability to be a candidate. Which of course makes you comment I'm responding to stupid. B. The Colorado judge who presided over his first case. has said Trump is a insurrectionist again making your comment stupid. If you can't argue these two points you have lost the argument. Don't move onto some other bogus point.

I never said he had to be convicted in criminal court. But it does take a court ruling for the fourteenth amendment to be applied. A civil court must rule that he took part in an insurrection in order for him to be removed from office under the fourteenth amendment.

Interaction is a very specific crime. It is the use of violence to impede government function. Nothing else constitutes insurrection. It doesn't fucking matter what else he's being charged with.

In order for him to be banned from running for office under the fourteenth amendment, It would have to be proven to the extent required in civil court, that he knowingly conspired to commit insurrection, which again, is Specifically defined as the use of violence to m p government function. The fact that the people who attacked the capital were doing so because they were his supporters and that the attack was driven by his lies about the election is not enough to prove that he knew the attack was going to happen.
In general courts require clear intent before they will find that someone took part in an insurrection. Very few judges would be willing to make such a ruling without there being clear evidence that Trump knew that the attack was goingto happen before it did. That is one of most basic legal requirements for insurrection. Malicious intent is always necessary in civil or criminal court.

 

[jbander]

I never said he had to be convicted in criminal court. But it does take a court ruling for the fourteenth amendment to be applied. A civil court must rule that he took part in an insurrection in order for him to be removed from office under the fourteenth amendment.

Interaction is a very specific crime. It is the use of violence to impede government function. Nothing else constitutes insurrection. It doesn't fucking matter what else he's being charged with.

In order for him to be banned from running for office under the fourteenth amendment, It would have to be proven to the extent required in civil court, that he knowingly conspired to commit insurrection, which again, is Specifically defined as the use of violence to m p government function. The fact that the people who attacked the capital were doing so because they were his supporters and that the attack was driven by his lies about the election is not enough to prove that he knew the attack was going to happen.
In general courts require clear intent before they will find that someone took part in an insurrection. Very few judges would be willing to make such a ruling without there being clear evidence that Trump knew that the attack was goingto happen before it did. That is one of most basic legal requirements for insurrection. Malicious intent is always necessary in civil or criminal court.

you full of shit and all y

I never said he had to be convicted in criminal court. But it does take a court ruling for the fourteenth amendment to be applied. A civil court must rule that he took part in an insurrection in order for him to be removed from office under the fourteenth amendment.

Interaction is a very specific crime. It is the use of violence to impede government function. Nothing else constitutes insurrection. It doesn't fucking matter what else he's being charged with.

In order for him to be banned from running for office under the fourteenth amendment, It would have to be proven to the extent required in civil court, that he knowingly conspired to commit insurrection, which again, is Specifically defined as the use of violence to m p government function. The fact that the people who attacked the capital were doing so because they were his supporters and that the attack was driven by his lies about the election is not enough to prove that he knew the attack was going to happen.
In general courts require clear intent before they will find that someone took part in an insurrection. Very few judges would be willing to make such a ruling without there being clear evidence that Trump knew that the attack was goingto happen before it did. That is one of most basic legal requirements for insurrection. Malicious intent is always necessary in civil or criminal court.

All you are doing is trying to change your point every single comment. I already told u that the Colorado case said he committed a insurrection. So that has been decided by a court. Trump took it to a higher court to argue that exact point. So you are so full of shit. Full of shit point 2, it doesn't have a to be violence to commit insurrection. It also can be "or gives aid or comfort thereto,"as in supporting said violence. Rebellion or Insurrection | 18 U.S. Code § 2383. Your crapola is comical, there is only one truth her , you are wrong and you won't admit it. Your stupid remark about Scum bag having to know the attack would happen , as you put it yourself QUOTE

before they will find that someone took part in an insurrection." Scum Bag sitting for ever watching the tv and enjoying what was happening without trying to stop it as everyone asked. Is taking part in a insurrection. Scum bag tweeted an hour after the insurrection begun, when he found out they just about had Pence in a safe place he tweeted "Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution" showing that Pence was the reason that these hate Nazis were pissing and shitting in and on the capital., is also proof of his taking part in a intersection. You are a joke.

 

[jbander]

The clown car again drove to and around the big top center ring. These clowns are a hoot.

 

[beautress]

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.

I'm shocked to hear that Minnesota is on the "Get Trump" bandwagon du jour. My company prospered several businesses in Minnesota, Colorado, and Michigan. If they are so fooled by TDS people, that they would deny Trump supporters in their states to not vote for someone they took off the voting system, I question their support of the fairness of 1-man, 1-vote system we inherited from the monarchy-belittled founders of 1776 that ridded us of unfairness and gave adult citizens one vote apiece. Those states will pay a price for not allowing Trump supporters the right to vote for President Trump in the long run, and without half the nation not buying their manufactured goods, they're going to have to lay off millions of people who don't deserve to be fired when they worked all their lives thinking they were free people who were allowed to speak and vote for the candidate of their own choosing, and this candidate, President Trump was trashed by his political opponent Hillary Clinton with every lie imaginable, with all that information she took away from the Library of Congress' information data, some of which were found in her side of the White House when her husband, Bill Clinton was President. Who can forget what she told the Grand Jury seeking her side of the case as she whined, "I forget" which everybody knew was just another lie. She did know she did wrong, and she would not fess up to the Grand Jury. She's the only dirty dog first lady this country has ever had, and I hope the last.

 

[jbander]

I'm shocked to hear that Minnesota is on the "Get Trump" bandwagon du jour. My company prospered several businesses in Minnesota, Colorado, and Michigan. If they are so fooled by TDS people, that they would deny Trump supporters in their states to not vote for someone they took off the voting system, I question their support of the fairness of 1-man, 1-vote system we inherited from the monarchy-belittled founders of 1776 that ridded us of unfairness and gave adult citizens one vote apiece. Those states will pay a price for not allowing Trump supporters the right to vote for President Trump in the long run, and without half the nation not buying their manufactured goods, they're going to have to lay off millions of people who don't deserve to be fired when they worked all their lives thinking they were free people who were allowed to speak and vote for the candidate of their own choosing, and this candidate, President Trump was trashed by his political opponent Hillary Clinton with every lie imaginable, with all that information she took away from the Library of Congress' information data, some of which were found in her side of the White House when her husband, Bill Clinton was President. Who can forget what she told the Grand Jury seeking her side of the case as she whined, "I forget" which everybody knew was just another lie. She did know she did wrong, and she would not fess up to the Grand Jury. She's the only dirty dog first lady this country has ever had, and I hope the last.

I'm so proud of Minnesota Going after this terrorist this piece of shit who tried to bring down our government . I believe in the traitor law in this country, I believe Trump should be charged for this along with all the people that support him as the law requires and if found guilty should be put to death. That would resolve the election issue wouldn't it. There's is no lower human being Then Trump.

 

[jbander]

Minnesota will be next in their supreme court taking scum bag off the ballot, then Michigan then 9 other that are setting up for trial as we speak. and If they continue falling into place every state will try this case.

 

[MarathonMike]

Considering what the Marxocrats have been doing over the last few years, it would be shocking if they DIDN'T try to remove Trump from 2024 ballots. As I often state, they are undermining and dividing America in every possible way. We are living Obama's "Transformation".

 

[jbander]

Considering what the Marxocrats have been doing over the last few years, it would be shocking if they DIDN'T try to remove Trump from 2024 ballots. As I often state, they are undermining and dividing America in every possible way. We are living Obama's "Transformation".

Of course we frown on people who lead an overthrow of our democracy and country. Why would that surprise you. Along with the fact that we don't' want a rapist as president. or a criminal with 91 felony charges. Or just generally a piece of sub human shit as a president. I'm surprised that you can't see the problem. I mean these are certified facts

 

[jbander]

Considering what the Marxocrats have been doing over the last few years, it would be shocking if they DIDN'T try to remove Trump from 2024 ballots. As I often state, they are undermining and dividing America in every possible way. We are living Obama's "Transformation".

By the way MAGA Maggots are this countries number one problem. These traitors should be tried as traitors and when found guilty should as the law prescribes , be put to death . They won't be missed.

 

[Skull]

When these 4 arrogant fools come up for election to another term, they should be voted off the court:

Justices Richard L. Gabriel, Melissa Hart, Monica Márquez and William W. Hood III

 

[jbander]

When these 4 arrogant fools come up for election to another term, they should be voted off the court:

Justices Richard L. Gabriel, Melissa Hart, Monica Márquez and William W. Hood III

Next stop Minnesota then Michigan then 9 others and if they keep dropping every state in the union will hear this case. Love it. Scum has found justice.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Are you an American or are you a democrat ?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The CO scotus finding is law warfare at its best.

 

[jbander]

The CO scotus finding is law warfare at its best.

any court any judge that makes any decision to protect Trump by trying to cover up his guilt is against America and will have to be taken down.

 

[jbander]

Like I said , Trump will be found guilty without a doubt , they don't even need any witnesses other then his own words. On video in writing , the man is just that stupid.