Let's make something clear.

[Marener]

There is NOTHING in the 14th that specifies the office of the presidency. Split that hair, moron.

It says “any office”. The presidency is an office so it would be included by the word “any”.

It would be preposterous to think that it wouldn’t be included.

 

[Concerned American]

Please explain why you think this link shows I’m wrong.

Please explain why you think this link doesn't show that you're wrong. Take your trolling ass down the road.

 

[Concerned American]

It says “any office”. The presidency is an office so it would be included by the word “any”.

It would be preposterous to think that it wouldn’t be included.

It specifies those offices that are subject, your hair splitting is noted. It also states the US congress would enforce these provisions. No mention of states' usurping that power. You still haven't addressed why a person who is accused of a crime, is not subject to the provisions of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

 

[Marener]

Please explain why you think this link doesn't show that you're wrong. Take your trolling ass down the road.

To be honest, not even sure what you’re saying I’m wrong about. All you did was post the link and say “you’re wrong“.

The link talks about four elections which had different levels of corruption or dispute. There wasn’t anything about the president acting in any official capacity to alter the outcome of the election.

 

[Marener]

It specifies those offices that are subject, your hair splitting is noted. It also states the US congress would enforce these provisions. No mention of states' usurping that power. You still haven't addressed why a person who is accused of a crime, is not subject to the provisions of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

It literally says “any office”.

Trump is subject to the provisions of those amendments. I havent claimed otherwise.

 

[Nostra]

Everyone is a taxpayer.
The poor pay the most tax.
Good God, this is one stupid site.

The poor pay the most tax? Gotta link noonereal

 

[Nostra]

You talked in circles without saying anything.

The 14th amendment does not require a conviction. Neither does the Bill of Rights. Trump had a trial. He was not criminally convicted. The court held he engaged in insurrection and not eligible for office.

The end.

Only Congress is empowered to enforce the 14th, vermin.

The end.

 

[Nostra]

 

[Lesh]

Any office

 

[Nostra]

Any office

Who does the 14th give sole power to enforce the 14th, Simp?.

 

[The Duke]

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.

Man, dude; You're a propaganda swallower.

They have been lying to you and I wish you'd wake up and realize that.

You can read The Constitution yourself. The average Americans are of decent intelligence and can understand the

written word quite well.

 

[Kondor3]

Show me where a CO civil court judge, or Maine SOS, was given enforcement power, Simp.
GO!

Section 5​

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I haven't got a clue.

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional scholar.

However, there exists a rather plentiful history of States enforcing Constitutional provisions, eh?

Close enough for Gubmint work...

 

[MisterBeale]

And he looked at Mike Pence, and I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so.

Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We're supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution.

Read Trump's Jan. 6 Speech, A Key Part Of Impeachment Trial

The former president's remarks are being used by Democrats hoping to convict him for incitement of insurrection — and are being defended by his lawyers in the Senate proceedings.

www.npr.org

Also, see the Eastman memo about using the fake electors to mess with the certification.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/09/20/eastman.memo.pdf

Your contention is that;

The riot occurred because Mike pence wouldnt participate in the fake elector plot.

None of what you posted links the riot to the Trump campaign's proposed legal wrangling to submit an alternative slate of electors based on their false, or not false belief in a shady election. You are living in, and creating a completely manufactured epistemology.

You still have not posted a shred of evidence that the two have anything to do with each other. Just that they both occurred, a plan to present alternate electors, and Trump encouraging folks to protest.


This is known as a Non-Sequitur.

Non Sequitur​

"(also known as: derailment, “that does not follow”, irrelevant reason, invalid inference, non-support, argument by scenario [form of], false premise [form of], questionable premise [form of])
Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion.
Logical Form:
Claim A is made.
Evidence is presented for claim A.
Therefore, claim C is true.
Example #1:
People generally like to walk on the beach. Beaches have sand. Therefore, having sand floors in homes would be a great idea!"

Non Sequitur

When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

 

[Marener]

Your contention is that;




None of what you posted links the riot to the Trump campaign's proposed legal wrangling to submit an alternative slate of electors based on their false, or not false belief in a shady election. You are living in, and creating a completely manufactured epistemology.

You still have not posted a shred of evidence that the two have anything to do with each other. Just that they both occurred, a plan to present alternate electors, and Trump encouraging folks to protest.


This is known as a Non-Sequitur.

Non Sequitur​

"(also known as: derailment, “that does not follow”, irrelevant reason, invalid inference, non-support, argument by scenario [form of], false premise [form of], questionable premise [form of])
Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion.
Logical Form:
Claim A is made.
Evidence is presented for claim A.
Therefore, claim C is true.
Example #1:
People generally like to walk on the beach. Beaches have sand. Therefore, having sand floors in homes would be a great idea!"

Non Sequitur

When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

Not at all.

Trump’s plan (if can be called that) focused on delaying the certification.

He wanted Pence to do that.

Pence didn’t.

Therefore the mob would delay the certification by overrunning the capitol.

By the time the mob got to the capitol, they were pretty well aware that Pence wasn’t following Trump’s request.

Pretty simple logic.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

The MAGA malignancy spread to the UK.

Nope. Just common sense and reality.

 

[MisterBeale]

Trump’s plan (if can be called that) focused on delaying the certification.

He wanted Pence to do that.

Pence didn’t.

Therefore the mob would delay the certification by overrunning the capitol.

According to the garbage you posted that DID NOT link the riot to the certification, Pence has to go along with it.

So, riot or no riot, it does not matter if Pence will not go along with it, the riot accomplishes nothing. Delaying certification? Accomplished nothing. Nada, bump kiss.
If Pence refuses to cooperate? The riot doesn't do a damn thing . . . . ???

Your logic is completely flawed, yet, you are still sticking to it. . . why?

 

[Marener]

According to the garbage you posted that DID NOT link the riot to the certification, Pence has to go along with it.

So, riot or no riot, it does not matter if Pence will not go along with it, the riot accomplishes nothing. Delaying certification? Accomplished nothing. Nada, bump kiss.
If Pence refuses to cooperate? The riot doesn't do a damn thing . . . . ???

Your logic is completely flawed, yet, you are still sticking to it. . . why?

I mean, you’re really just pointing out the flaws in Trump’s plan and the fact that it didnt really have much chance at succeeding.

But Trump was desperate, so he went with the only option he thought he had.

 

[The Duke]

Your contention is that;




None of what you posted links the riot to the Trump campaign's proposed legal wrangling to submit an alternative slate of electors based on their false, or not false belief in a shady election. You are living in, and creating a completely manufactured epistemology.

You still have not posted a shred of evidence that the two have anything to do with each other. Just that they both occurred, a plan to present alternate electors, and Trump encouraging folks to protest.


This is known as a Non-Sequitur.

Non Sequitur​

"(also known as: derailment, “that does not follow”, irrelevant reason, invalid inference, non-support, argument by scenario [form of], false premise [form of], questionable premise [form of])
Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion.
Logical Form:
Claim A is made.
Evidence is presented for claim A.
Therefore, claim C is true.
Example #1:
People generally like to walk on the beach. Beaches have sand. Therefore, having sand floors in homes would be a great idea!"

Non Sequitur

When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

Happy New Year.

I just had admiration for Bealeio's OCD and nerditude.

I think somebody would be a dumbass to try and get anything past that guy.

And that ain't no suckin' up bullshit.

That's a realistic observation.

It is what it is.

 

[Rawley]

Win what? There’s no debate. It’s you being an antidemocratic authoritarian and me acknowledging this fact.

Sorry, You big poopyhead. I win again.

 

[Concerned American]

I mean, you’re really just pointing out the flaws in Trump’s plan and the fact that it didnt really have much chance at succeeding.

But Trump was desperate, so he went with the only option he thought he had.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You are part of the commie party that believes that all they have to do is claim a law is broken and have a partisan court agree. That is called a summary judgement--not due process. Good example of the fallacy is you believe a cop should be convicted of murder if a known violent felon dies of an overdose while in his custody but you see nothing wrong with the summary execution of an unarmed protestor by a capitol cop for protesting. Partisan, double standard bull hockey.