Let's make something clear.

[BackAgain]

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

No. The Federal government established the disqualification. Not any of the States.

So, of course, you remain flatly wrong.

 

[konradv]

No. The Federal government established the disqualification. Not any of the States.

So, of course, you remain flatly wrong.

They established it, but show me where it says the feds have sole jurisdiction.

 

[BackAgain]

They established it, but show me where it says the feds have sole jurisdiction.

Well, section 5.

Also, the crime of “insurrection” is a federal crime. WHO else would you imagine has authority to adjudicate whether a person is guilty of a federal crime?

Would you be satisfied if Norway shared that opinion?

 

[imawhosure]

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.

And another KEYBOARD warrior, who has no legal background whatsoever, tells us what to/how to think/because he is a dembot. Do any of you believe this sh**!

We can come up with 25 scholars with real credentials that have opposing views, but this clown has cred because he is a dembot, lol.

Sorry Dembot, your cred is worthless!

 

[Foolardi]

Wrong. Because they don’t have jurisdiction to PROSECUTE

Neither DO-DO Democrats and that is why they chose a
failed Hague prosecutor like Jack{off} Smith to pick
a place like Southern Florida or Manhattan to pester
the Hell out of Trump and his brood { extended Family }.
No sane american worth their salt can overlook that
imminent fact.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

SeaMajor7 will shit when he watches what VP Harris does on the day next year in January when she opens the electoral ballots.

 

[Lesh]

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

Next?

The Founding Fathers?

They were long dead when the 14th passed

Go sit in the corner

 

[SeaMajor7]

SeaMajor7 will shit when he watches what VP Harris does on the day next year in January when she opens the electoral ballots.

You're not gonna have enough leaves to wipe your bottom when Trump gets back in town!
Edited to add:

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump will be allowed to do the sites, nothing more. Harris has it in for him. Complete immunity you know.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Funny.

 

[koshergrl]

Let's make something else clear: there was no "insurrection".

The Democrats had multiple insurrections. Protesting a stolen election isn't insurrection.

 

[konradv]

Well, section 5.

Also, the crime of “insurrection” is a federal crime. WHO else would you imagine has authority to adjudicate whether a person is guilty of a federal crime?

Would you be satisfied if Norway shared that opinion?

What’s happening in Maine isn’t a criminal trial; it’s a civil action, a state official performing their duty. The Feds may have an interest in the general, but primaries are a totally state thing.

 

[BackAgain]

What’s happening in Maine isn’t a criminal trial; it’s a civil action, a state official performing their duty. The Feds may have an interest in the general, but primaries are a totally state thing.

Wrong.

What happened in Maine was one state official unilaterally acting based on the absurd court ruling out of Colorado. That in turn was predicated on a lawless behavior of a lower court judge and a majority of that State’s Supreme Court jurists.

And primaries concerning federal elected offices are absolutely not “totally a state thing.”

Your fake analysis has no nexus with reality.

 

[Marchimedes]

Let's make something clear.​

Please to excuse me, berg80 for making a point unrelated to this thread and using your thread to make said point. A donation to the "Human Fund" charity has been made in your name.

While ago I started a post 'upstairs' in this sub-forum 'politics' titled "There's a crew of clever Fascists trying to derail our site." I did my usual convoluted, bizarre OP, my second post was linking to 4-5 of my posts at different threads where I say I crushed it, all of different political issues to establish my bona fides. Then I went nuts with this kinda $h!t...

and then post after post of exactly that kinda stuff. I have game. I don't care who you are that stuff makes a killer political point at a glance and it's funny. Just one of the things I bring. Views abounded and hours into that thread that thread was summarily moved to The Rubber Room...

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/theres-a-crew-of-clever-fascists-trying-to-derail-our-site.1076984/

Where I let it die. Rubber Room, I'm nuts, so clever that.

So I PM'ed a guy asking him who was a cool mod, got a name, PM'ed that one and got the answer for my demise being 'can't call names in a thread title' so I came back with a bunch of thread titles calling names, like "Fascists" is calling names so said mod CC'd 'She Who Sits On High' S.W.S.O.H. aka Coyote and got the answer that thread titles need have a political bent in said thread title. I took that one on the chin cause I see where this is going. Lose the battle, win the war. I stood to for a while and clocked stuff. Thing is "Fascists" is most definitely a political bent. So back to you, berg80, not trying to out you, I have not registered a complaint, never would cause I don't su(k but how is "Let's make something clear" a political title? I'm just pointing out an inconsistency. We all know exactly what's going on here. I dominate politics in a way this site has never seen before, or, for me, a Tuesday. Here's some of your options, Coyote...

1. Pretend I don't exist cause everyone will buy that.
The Deuce. Summarily ban me and delete everything I've posted then...

I'm gone poof like and no one shall remember you couldn't handle me.

Craps. You are admin, leader of this site. I say you should be able to take on all comers and set the example. I'm a comer. Get busy!
IV. Put my thread "There's a crew of clever Fascists trying to derail this site." back into the 'politics' sub-forum, maybe take away all my posts after you put me down there in 'The Rubber Room' and let me break some site records.
Fin. Kiss my azz.

-

I'm used to this. If I go poof I'll go on to the next site only every thing I've done here is added to my bank of images and what not so the next site shall suffer more. I'm the greatest conservative interweb political forum debater there's ever been.

Banning me without cause admits defeat.

-

An excerpt from my tonight's post in my horse thread in The Flame Zone...

By 1850 cotton was King. Gold on a stalk. While the north was investing in infrastructure, railroads, factories, industrialization, training it's workers that if a gear moves one way another gear shall move in a different direction among other things such as water is wet and fire is hot the south was busy investing in it's one and only cash making venture. Slaves. More slaves, more cotton. More cotton more cash. So when Abraham Lincoln was elected President the Republican party back then was kinda known as the anti-slavery party and the south saw the writing on the wall. The south was afeared that the north would put a hurt on it's Golden Goose and wala, succeed from the union. It's just that fu(kin simple.

That's a Tuesday for me. I've a list of $h!t for Wednesday. Might get to it, might not but that's me day in and day out. Deal with that you fu(ks.

 

[konradv]

Wrong.

What happened in Maine was one state official unilaterally acting based on the absurd court ruling out of Colorado. That in turn was predicated on a lawless behavior of a lower court judge and a majority of that State’s Supreme Court jurists.

And primaries concerning federal elected offices are absolutely not “totally a state thing.”

Your fake analysis has no nexus with reality.

Lawless!!!

 

[Dragonlady]

Goody, wait til you hear what the Red States remove Biden from the ballot for.

Your rules.

Your game.

You will hate it.

It's the Constitution, stupid!. It's not a game. Also, it's not the Democrats that are asking for Trump to be removed from the ballot. This is a Republican Party operation entirely.

Colorado voters seeking to keep Trump off ballot urge Supreme Court to decide his eligibility for office

Lawyers for the four Republican and two unaffiliated voters who are seeking to keep former President Donald Trump off the GOP primary ballot urged the Supreme Court to take quick action.

www.cbsnews.com

Attempt to bar Trump from 2024 ballot gains steam despite 'dubious' and 'dangerous' legal arguments: experts

Legal experts told Fox News Digital that the theory the 14th Amendment could bar former President Trump from the ballot is "not simply dubious but dangerous."

www.foxnews.com

Trump knew what he was doing was wrong, illegal, and would get him thrown in jail if it failed. Sucks to be him.

Sucks to be you too. Anyone still enthralled with this lying criminal, is to gullible and stupid to be one person.

 

[Dragonlady]

It was done to piss us off.

Well its working.

No it wasn't. It was done to get Trump off the ballot and it's going to work.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/——/ The desperation of the Left is seeping out of their skin like a tropical infection. They need to keep Trump off the ballot by any means necessary.

 

[Cellblock2429]

It's the Constitution, stupid!. It's not a game. Also, it's not the Democrats that are asking for Trump to be removed from the ballot. This is a Republican Party operation entirely.

Colorado voters seeking to keep Trump off ballot urge Supreme Court to decide his eligibility for office

Lawyers for the four Republican and two unaffiliated voters who are seeking to keep former President Donald Trump off the GOP primary ballot urged the Supreme Court to take quick action.

www.cbsnews.com

Attempt to bar Trump from 2024 ballot gains steam despite 'dubious' and 'dangerous' legal arguments: experts

Legal experts told Fox News Digital that the theory the 14th Amendment could bar former President Trump from the ballot is "not simply dubious but dangerous."

www.foxnews.com

Trump knew what he was doing was wrong, illegal, and would get him thrown in jail if it failed. Sucks to be him.

Sucks to be you too. Anyone still enthralled with this lying criminal, is to gullible and stupid to be one person.

/——/ Put up a candidate who can beat Trump and your problems are solved. You’re hysterical because you know Dementia Joe can hardly function and couldn’t withstand a hard campaign.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/——/ Let’s make something clear. Your only way of winning is to eliminate the front runner from the race You can’t field a viable candidate if your life depended on it.
Let’s be clear, it sucks to be you.