Let's make something clear.

[Crepitus]

Your funny. Where have I ever hid that I dont like them or you.

Your side dont like us and we dont like you or them.

Exactly where havent you known that buttercup

A. I believe you completely missed his point.

B. "you're" not "your".

C. How to Use Apostrophes: Rules and Examples

 

[Hollie]

You really should read the text of her ruling. You might learn something.

Actually, I would suggest you read the ruling. You might learn something.

You might learn the "ruling" is on hold subject to intervention by the USSC.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The mere fact it is going to SCTOUS means that there is due process.

It’s actually Constitutional interpretation rather than due process; again, Trump isn’t be charged with a crime, his life, liberty or property are not in jeopardy – this would be in the category of Bush v. Gore and Nixon v. US.

The Court will likely side-step the issue concerning what does or doesn’t constitute insurrection and focus instead on whether the presidency falls under the disqualification provision.

“There is an argument that because the President is not covered explicitly by the provision, the presidency itself is exempt from the disqualification.” ibid

And given the ideological makeup of the Court, it will no doubt rule that the presidency is not subject to Section 3 disqualification, placing Trump on each states’ ballot.

 

[berg80]

Actually, I would suggest you read the ruling. You might learn something.

You might learn the "ruling" is on hold subject to intervention by the USSC.

I was referring to learning something about the rationale she used to form her opinion. You know, the evidence you folks don't want to talk about.

 

[Hollie]

That's too bad about your hurt feelings. As you grow up, it's hoped you will learn to accept that the world doesn't revolve around your delicate sensibilities.

 

[MisterBeale]

You're leaving out an essential element of the insurrection. The multifaceted plan Team Trump designed to stop Biden's certification which included the introduction of fake electors. The 1/6 riot was a last resort.

This is the part of the narrative that you mass media gobblers haven't thought through, which bugs the hell out of me.


Essential? Essential my ass!

In order to effectuate that part of the plan, doesn't the Congress need to be in session? So how are these two parts even connected? The fake electors, and the riot?

 

[Captain Caveman]

Gosh, another adoring fan of Dear Leader who checked his use of critical thinking at the door years ago.

I'm British, and as I read through American forums, I get bogged down with fanny threads about Trump, from fannie's.


So Trump is no leader of mine, sorry to piss on your parade. I just wish you can all be mature, but the Democrats fuck up that Utopian idea.

 

[Hollie]

I was referring to learning something about the rationale she used to form her opinion. You know, the evidence you folks don't want to talk about.

What evidence would that be?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh God, yet another TDS pissing in pants thread.

You vote Biden but talk about Trump all the time?? Go figure.

Another willfully ignorant rightist who didn’t bother to read the OP.

The thread debunks the lie conservatives have advanced that some sort of criminal conviction is required to disqualify someone pursuant to Section 3.

 

[MisterBeale]

A lot of them don't know about that.

Everyone knows this.

Most intelligent folks have figured out by now, the riot and the elector scheme, together, don't make a lick of sense.


You, and the establishment, are grasping for anything.

Like they always have been.

 

[berg80]

It’s actually Constitutional interpretation rather than due process; again, Trump isn’t be charged with a crime, his life, liberty or property are not in jeopardy – this would be in the category of Bush v. Gore and Nixon v. US.

The Court will likely side-step the issue concerning what does or doesn’t constitute insurrection and focus instead on whether the presidency falls under the disqualification provision.

“There is an argument that because the President is not covered explicitly by the provision, the presidency itself is exempt from the disqualification.” ibid

And given the ideological makeup of the Court, it will no doubt rule that the presidency is not subject to Section 3 disqualification, placing Trump on each states’ ballot.

Any ambiguity on the matter will no doubt be seized on by the Court's conservative majority to allow Trump to be on the ballot.

To Whom Does Section 3 Apply?

According to the text of Section 3, the bar against office-holding applies to Members of Congress, officers of the United States, members of state legislatures, and state executive or judicial officers, who previously swore an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and later break that oath by committing the acts mentioned. The offices to which such persons are then barred include seats in Congress, membership in the Electoral College, and any civil or military office under the United States or any state. Although not expressly referenced, the bar appears historically to have applied to judgeships. There is an argument that because the President is not covered explicitly by the provision, the presidency itself is exempt from the disqualification. In contrast, the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution explicitly applies to the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,” which suggests that the President might not be a “civil Officer of the United States” whose oath of office would subject him to possible disqualification. However, it may be more likely that the office of the President is included as an office under the United States (unlike Members of Congress and electors, which may be why they are expressly included), so that any person subject to the disqualification is ineligible to serve as President. One scholar notes that the drafting history of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that the office of the President is covered:

During the debate on Section Three, one Senator asked why ex-Confederates “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you all 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.” Another Senator replied that the lack of specific language on the Presidency and Vice Presidency was irrelevant: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

 

[Captain Caveman]

Another willfully ignorant rightist who didn’t bother to read the OP.

The thread debunks the lie conservatives have advanced that some sort of criminal conviction is required to disqualify someone pursuant to Section 3.

It's a TDS piss pants thread. Look at the other 3 billion.

You voted Biden, so talk about Biden. But you know fine well he's a shit show and an embarrassment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gosh, another adoring fan of Dear Leader who checked his use of critical thinking at the door years ago.

The MAGA malignancy spread to the UK.

 

[Crepitus]

Wait, what? Do you mean a SOS can't unilaterally decide that?

He does have to have actually done something, you realize?

 

[Kondor3]

Bullshit

No... it's quite true... an Inconvenient Truth, if you're a fan of the Orange Baboon-God.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Any ambiguity on the matter will no doubt be seized on by the Court's conservative majority to allow Trump to be on the ballot.

To Whom Does Section 3 Apply?

According to the text of Section 3, the bar against office-holding applies to Members of Congress, officers of the United States, members of state legislatures, and state executive or judicial officers, who previously swore an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and later break that oath by committing the acts mentioned. The offices to which such persons are then barred include seats in Congress, membership in the Electoral College, and any civil or military office under the United States or any state. Although not expressly referenced, the bar appears historically to have applied to judgeships. There is an argument that because the President is not covered explicitly by the provision, the presidency itself is exempt from the disqualification. In contrast, the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution explicitly applies to the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,” which suggests that the President might not be a “civil Officer of the United States” whose oath of office would subject him to possible disqualification. However, it may be more likely that the office of the President is included as an office under the United States (unlike Members of Congress and electors, which may be why they are expressly included), so that any person subject to the disqualification is ineligible to serve as President. One scholar notes that the drafting history of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that the office of the President is covered:

During the debate on Section Three, one Senator asked why ex-Confederates “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you all 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.” Another Senator replied that the lack of specific language on the Presidency and Vice Presidency was irrelevant: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

True – a conservative majority that will once again ignore precedent.

 

[Blaster]

No... it's quite true... an Inconvenient Truth, if you're a fan of the Orange Baboon-God.

Nonsense.

 

[berg80]

That's too bad about your hurt feelings. As you grow up, it's hoped you will learn to accept that the world doesn't revolve around your delicate sensibilities.

As you know, this matter involves evidence of Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election, not feelings.

 

[Hollie]

Another willfully ignorant rightist who didn’t bother to read the OP.

The thread debunks the lie conservatives have advanced that some sort of criminal conviction is required to disqualify someone pursuant to Section 3.

The typically ignorant rant from the hyper-Dem/Socialist.

The fact that 'rulings' from leftist SOS cranks are on hold until review by the USSC should be enough to tell any thinking human that mere 'rulings' do not decide constitutional matters,

 

[berg80]

True – a conservative majority that will once again ignore precedent.

Ignoring precedent is a feature of the Roberts court.