Let's make something clear.

[Marener]

Your inability to comprehend is disingenuous.

You posts lack content. There’s nothing to comprehend.

 

[Marener]

He declared war on the US. Any other stupid questions.

But never convicted of insurrection or rebellion.

Which means, according many of the conservatives here, not disqualified by the 14th amendment.

 

[MisterBeale]

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.

There was "no plan," to which delaying certification by a riot, would ever lead to a certification of the election, if anything, it got in the way of that strategy.

stahp.

You make yourself you dumber with each and every post.

 

[MisterBeale]

Happy New Year.

. . . and you have a good one too Mr. Wayne

 

[BackAgain]

The thread headline coming from bug.80 is absolutely hilarious.

 

[talksalot]

Was Jefferson Davis ever convicted or rebellion or insurrection?

Is Trump or anyone else currently or recently engaged in a civil war?

 

[bripat9643]

Bring it. No court in the land will stand for it.

They stood for taking Trump off the ballot, so why wouldn't they?

 

[OKTexas]

They keep calling it a conspiracy theory and yet all the components are lining up.

Import an entire army of foreign Nationals, arm them.... and then send them out into the neighborhoods to displace the current population with the promise that they can keep any property they can take.

Their plan is to arm them with ballots. Amnesty and citizenship are the next steps.

.

 

[justoffal]

Bring it. No court in the land will stand for it.

Not True. Colorado already did.

 

[OKTexas]

What law is he willfully violating?

It still doesn’t rise to rebellion and insurrection.

No it rises to treason.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Trump had mere accusations of fraud which he tried to use to overturn the election in 2020. Didn’t seem to bother his supporters then.

The accusation of insurrection was adjudicated in the Colorado case.

CO had no authority to hear the case, the plaintiffs had no standing to challenge the constitutional eligibility of a candidate. Here's how I know that, the parallels are staggering..

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

Now feel free to tell us the 9th circuit made a mistake.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Excuse me--Their ruling has be stayed on appeal. Not looking good for seven democrat morons on that court. See post #379 for further info. Next.

Maybe you should see post 511.

.

 

[Concerned American]

But never convicted of insurrection or rebellion.

Which means, according many of the conservatives here, not disqualified by the 14th amendment.

Clearly, you know nothing of war.

 

[Marener]

Clearly, you know nothing of war.

Another trolling post that has no content.

 

[berg80]

The thread headline coming from bug.80 is absolutely hilarious.

In a 1866 colloquy on phrasing of 14th amendment Senator Reverdy Johnson worried that the final version of section three did not include the office of the presidency;
He stated, "This amendment does not go far enough" because past rebels "may be elected
President or Vice President of the United States".

So, he asked Senator Merrill, the co-drafter of the amendment, "why did you omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation"

Senator Lot Morrill fielded this objection. He replied, "Let me call the Senator's attention to the words, 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States', this explaining that the words 'any office' is inclusive of the office of the presidency and vice presidency, not to mention the constitution refers to the office of the president, and thus, whoever occupies that office must be, therefore, and officer per the language of Section Three.

This answer satisfied Senator Johnson, who stated, "Perhaps I am wrong as to the exclusion from the Presidency, no doubt I am.".

 

[BackAgain]

In a 1866 colloquy on phrasing of 14th amendment Senator Reverdy Johnson worried that the final version of section three did not include the office of the presidency;
He stated, "This amendment does not go far enough" because past rebels "may be elected
President or Vice President of the United States".

So, he asked Senator Merrill, the co-drafter of the amendment, "why did you omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation"

Senator Lot Morrill fielded this objection. He replied, "Let me call the Senator's attention to the words, 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States', this explaining that the words 'any office' is inclusive of the office of the presidency and vice presidency, not to mention the constitution refers to the office of the president, and thus, whoever occupies that office must be, therefore, and officer per the language of Section Three.

This answer satisfied Senator Johnson, who stated, "Perhaps I am wrong as to the exclusion from the Presidency, no doubt I am.".

And … bug buys that.

 

[eagle1462010]

And … bug buys that.

Hes scared....he sees civil war soldiers in his closet coming after him.

 

[kaz]

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.

We were already clear that you want the SCOTUS to declare the Constitution Unconstitutional. No one was unclear about that. You are just wrong, MAGA man. Innocent until proven guilty, due process, they aren't things to you. Free shit is your thing

 

[berg80]

They stood for taking Trump off the ballot, so why wouldn't they?

Apples and oranges (no pun intended) as you know.

 

[berg80]

We were already clear that you want the SCOTUS to declare the Constitution Unconstitutional. No one was unclear about that. You are just wrong, MAGA man. Innocent until proven guilty, due process, they aren't things to you. Free shit is your thing

You can not simultaneously point to the eventual adjudication of this matter being resolved by the SCOTUS and also claim RICO Don is not being afforded due process. Unless you're a cuck.