Let's make something clear.

[DukeU]

When all else fails, conspiracy theories are the go-to position for The Following.

Or do what the democrats are trying to do.

Disqualify your opponent.

 

[MinTrut]

Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw out his espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groups and organizations have challenged the eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress, arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate. A New Mexico state court, however, has removed Otero County Commissioner County Griffin from office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for, the January 6 interruption of the election certification.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

Absent evidence in contradiction of CREW's assertion I suspect Trumpleton's will ineffectually attack CREW and or the CRS. It is the Trumpian way. When facts and evidence fail them they rely on what amounts to character assassination. Which is why Trump attacks the media, anyone who opposes him, and most especially those like Jack Smith who are working to hold Don accountable for his illegal actions.

Furthermore, quite a bit has been made about the removal of a candidate's name from the ballot being anti-democratic. Yet the Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic. From the moment Trump began the anti-democratic act of conspiring to steal the election he violated his oath of office and forfeited his right to once again run to be the prez.

Democrats: We must rape democracy into submission.

Sane people: This is wrong.

Democrats: ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!

But yeah, you're making dangerously deranged and baseless assertions; you are an enemy of The People.

 

[sparky]

Did you have any specific case in mind to discuss?

sure, one where no jury, judge, evidence, or trial is constitutionally protected

~S~

 

[Marener]

Or do what the democrats are trying to do.

Disqualify your opponent.

Thats what Republicans tried to do with Obama.

Why do y’all forget that?

 

[DukeU]

Thats what Republicans tried to do with Obama.

Why do y’all forget that?

Court cases, charges, remove from ballot?

 

[justoffal]

Goody, wait til you hear what the Red States remove Biden from the ballot for.

Your rules.

Your game.

You will hate it.

I'm pretty sure the supreme Court is going to squash all of this just for that reason. Once it becomes a pie throwing match presidential elections will no longer be decided at The ballot box will be a selection of the secretaries of states. The reason I believe the supreme Court will step in is not to defend Trump but actually to defend themselves.

 

[justoffal]

Thats what Republicans tried to do with Obama.

Why do y’all forget that?

And it actually went....nowhere.

 

[Marener]

Court cases, charges, remove from ballot?

Many examples, here’s one that took 5 seconds to search for.

Supreme Court declines to hear Obama citizenship challenge

Barack Obama (D) WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline)-The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.

legalnewsline.com

 

[Marener]

And it actually went....nowhere.

Doesn’t change the fact that Republicans used this tactic first.

What goes around comes around.

 

[DukeU]

Many examples, here’s one that took 5 seconds to search for.

Brought by the Republican party? The DOJ, FBI?

American citizenship for a president is pretty important, don't you think?

 

[Concerned American]

Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw out his espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groups and organizations have challenged the eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress, arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate. A New Mexico state court, however, has removed Otero County Commissioner County Griffin from office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for, the January 6 interruption of the election certification.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

Absent evidence in contradiction of CREW's assertion I suspect Trumpleton's will ineffectually attack CREW and or the CRS. It is the Trumpian way. When facts and evidence fail them they rely on what amounts to character assassination. Which is why Trump attacks the media, anyone who opposes him, and most especially those like Jack Smith who are working to hold Don accountable for his illegal actions.

Furthermore, quite a bit has been made about the removal of a candidate's name from the ballot being anti-democratic. Yet the Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic. From the moment Trump began the anti-democratic act of conspiring to steal the election he violated his oath of office and forfeited his right to once again run to be the prez.

Ever hear of due process? Maybe you should research the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment while you are trying to redefine the 14th.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Oh looky here: "Given aid or comfort". Be easy as pie for the Red States to say he did that through the open borders, yes? All we need is a few judges to agree.

Your game.

Your rules.

You will hate it.

You're wasting your time with, Jones.

Uneducated and oblivious of facts

 

[Concerned American]

It was done to piss us off.

Well its working.

Pull a word out of a democrat's ass and redefine it. Repeat it often and people will believe the redefinition. Where have we heard this tactic before? Alinsky? The democrat playbook is getting thin.

 

[OKTexas]

Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw out his espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groups and organizations have challenged the eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress, arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate. A New Mexico state court, however, has removed Otero County Commissioner County Griffin from office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for, the January 6 interruption of the election certification.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

Absent evidence in contradiction of CREW's assertion I suspect Trumpleton's will ineffectually attack CREW and or the CRS. It is the Trumpian way. When facts and evidence fail them they rely on what amounts to character assassination. Which is why Trump attacks the media, anyone who opposes him, and most especially those like Jack Smith who are working to hold Don accountable for his illegal actions.

Furthermore, quite a bit has been made about the removal of a candidate's name from the ballot being anti-democratic. Yet the Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic. From the moment Trump began the anti-democratic act of conspiring to steal the election he violated his oath of office and forfeited his right to once again run to be the prez.

Yet current juris prudence says an individual voter has no standing to challenge a candidates position on a ballot, go figure.

Drake, et al. v. Obama, et al.; Barnett, et al. v. Obama, et al., No. 09-56827 (9th Cir. 2011)​

Drake, et al. v. Obama, et al.; Barnett, et al. v. Obama, et al., No. 09-56827 (9th Cir. 2011)

Plaintiffs contended that Barack Obama was constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States. In addition to plaintiffs' constitutional claims, as well as their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their quo warranto claims for...

law.justia.com

.

 

[noonereal]

Let's make something else clear: there was no "insurrection".

Lol

 

[SeaMajor7]

Pull a word out of a democrat's ass and redefine it. Repeat it often and people will believe the redefinition. Where have we heard this tactic before? Alinsky? The democrat playbook is getting thin.

Yep. See VACCINE

 

[Kondor3]

Let's get something clear, the 14th specifically lists the only entity with the power to enforce the 14th is the Congress...

No, it doesn't. It merely says that Congress shall have the power to make laws to enforce the 14th.

It does not say that Congress is the actual front-line enforcing power... that would be the DoJ et al...

And the requisite laws ALREADY exist... so Congress has already (and long-since) played its part in enforcement...

It also does NOT say that only Congress can DECLARE a state of insurrection.

But I will happily concede that State courts do NOT have the jurisdiction to DECLARE a FEDERAL state of Insurrection.

 

[Concerned American]

Yep. See VACCINE

or INSURRECTION

 

[Crepitus]

Yeah and the crazy conspiracy theorists are up like 100 to nothing.

It's a heck of a thing, man.

LMAO!!!

 

[Marener]

Brought by the Republican party? The DOJ, FBI?

American citizenship for a president is pretty important, don't you think?

Sure it’s important. It’s also important that the president not have committed an act of insurrection.