Now Missouri

[WorldWatcher]

While I agree, SCOTUS will find a way to keep FPOTUS#45 on the ballot, I think they will punt the question as both Colorado and Maine are taking FPOTUS#45 off the primary ballot which is actually a party function. I think they will punt and let him remain on the primary ballot and will state that the case can reexamined as function of the federal general election ballot if FPOTUS#45 becomes the nominee.
.
.
.
.
With that said though you are incorrect about States being able to prohibit a felon from being on the ballot for Representative, Senator, or President. There is no Constitutional limitation on holding federal office if you are a felon and states can't add that as an eligibility criteria.

There are 6 requirements in the Constitution to be able to hold the Office of President:

• Age 35+
• Resident of the United States 14+ years
• A natural born citizen
• Not have engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or provided aid or comfort to those that did, and
• Not have been impeached and convicted by the US Congress with a determination removing the agility to hold government office

WW

Some people seem to believe listing the Constitutional eligibility requirements are "Fake News".

The questions before the SCOUTS are:

• Is the holder of the Office of the President included under A14S3, if they go back to the debates for passage of the 14th that specific question was asked and the response was yes.
• The second question will be who gets to make the call. Congress only under A14S5 or States under their enumerated powers over federal election.

However here the Constitution limitations are provided, they must feel the Constitution then is fake.

The United States Constitution – The U.S. Constitution Online – USConstitution.net - U.S. Constitution.net

The United States Constitution Today’s special event: March 16, 1751, is President James Madison‘s birthday. The Constitution is presented in several ways on this site. This page presents the Constitution on one large HTML-enhanced page. Other pages present the Constitution as a series of...

usconstitution.net

WW

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

By aiding and abetting the invasion at the Southern Border, Biden is guilty of sedition and treason

.

Necktie Party.

.

 

[kyzr]

Some people seem to believe listing the Constitutional eligibility requirements are "Fake News".

The questions before the SCOTUS are:

• Is the holder of the Office of the President included under A14S3, if they go back to the debates for passage of the 14th that specific question was asked and the response was yes.
• The second question will be who gets to make the call. Congress only under A14S5 or States under their enumerated powers over federal election.

However here the Constitution limitations are provided, they must feel the Constitution then is fake.

View attachment 884668

View attachment 884667

View attachment 884666
WW

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

1. Trump was Impeached, but he was not removed from office, so that point is moot.

2. No one was charged with or convicted of insurrection, period. So that point is moot.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

2. No one was charged with or convicted of insurrection, period. So that point is moot.

Perhaps I am wrong, but it is my understanding that when this part of the Constitution was used in the past to bar people from office most, if not all, were not convicted of insurrection

 

[kyzr]

Perhaps I am wrong, but it is my understanding that when this part of the Constitution was used in the past to bar people from office most, if not all, were not convicted of insurrection

I'm not a scholar either, but if you can believe what they say on TV, that section was intended for the hierarchy of the Confederacy, and even then many were elected to congress because that section is somewhat murky.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

1. Trump was Impeached, but he was not removed from office, so that point is moot.

My comments have nothing to do with FPOTUS#45's impeachment. They were pointing out portions of the Constitution that limit the ability to hold office.

2. No one was charged with or convicted of insurrection, period. So that point is moot.

My comments have nothing to do with "conviction" of insurrection. That is not the standard in A14S3, the standard is "engaged".

So no, that is not "moot" as that is one of the fundamental questions before the SCOTUS, that being "who gets to make the determination that someone engaged in insurrection? Congress only, or States under their federal election powers."

As I said, I think they will craft a ruling that will allow FPOTUS#45 to remain on the primary ballot and will kick the can down the road to see if he becomes the nominee for the general ballot.

WW

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I'm not a scholar either, but if you can believe what they say on TV, that section was intended for the hierarchy of the Confederacy, and even then many were elected to congress because that section is somewhat murky.

I have little doubt it was meant for the Confederacy, but it is still there so....

I am sure SCOTUS will not allow this to happen, but I am really looking forward to their reasoning. I think the safest way is to rule that only Congress can remove someone based on the 14th.

I personally think it is wrong to try and remove him or anyone minus a conviction, let the people decide.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Perhaps I am wrong, but it is my understanding that when this part of the Constitution was used in the past to bar people from office most, if not all, were not convicted of insurrection

I'm not a scholar either, but if you can believe what they say on TV, that section was intended for the hierarchy of the Confederacy, and even then many were elected to congress because that section is somewhat murky.

Correct in that Confederates were barred (and others have been since) without a criminal conviction (IIRC there were 8 post civil war applications of this).

On the second point, yes some Confederates were allowed to run for Congress and be seated, but only after the Amnesty Act of 1872 which passed by the 2/3rds majority requirement reinstated their eligibility.

WW

 

[eagle1462010]

We did...........And Trump and his cult did this............


View attachment 884658


Ashcroft is a moron, just like his daddy.

Only Burn Loot and Murder can raise hell. How dare anyone else protest and get roudy.

This is nothing compared to what the left have done.

Fuck your outrage

 

[kyzr]

My comments have nothing to do with FPOTUS#45's impeachment. They were pointing out portions of the Constitution that limit the ability to hold office.

My comments have nothing to do with "conviction" of insurrection. That is not the standard in A14S3, the standard is "engaged".
So no, that is not "moot" as that is one of the fundamental questions before the SCOTUS, that being "who gets to make the determination that someone engaged in insurrection? Congress only, or States under their federal election powers."
As I said, I think they will craft a ruling that will allow FPOTUS#45 to remain on the primary ballot and will kick the can down the road to see if he becomes the nominee for the general ballot.

WW

OK, so you're allowing anyone to say who "engaged" in an insurrection without "due process"?

The (3) CO dissenting justices in a 4-3 decision said that the Constitution always allows for "due process", so that insurrection point is actually moot.

 

[kyzr]

I have little doubt it was meant for the Confederacy, but it is still there so....

I am sure SCOTUS will not allow this to happen, but I am really looking forward to their reasoning. I think the safest way is to rule that only Congress can remove someone based on the 14th.

I personally think it is wrong to try and remove him or anyone minus a conviction, let the people decide.

Exactly.
I was hoping that the appeals court's decision would be available before the USSC gets to hear the case, but I don't think that will happen.
The appeals court decision may have been fine without the USSC even ruling.
I know that the MSM and the democrats will be screaming "pack the court" if Trump is allowed on the ballots.

 

[candycorn]

While I agree, SCOTUS will find a way to keep FPOTUS#45 on the ballot, I think they will punt the question as both Colorado and Maine are taking FPOTUS#45 off the primary ballot which is actually a party function. I think they will punt and let him remain on the primary ballot and will state that the case can reexamined as function of the federal general election ballot if FPOTUS#45 becomes the nominee.
.
.
.
.
With that said though you are incorrect about States being able to prohibit a felon from being on the ballot for Representative, Senator, or President. There is no Constitutional limitation on holding federal office if you are a felon and states can't add that as an eligibility criteria.

There are 6 requirements in the Constitution to be able to hold the Office of President:

• Age 35+
• Resident of the United States 14+ years
• A natural born citizen
• Not have engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or provided aid or comfort to those that did, and
• Not have been impeached and convicted by the US Congress with a determination removing the agility to hold government office

WW

Well, whatever SCOTUS decides...lets all just live with it...can we please?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have little doubt it was meant for the Confederacy, but it is still there so....

I am sure SCOTUS will not allow this to happen, but I am really looking forward to their reasoning. I think the safest way is to rule that only Congress can remove someone based on the 14th.

I personally think it is wrong to try and remove him or anyone minus a conviction, let the people decide.

#1 Practically speaking I agree, let him be on the ballot. This has the possibility to blow up biggley for DEMs as it plays into the hands of FPOTUS#45 victimhood claims.

#2 Philosophically I have no problems with the concept of barring insurrectionists from holding any office.

#3 The people did decide, they even passed an amendment to the Constitution so they decided through (a) their elected members to Congress in drafting the amendment, and (b) again through the passage by the elected members of the States where 3/4's of the States approved the amendment.

WW

 

[postman]

By aiding and abetting the invasion at the Southern Border, Biden is guilty of sedition and treason

When Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. They should have tried him for treason.

Right?

 

[eagle1462010]

Correct in that Confederates were barred (and others have been since) without a criminal conviction (IIRC there were 8 post civil war applications of this).

On the second point, yes some Confederates were allowed to run for Congress and be seated, but only after the Amnesty Act of 1872 which passed by the 2/3rds majority requirement reinstated their eligibility.

WW

It was and still is a Civil War Amendment not intended for 150 years later. Also gave birthright citizenship for the Civil War also.

Only 12 cases of it in 150 years and now attempted abuse of it for TDS. Insurrection is a specific charge. The Bill of Rights requires Due Process. That hasnt happened. SCOTUS gonna throw this nonsense out.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

OK, so you're allowing anyone to say who "engaged" in an insurrection without "due process"?

The (3) CO dissenting justices in a 4-3 decision said that the Constitution always allows for "due process", so that insurrection point is actually moot.

Is this not due process playing out before our eyes?

There was a hearing with a judge in CO, for which lawyers from Trump and the side of the voters were a part of. This judge ruled Trump did engage in insurrection but was not covered by the 14th. Trump himself appealed this ruling and it went to the COSC, who then ruled he was covered by the 14th, and now it is going to SCOTUS.

Seems an awful lot like due process to me

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It was and still is a Civil War Amendment not intended for 150 years later.

Yet it is still there and cannot be ignored. Anti gun people say the 2nd was meant for back then and not now.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Bill of Rights requires Due Process.

There was a hearing with a judge in CO, for which lawyers from Trump and the side of the voters were a part of. This judge ruled Trump did engage in insurrection but was not covered by the 14th. Trump himself appealed this ruling and it went to the COSC, who then ruled he was covered by the 14th, and now it is going to SCOTUS.

Seems an awful lot like due process to me

 

[postman]

Exactly.
I was hoping that the appeals court's decision would be available before the USSC gets to hear the case, but I don't think that will happen.
The appeals court decision may have been fine without the USSC even ruling.
I know that the MSM and the democrats will be screaming "pack the court" if Trump is allowed on the ballots.

It depends on how the USSC comes to it's decision. After all, we've seen the court throw out previous legal principles to rule the way they did in Dobbs, and in 303 Creative.

 

[eagle1462010]

When Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. They should have tried him for treason.

Right?

He passed the I9 form which is required for employment. He never dreamed a network of fake names and stolen SSNs would come of it.

If we enforced the I9 across the board and forced to prove you are a citizen 10s of million illegals would lose jobs