Now Missouri

[WorldWatcher]

However I believe SCOTUS has instituted a framework in previous cases, that the 14th requires enabling legislation, but I could be in error.

In Pubic Law 117-32 the Congress declared that the J6 mob was an insurrection, that bill was passed by both chambers and signed by the President.

WW

 

[Zincwarrior]

Uh huh. A loophole that no VP had ever found to exist before the 2020 fraud Benedict Donald tried to pull off. Over 200 years where no VP tried to unilaterally throw out votes based on the unfounded allegations of the losing candidate. "Shall Count.." is not ambiguous.

Note I believe follow on legislation has ended the concern already.

 

[Zincwarrior]

In Pubic Law 117-32 the Congress declared that the J6 mob was an insurrection, that bill was passed by both chambers and signed by the President.

WW

I assume Public Law. I was not aware of that. Thank you. That could be an excellent argument to make by COlorado.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Here you go, and welcome to America! The Constitution is clear. To your first question, it's irrelevant. The question is if Trump has been CONVICTED of treason, and the answer it no. That also answers your second question.

The 14th does not require a "coviction" it requres a finding of "engaged in". Conviction is a criminal standard, "engaged in" would be a civil standard.

It's called the Constitution and guarantees ALL Americans (even Trump) of innocence until proven guilty and due process.

Where are you from they don't have those? Russia? China? North Korea?

See Post #313.

WW

 

[kaz]

In Pubic Law 117-32 the Congress declared that the J6 mob was an insurrection, that bill was passed by both chambers and signed by the President.

WW

So now Congress can pass laws that ignore our Constitutional rights? Actually it can't, but Welcome To America! You're going to learn to love our Constitution when you realize what Democrats of the 1960s did, government isn't the solution, it's the threat

 

[postman]

Agreed in part, disagree in part.

I fully expect the SCOTUS to punt on the two core questions:

• Did FPOTUS#45 engage in insurrection under the 14th Amendment, and
• Is the President and Officer under the 14th's provision of "any office, civil or military, under the United States"

Personally I believe they will punt the decision and try to rule that the case is not "ripe" because it's a primary for a political party and that to be "ripe" the case must involve the General Election. Hoping that FPOTUS#45 isn't the GOP nominee for the General rendering the case moot.

WW

I have no idea why they would say the president isn't an officer, I presume it's because he's elected instead of appointed under the appointments clause

...shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

But the 14th also covers the states, where a great many of their officers and judges are elected, and not appointed.

 

[mamooth]

Here you go, and welcome to America!

See? Here's another thug pretending that not being allowed to run for president is the same thing as a criminal conviction.

At least the authoritarian thugs here are consistent in how they lie to justify violence and tyranny. Clearly, they're all reading from the same script. Their commie masteers have trained them well.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

This Trump cultist is actually claiming that not being allowed to run for president is the same as being criminally convicted and sent to prison.


Even by Trump cult standards, you're stupid. And you use your stupidity as justification to be violent, something that authoritarian thugs have done throughout history.

No, you're wrong, as usual. Same as you were when you accused others of being anti-vaxxers even though they had taken all known conventional vaxxes. The only echo chamber is your own libs who subjectively accuse other of being insurrectionists. That pendulum will swing back.

 

[postman]

However I believe SCOTUS has instituted a framework in previous cases, that the 14th requires enabling legislation, but I could be in error.

Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Congress can write additional laws to aid in the enforcement. But it's not required. Enforcement can begin on day one.

 

[kaz]

I have no idea why they would say the president isn't an officer

That's why they settled it in the trial when Trump was convicted. Oh wait, he wasn't convicted, and he wasn't tried. Is the light bulb starting to go off over our Constitutional rights? It's not, is it? Be honest.

These are all valid points to make in a theoretical discussion of the issues, but reality is clear, Trump is presumed innocent and hasn't been proven guilty in a COURT OF LAW, something you Democrats keep claiming, when it helps you.

Standards, yours are all double

 

[mamooth]

No, you're wrong, as usual.

Stunning comeback! You really showed me! I guess not being allowed to run for president really is the same as a criminal conviction! You've convinced everyone!

Same as you were when you accused others of being anti-vaxxers even though they had taken all known conventional vaxxes. The only echo chamber is your own libs who subjectively accuse other of being insurrectionists. That pendulum will swing back.

Deflect! Deflect more! Deflect harder! What else can you do?

 

[kaz]

No, you're wrong, as usual. Same as you were when you accused others of being anti-vaxxers even though they had taken all known conventional vaxxes. The only echo chamber is your own libs who subjectively accuse other of being insurrectionists. That pendulum will swing back.

If Trump is so clearly guilty, why are Democrats so against taking it to court and proving it? Because they made up their standard, which is proven by that they demand Biden NOT be held to it

 

[kaz]

See? Here's another thug pretending that not being allowed to run for president is the same thing as a criminal conviction.

At least the authoritarian thugs here are consistent in how they lie to justify violence and tyranny. Clearly, they're all reading from the same script. Their commie masteers have trained them well.

Yes, thugs always demand that people accused of crimes get a fair trial.

Bad kaz, bad!

I do like chicks with dicks though, have you figured out what yours if for, magot?

 

[postman]

That's why they settled it in the trial when Trump was convicted. Oh wait, he wasn't convicted, and he wasn't tried. Is the light bulb starting to go off over our Constitutional rights? It's not, is it? Be honest.

Trials are not necessary to get "due process". As in this case, it will pass through many courts, high and low, ending up in the USSC. Hence why due process can be served both before or after an action is taken.
Only in cases where an action can't be "reversed" is due process to be completed before carrying out the decision.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Appears oral hearings Feb 8. I would hope we get a ruling with dispatch.

 

[jc456]

"...except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.[6]

was trump part of the thirty sixth or thirty seventh congress? ahahahahahaahahahahaaha, you give me the accurate statement and have no fking clue what it means? wow, you are one obtuse dumbass.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have no idea why they would say the president isn't an officer, I presume it's because he's elected instead of appointed under the appointments clause

It's the legal equivalent of throwing spaghetti against the wall and hoping that something sticks.

Remember when the manta was "Trump can't be charged, it's double jeopardy since he was already tried by Congress during impeachmnet".

Of course ignoring the whole impeachment clause that says: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

WW

 

[postman]

If Trump is so clearly guilty, why are Democrats so against taking it to court and proving it?

WTF?????????

4 indictments, 91 felony counts.
They're trying to get Trump into court ASAP.

It's Trump who is stalling, and trying to keep the courts from settling the issue.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Trials are not necessary to get "due process". As in this case, it will pass through many courts, high and low, ending up in the USSC. Hence why due process can be served both before or after an action is taken.
Only in cases where an action can't be "reversed" is due process to be completed before carrying out the decision.

Just to nit-pick.

FPOTUS#45 did receive a trail in Colorado, there was a 5-day trial.

In Maine, the SOC stayed her decision pending appeal to the courts, that appeal has been filed and the process will continue to trial in the Maine courts.

WW

 

[mamooth]

Yes, thugs always demand that people accused of crimes get a fair trial.

So when this dumbass is caught behaving badly, he just doubles down on the BigLie.

That's right. He's still actually claiming that not being allowed to run for president is a criminal prosecution.