Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's not hearsay you idiot. If you bothered to read the ruling under the section where they explain how they concluded Trump "engaged in" insurrection it is full of examples of his own words and actions.Oh boy oh boy.....you can say that again.
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:
"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-thirdsremovesucdisability.
_______________________
Could the disqualification clause prevent Donald Trump from running for president in 2024?
Theoretically, yes. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to disqualify someone who has already held a public office from holding "any office" if they participate in an "insurrection or rebellion" against the United States.
But since this mechanism has never been used against a president, there are still questions to resolve. The disqualification clause applies to current and former federal officials, state officials, and military officials. However, legal scholars are split on whether the disqualification clause applies to the presidency. It's likely the 14th Amendment will continue to come up in conversations approaching the 2024 presidential election.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation15.html
A good indicator of how this will go is, if you've noticed, the rabid MSM was foaming at the mouth over this after the decision............suddenly, not much speculation.....their legal people most likely told them it'll die at SCOTUS.
Trump wasn't charged in your civil trial either, so His due process rights have been constitutionally violated.
Yet no one, other than hearsay has, proven he was 'engaged'.
Merry Christmas..........
it also says giving comfort.Oh boy oh boy.....you can say that again.
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:
"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-thirdsremovesucdisability.
_______________________
Could the disqualification clause prevent Donald Trump from running for president in 2024?
Theoretically, yes. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to disqualify someone who has already held a public office from holding "any office" if they participate in an "insurrection or rebellion" against the United States.
But since this mechanism has never been used against a president, there are still questions to resolve. The disqualification clause applies to current and former federal officials, state officials, and military officials. However, legal scholars are split on whether the disqualification clause applies to the presidency. It's likely the 14th Amendment will continue to come up in conversations approaching the 2024 presidential election.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation15.html
A good indicator of how this will go is, if you've noticed, the rabid MSM was foaming at the mouth over this after the decision............suddenly, not much speculation.....their legal people most likely told them it'll die at SCOTUS.
Trump wasn't charged in your civil trial either, so His due process rights have been constitutionally violated.
Yet no one, other than hearsay has, proven he was 'engaged'.
Merry Christmas..........
Trump clearly stated to protest peacefully and patriotically. Those aren't the words of an insurrection.
Says who?
I haven's seen any legal expert make that claim.
/——-/ Yet you can’t provide any of it.
Really? identifying the President and vice-President doesn't refer to the President and vice-President Wow.
4 Dimtards.The Colorado courts.
Backatcha.Learn to read!
Scotus will say otherwise!The Colorado courts.
That's all well and fine, but where is Trump's due process rights?It's not hearsay you idiot. If you bothered to read the ruling under the section where they explain how they concluded Trump "engaged in" insurrection it is full of examples of his own words and actions.
/——-/ They only proved they were political hacks.The J6 Congressional committee did an excellent job of PROVING IT!
They did an excellent job of pushing their narrative. Why else hide 400 hours of video?The J6 Congressional committee did an excellent job of PROVING IT!
Why did Bennie Thompson destroy the depositions and other 'evidence' against house investigation rules?/——-/ They only proved they were political hacks.
During the hearing where both sides got to present evidence of Trump engaging in or not engaging in the insurrection.That's all well and fine, but where is Trump's due process rights?
By the way all the Supreme Court Justices of Colorado agreed that Trump "engaged in" insurrection. Even the three Republican ones. They disagreed on the remedy.If they are so savvy, they need to send their findings to Jack Smith, asap.
Who were trump’s lawyers?During the hearing where both sides got to present evidence of Trump engaging in or not engaging in the insurrection
One of them was apparently a guy named Scott Gessler.Who were trump’s lawyers?
When is Schumer's trial then....When he stood on the capitol grounds and said to Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch that they had "released the whirlwind", and sometime after a lunitic tried to enter Kavanaugh's home in hopes of killing him and his family....Where are those of you cheering this bs, calling for Schumer to be brought up on charges?Trump said to go to the Capitol peacefully, which they did. Once they were there, his instructions were to 'fight like Hell', which they also did.
His intentions were clear. If there was any doubt, his inactions while the Capitol was being attacked, removed that doubt.
His Dereliction of Duty proved that he supported the insurrection.
It was a state Supreme Court ruling and it was indeed partisan in nature. The SCOTUS will reverse it.It was a Supreme Court ruling. Over 200 pages. Did you read them? Sounds like you’re making a lazy dismissal calling it all Political
Schumer's trial happens when you Republicans stop being such little bitches and do something.When is Schumer's trial then....When he stood on the capitol grounds and said to Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch that they had "released the whirlwind", and sometime after a lunitic tried to enter Kavanaugh's home in hopes of killing him and his family....Where are those of you cheering this bs, calling for Schumer to be brought up on charges?
Huh, you were discussing the Jan 6 committee, let’s stay focused on the posts. Now answer to the postOne of them was apparently a guy named Scott Gessler.
A simple Google search could of answered that for you.
Trump attorney in 14th Amendment case defended secretary of state's right to bar candidates from ballot - Colorado Newsline
