Let's make something clear.

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

MAGA are superb with crappy double standard arguments.

 

[berg80]

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.

.

You didn't make an argument. You posted an unattributed prediction by anonymous "experts." But then you're the guy who posted a link to an irrelevant article about a 9th circuit decision on standing based on venue and erroneously claimed it applied to this matter.

 

[BackAgain]

The states are NOT prosecuting.

They are blocking ballot access.

Huge difference

No. They aren’t prosecuting and therefore they lack authority to block ballot access. Do try to follow along.

 

[BackAgain]

Because "due process" is only required in cases involving "life, limb or property"

Being denied a job, doesn't require due process, or a court hearing, with a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

A common example. Get a traffic ticket.

Again, your knowledge is surface level.

At best.

And the standard is not “life, limb or property.”

 

[BackAgain]

See post #1 of this thread.

No no. I am seeking a coherent and reasonable argument.

 

[d0gbreath]

Everyone knows that ink is quite expensive. Think about how much money will be saved, if all of the candidates can be successfully removed. You'll go to vote, and they'll hand you a blank sheet of paper.

 

[BackAgain]

Being on the ballot isn’t a right. It’s a privilege based on for one thing, not having given comfort to those who attempted to overthrow an election(aborted coup, since ‘insurrection’ is a no-no). The language is irrelevant. Trump’s actions, lack of actions and words were clear. This is an administrative ruling, akin to losing a business license, and not a criminal action requiring a trial.

Wrong.

Colorado and Maine are not permitted to invoke the 14th to block a candidate’s access to the ballot merely because a few of their state officials happen to really believe that he was involved in an alleged insurrection.

Absent an indictment and a criminal trial in a Federal court followed by a conviction, those state officials are usurping power they don’t have.

 

[kaz]

Wrong.

Colorado and Maine are not permitted to invoke the 14th to block a candidate’s access to the ballot merely because a few of their state officials happen to really believe that he was involved in an alleged insurrection.

Absent an indictment and a criminal trial in a Federal court followed by a conviction, those state officials are usurping power they don’t have.

Oh, I can explain. Democrats are innocent until proven guilty. Republicans are guilty. Just like the Constitution says!

It's how Democrats roll, double standards. Those are the only standards they have

 

[berg80]

No. They aren’t prosecuting and therefore they lack authority to block ballot access. Do try to follow along.

To be precise, in CO the courts ruled on ballot qualification which is covered by state law. You'd know that if you had read either of the published decisions.

 

[kaz]

To be precise, in CO the courts ruled on ballot qualification which is covered by state law. You'd know that if you had read either of the published decisions.

Actually the 14th says States cannot violate our Constitutional rights, including the bill of rights. So they actually can't deny innocent until proven guilty or due process.

What you have is a fail there Cowboy, MAGA!

 

[berg80]

Colorado and Maine are not permitted to invoke the 14th to block a candidate’s access to the ballot merely because a few of their state officials happen to really believe that he was involved in an alleged insurrection.

Wrong. State law in CO gives the courts the authority to rule on ballot qualification. In ME the SoS is compelled to rule once a challenged has been made and the process begins.

 

[BackAgain]

To be precise, in CO the courts ruled on ballot qualification which is covered by state law. You'd know that if you had read either of the published decisions.

To be honest and factual and accurate, they “ruled” based on the 14th Amendment over which they had and have no jurisdiction.

You’d know that if you had a working brain.

 

[kaz]

Wrong. State law in CO gives the courts the authority to rule on ballot qualification. In ME the SoS is compelled to rule once a challenged has been made and the process begins.

And according to the 14th, they still can't deny due process or innocent until proven guilty, MAGA man

 

[berg80]

Actually the 14th says States cannot violate our Constitutional rights, including the bill of rights. So they actually can't deny innocent until proven guilty or due process.

What you have is a fail there Cowboy, MAGA!

Please help me understand why you keep bringing this up since.........Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[kaz]

To be honest and factual and accurate, they “ruled” based on the 14th Amendment over which they had and have no jurisdiction.

You’d know that if you had a working brain.

berg80 used to have a working brain, but it kept telling him he was wrong and to be nicer and more logical, so he did what any Democrat would do, put it in the nearest trash can. He's so much more focused now that he isn't distracted with logic and facts and that sort of nonsense, what leftist needs a brain? None of them

 

[BackAgain]

Please help me understand why you keep bringing this up since.........Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

False. It might help you if you’d stop lying.

 

[Rawley]

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

Nope

 

[kaz]

Please help me understand why you keep bringing this up since.........Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

berg80 said: Kaz, shit man, stop saying Trump has Constitutional rights, he doesn't, shut the fuck up

 

[berg80]

To be honest and factual and accurate, they “ruled” based on the 14th Amendment over which they had and have no jurisdiction.

You’d know that if you had a working brain.

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

Keep trying.

 

[Rawley]

To be precise, in CO the courts ruled on ballot qualification which is covered by state law. You'd know that if you had read either of the published decisions.

They have an insurrection disqualification in their state laws? Really?