Let's make something clear.

[AntonToo]

Due process and presumed to be innocent are job qualifications? What drugs are you on? Seriously, what? It's magic mushrooms, isn't it? Tell the truth, Dorothy

....no silly, due process and presumption of innocence apply in criminal law, not qualifications for a job.

Read better.

 

[kaz]

....no silly, due process and presumption of innocence apply in criminal law, not qualifications for a job.

Read better.

You are an idiot and just babbling

 

[berg80]

Nah.

I’m entirely correct and your references to some other posts doesn’t change that fact.

You just cite to nonsense you happen to want to believe. You don’t give a damn about the actual legal analysis or logic. Or facts.

Guys like you don’t even stop to consider the kind of precedent your notions would establish. Your simply regret it all once those consequences land at the feet of your liberal Democrap buddies.

I have no problem with Dem candidates being subjected to the same evidentiary standards and procedures that Trump has been afforded in the attempt to enforce a constitutional provision for ballot disqualification.

But at this point a caveat is called for.

Despite the superiority of the legal arguments made by Luttig, Tribe, Baude, Paulsen, and others in favor of disqualification, despite the author's clear intent (not to mention logic) in writing Sec 3 of the 14th A that prez's and VP's were included as "an officer of the US," despite the historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, despite the legal standing of the plaintiffs, despite all of it let's face it, the Roberts Court has a track record of ignoring precedent, black letter law, the Constitution, reason, and shown a willingness to turn a blind eye to originalism when it suits it. So if I were the Orange Insurrectionist I'd be feeling pretty good about my chances of being the first candidate to orchestrate a failed coup and appear on the ballot for prez.

 

[berg80]

Bug keeps repeating that silly claim.

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.

 

[OKTexas]

Yes, of course, thank you for letting us be aware that you know that.

And I repeat that "
Nope, the odds on are 6-3 or 5-4, either way, right now, if SCOTUS takes the case, which it may not. We can figure better after the appellate ruling.

If it is upheld on appeal, SCOTUS, I believe, will not hear the subsequent MAGA appeal."

And you are probably wrong. Carry on.

.

 

[BackAgain]

I have no problem with Dem candidates being subjected to the same evidentiary standards and procedures that Trump has been afforded in the attempt to enforce a constitutional provision for ballot disqualification.

But at this point a caveat is called for.

Despite the superiority of the legal arguments made by Luttig, Tribe, Baude, Paulsen, and others in favor of disqualification, despite the author's clear intent (not to mention logic) in writing Sec 3 of the 14th A that prez's and VP were included as "an officer of the US," despite the historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, despite the legal standing of the plaintiffs, despite all of it let's face it, the Roberts Court has a track record of ignoring precedent, black letter law, the Constitution, reason, and shown a willingness to turn a blind eye to originalism when it suits it. So if I were the Orange Insurrectionist I'd be feeling pretty good about my chances of being the first candidate to orchestrate a failed coup and appear on the ballot for prez.

Zzzzz

The actual logic is against the commentators you cite for your petty biased reasons.

The historical precedent you speak of is practically non existent. The CRS can be a useful source, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t dealing with a biased analysis.

The better argument is that anyone accused of such a crime is entitled to due process; and this is especially true where (as here) it implicates some of the candidate’s liberty interests.

Trump has not gotten a speck of due process.

While it is true (as I have acknowledged before) that I can’t predict with any degree of certainty how the SCOTUS will ultimately rule on this dispute, it is also true that the most reasonable approach is for SCOTUS to acknowledge that the 14th cannot be used to remove a candidate from a state ballot absent a criminal conviction for one of the enumerated “disqualifiers.”

You disagree. That’s fine. I’m obviously not persuaded by your “arguments.” You’re not obliged to be persuaded by mine. Fair enough.

So, we shall see how the SCOTUS decides.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

Yeah yeah.

What was it? Like six cases? Most of those being civil war ex-confederate soldiers or officials of the Confederacy?

That leaves maybe one or two lower court decisions. This is why a good review, now, by SCOTUS is so important. Those silly prior precedents should get overruled.

 

[Nostra]

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.

What does Secrion 5 say, Simp?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

And you keep ignoring the fact that they couldn't be charged because of Lincoln's blanket amnesty.

.

 

[berg80]

Trump has not gotten a speck of due process.

Trump has received a fair hearing which is all that's required for the civil action of ballot disqualification. Repeating your mistakes isn’t persuasive.

 

[berg80]

Another good read.

Barr’s First Amendment point deserves to be taken seriously. No politician should be disqualified from seeking any office because of any speech that genuinely is protected by the First Amendment. But I wonder whether Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol attack is fully clothed with First Amendment protection. It’s not just his specific speech on January 6 itself, or his infamous “will be wild” tweet, for which Trump would be prosecuted (assuming special prosecution is planning to move forward, as Barr himself believes). Rather, as brought out by the House January 6 Committee, it is the entirety of Trump’s conduct with respect to the attack on the Capitol—including his failure to exercise the authority of his office—which would qualify as “giv[ing] aid or comfort” to the January 6 insurrectionists for purposes of both the criminal statute and section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Normally, an individual is not punished for failure to act. But Trump had a constitutional duty as president to exercise the authority of his office to suppress the insurrection at the Capitol. His purposeful failure to do so, especially after engaging in conduct that (whether intended or not) precipitated the insurrection, makes him responsible as a participant—and in a way that has no First Amendment defense.

John C. Breckinridge and ... Donald J. Trump #ELB

John C. Breckinridge was Vice President of the United States in 1860, when he ran for the presidency as the nominee of Southern Democrats, who had split from the northern wing of the party (which nominated Stephen Douglas). Lincoln of … Continue reading John C. Breckinridge and … Donald J. Trump →

electionlawblog.org

 

[kaz]

I have no problem with Dem candidates being subjected to the same evidentiary standards and procedures that Trump has been afforded in the attempt to enforce a constitutional provision for ballot disqualification.

But at this point a caveat is called for.

Despite the superiority of the legal arguments made by Luttig, Tribe, Baude, Paulsen, and others in favor of disqualification, despite the author's clear intent (not to mention logic) in writing Sec 3 of the 14th A that prez's and VP's were included as "an officer of the US," despite the historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, despite the legal standing of the plaintiffs, despite all of it let's face it, the Roberts Court has a track record of ignoring precedent, black letter law, the Constitution, reason, and shown a willingness to turn a blind eye to originalism when it suits it. So if I were the Orange Insurrectionist I'd be feeling pretty good about my chances of being the first candidate to orchestrate a failed coup and appear on the ballot for prez.

Here's the trick. You actually have to HAVE consistent standards, not just say you have consistent standards. Bitch, huh, MAGA man?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You are an idiot and just babbling

That is an ad hom attack because you can refute his point.

Yes, read better.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

And you are probably wrong. Carry on.

Possibly but probably not.

 

[SeaMajor7]

I can't wait to SHIT on Stalinberg80's head when the SCOTUS shuts down this crap!
You demented Marxist assholes are DANGEROUS!
But remember, every retarded Marxist communist revolution that happened in the 20th century needed MASS MURDER to come to be; before ultimately FAILING, of course.

When this pathetic lawfare fails you subverted IDIOTS, what's next.....?

 

[berg80]

Yeah yeah.

What was it? Like six cases? Most of those being civil war ex-confederate soldiers or officials of the Confederacy?

That leaves maybe one or two lower court decisions. This is why a good review, now, by SCOTUS is so important. Those silly prior precedents should get overruled.

Denver District Judge Sarah B. Wallace previously cited the timeline of Trump’s actions and his history of promoting political violence in finding that Trump “acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification.”

But she also ruled that Section 3 wasn’t meant to pertain to presidents.

The state Supreme Court stated that she erred on that latter count. It took issue with Wallace’s rationale that earlier drafts of the 14th Amendment explicitly mentioned the presidency and the idea that it was specifically excluded.

The court cited a drafter of the amendment, then-Rep. Samuel McKee (Ky.), who at one point described the aim as barring traitors “from all political power in the nation.”

“While nothing in Representative McKee’s speeches mentions why his express reference to the Presidency was removed,” the court ruled, “his public pronouncements leave no doubt that his subsequent draft proposal still sought to ensure that rebels had absolutely no access to political power.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...mail&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_daily202

 

[BackAgain]

Trump has received a fair hearing which is all that's required for the civil action of ballot disqualification.

It wasn’t fair. And more is required. Much more.

Repeating your mistakes isn’t persuasive.

I keep telling you that — but you don’t seem able to understand this fact.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Denver District Judge Sarah B. Wallace previously cited the timeline of Trump’s actions and his history of promoting political violence in finding that Trump “acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification.”

But she also ruled that Section 3 wasn’t meant to pertain to presidents.

The state Supreme Court stated that she erred on that latter count. It took issue with Wallace’s rationale that earlier drafts of the 14th Amendment explicitly mentioned the presidency and the idea that it was specifically excluded.

The court cited a drafter of the amendment, then-Rep. Samuel McKee (Ky.), who at one point described the aim as barring traitors “from all political power in the nation.”

“While nothing in Representative McKee’s speeches mentions why his express reference to the Presidency was removed,” the court ruled, “his public pronouncements leave no doubt that his subsequent draft proposal still sought to ensure that rebels had absolutely no access to political power.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...mail&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_daily202

MAGA is coming for YOU!!!
We're going to VOTE you VERMIN OUT!!!

Oh wait....

"I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how."
said in 1923; Boris Bazhanov The Memoirs of Stalin's Former Secretary (1992); see Stoppard

One way or another, this darkness got to give.....

 

[konradv]

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.

Of course they have the right. States set the rules for elections in their jurisdiction, not the feds.

 

[BackAgain]

Denver District Judge Sarah B. Wallace previously cited the timeline of Trump’s actions and his history of promoting political violence in finding that Trump “acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification.”

But she also ruled that Section 3 wasn’t meant to pertain to presidents.

The state Supreme Court stated that she erred on that latter count. It took issue with Wallace’s rationale that earlier drafts of the 14th Amendment explicitly mentioned the presidency and the idea that it was specifically excluded.

The court cited a drafter of the amendment, then-Rep. Samuel McKee (Ky.), who at one point described the aim as barring traitors “from all political power in the nation.”

“While nothing in Representative McKee’s speeches mentions why his express reference to the Presidency was removed,” the court ruled, “his public pronouncements leave no doubt that his subsequent draft proposal still sought to ensure that rebels had absolutely no access to political power.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...mail&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_daily202

Yeah. She s wrong. But she was also talking out of her ass. It wasn’t a justiciable issue for a mere state court judge — especially in a civil case — and particularly at a mere hearing.