Let's make something clear.

[SeaMajor7]

The wall of denial erected by The Following is impenetrable. They are trained monkeys who only understand one thing. Keep throwing shit on the wall to obscure the truth, just like their Dear Leader.

PROJECTION MONKEY SAYS WHAT????????????

 

[Foolardi]

Wrong, it's self executing. You can't expect congress to have to rule on whether or not someone running for dog catcher in Dogville meets the requirements.
Elections are a State/Local function.

However ... " When the people is master of the vote,it
becomes master of the government. "
-- Aristotle { The Constitution of Athens }

 

[postman]

No stupid, only one entity has the power to enforce the 14th. Congress.

You lose again.

This only shows your stupidity? The 14th disqualifies people from both federal and state offices. And if congress was the only one with power to enforce, they wouldn't have enough time to do so.

How many politicians are there in the USA? (Infographic)

The answer is much higher than you'd expect....

poliengine.com

They would have to oversee 534 federal offices. 17,628 state offices. and 493,830 local offices.

 

[Nostra]

This only shows your stupidity? The 14th disqualifies people from both federal and state offices. And if congress was the only one with power to enforce, they wouldn't have enough time to do so.

How many politicians are there in the USA? (Infographic)

The answer is much higher than you'd expect....

poliengine.com

They would have to oversee 534 federal offices. 17,628 state offices. and 493,830 local offices.

Take it up with the Founding Fathers, Simp. They are the ones who gave sole enforcement authority to Congress.

Next?

 

[postman]

Take it up with the Founding Fathers, Simp. They are the ones who gave sole enforcement authority to Congress.

Next?

Actually it was post Civil War, all the founding fathers were dead by 1868.

Madison was the last Founding Father to die at the age of eighty-five in June, 1836.

And even then, the number of state and local elections would have been in the hundreds of thousands. Far more than any single entity could oversee.

Do the math.

 

[Foolardi]

Federal supersedes State.

.

Um I dunno.Not when it comes to Pardons.Or how a state legislature
manages it's voting regulations.Or it's Drivers license bureau or
many other areas.Like Speed limits.

 

[Foolardi]

Take it up with the Founding Fathers, Simp. They are the ones who gave sole enforcement authority to Congress.

Next?

Plus a Potus is the head of the Executive branch.
And thereby also who decides what is or is not
Classified as in Classified documents.Classified
Info.

 

[postman]

Federal supersedes State.

What power conducts elections?

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

 

[OKTexas]

SCOTUS will decide, not you.

Yep, and experts predict a 9-0 decision against the States. Love those commie tears.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Um I dunno.Not when it comes to Pardons.Or how a state legislature
manages it's voting regulations.Or it's Drivers license bureau or
many other areas.Like Speed limits.

Enough deflection, we're not talking about that crap.

.

 

[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.

That is clear as promised. Unfortunately for you, it's not true, MAGA man

 

[kaz]

Yep, and experts predict a 9-0 decision against the States. Love those commie tears.

.

It could be 8-1 given the dumb ass chick who didn't know what a woman is

 

[OKTexas]

What power conducts elections?

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Feel free to post the remainder of that clause, plus we were talking about courts.

.

 

[Lesh]

Why aren't they prosecuting? Oh yeah, they would need evidence for that.

Wrong. Because they don’t have jurisdiction to PROSECUTE

 

[Nostra]

Wrong. Because they don’t have jurisdiction to PROSECUTE

Says who?

 

[berg80]

Even one of the witnesses called in Trump's defense had written...........

Murray pointed to a commentary written by Delahunty for The Federalist, a conservative website, in August. In that article, Delahunty wrote of Section 3: “Although it does not explicitly refer to presidents or presidential candidates, comparison with other constitutional texts referring to ‘officer(s)’ supports the interpretation that it applies to the presidency too.”
Testimony on 14th Amendment continues on final day of Colorado Trump trial - Colorado Newsline

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
The Sweep and Force of Section Three

 

[berg80]

Yep, and experts predict a 9-0 decision against the States. Love those commie tears.

.

"Experts" you saw on Faux?

As we have discussed before, during the Senate debate on the final language of section 3, Democratic Senator Reverdy Johnson raised a concern that section 3 did not expressly cover the president and vice president:

Mr. Johnson. But this amendment does not go far enough. I suppose the framers of the amendment thought it was necessary to provide for such an exigency. I do not see but that any one of these gentlemen may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and 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. No man is to be a Senator or Representative or an elector for President or Vice President–

39 Cong. Globe 2899 (1866) (emphasis added).

This is then followed immediately with a colloquy between Senator Johnson and Republican Senator Lot Morrill:

Mr. Morrill. Let me call the Senator's attention to the words "or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States."

Mr. Johnson. Perhaps I am wrong as to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am; but I was misled by noticing the specific exclusion in the case of Senators and Representatives.


IOW, the author of the amendment clearly meant for it to include the VP and prez.

 

[OKTexas]

"Experts" you saw on Faux?

As we have discussed before, during the Senate debate on the final language of section 3, Democratic Senator Reverdy Johnson raised a concern that section 3 did not expressly cover the president and vice president:

Mr. Johnson. But this amendment does not go far enough. I suppose the framers of the amendment thought it was necessary to provide for such an exigency. I do not see but that any one of these gentlemen may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and 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. No man is to be a Senator or Representative or an elector for President or Vice President–

39 Cong. Globe 2899 (1866) (emphasis added).

This is then followed immediately with a colloquy between Senator Johnson and Republican Senator Lot Morrill:

Mr. Morrill. Let me call the Senator's attention to the words "or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States."

Mr. Johnson. Perhaps I am wrong as to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am; but I was misled by noticing the specific exclusion in the case of Senators and Representatives.


IOW, the author of the amendment clearly meant for it to include the VP and prez.

That's totally irrelevant to my argument, but I guess when you've got no rebuttal,. ya just got to deflect. LMAO

Remember Trump was acquitted in the second impeachment.

.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yep, and experts predict a 9-0 decision against the States. Love those commie tears.

.

Nope, the odds on are 60-3 or 5-4, either way, right now.

We can figure better after the appellate ruling.

If it is upheld, SCOTUS will not hear the subsequent MAGA appeal.

 

[kaz]

That's totally irrelevant to my argument, but I guess when you've got no rebuttal,. ya just got to deflect. LMAO

.

The trick with Democrats is getting an argument that isn't total crap. Double standards are always crap arguments, and that is already virtually all they have, not holding themselves to their own standard