Now Missouri

[SeaMajor7]

The Constitution forbids those that have engaged in insurrection from being president.

WW

There was no insurrection.

 

[postman]

The Constitution forbids him from being president.

That's not the question.

The question is WHO and HOW?
Who would have the legal authority in the state, and what due process would be required for that person to make a decision.?

I'm talking process, not statute.

 

[SeaMajor7]

That's not the question.

The question is WHO and HOW?
Who would have the legal authority in the state, and what due process would be required for that person to make a decision.?

I'm talking process, not statute.

The statute negates the need for a process.

 

[kyzr]

and 4 said there was....again the very definition of due process.

So if there was adequate due process, why is the USSC taking the case? They should have passed and let the CO ruling stand right?
What happened to the appeals court decision?

 

[eagle1462010]

I've posted before and nobody dared try to answer.

What if Arnold Schwarzenegger applied for the 2024 republican presidential primary. What "due process" would be needed to keep him off the ballot? Who would have the legal authority to deny him, or remove him from the ballot.

That is a different animal. It would be Natural born citizen which clearly isnt a criminal situation.

Due process there is prove natural born. Here is birth certificate.

Now being accused of a crime doesnt make it so. They are of accussing Trump of Insurrection. Yet he hasnt been charged by the law and given due process to face his accussers with a jury of his peers.

These States are violating the bill of rights

 

[postman]

He would have to be convicted of not being a natural born citizen in a criminal court before he could be kept off the ballot.

WW

Except not being a natural born citizen is NOT A CRIME. No criminal court conviction could ever happen.

So that would mean Schwarzenegger for president would fly.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So if there was adequate due process, why is the USSC taking the case? They should have passed and let the CO ruling stand right?
What happened to the appeals court decision?

The USSC taking up the case is part of the due process.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

there is no fucking way that the Founders thought that the president could revolt against his own government.

another thing they got wrong.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Except not being a natural born citizen is NOT A CRIME. No criminal court conviction could ever happen.

So that would mean Schwarzenegger for president would fly.

Nope. He's not eligible to hold the office of the president.

 

[eagle1462010]

Except not being a natural born citizen is NOT A CRIME. No criminal court conviction could ever happen.

So that would mean Schwarzenegger for president would fly.

You twisting the issue with lawyer speak. He can either prove native born or not. Not a hard issue.

Crime. Ok show me a conviction of Sedition.

 

[postman]

That is a different animal. It would be Natural born citizen which clearly isnt a criminal situation.

Due process there is prove natural born. Here is birth certificate.

They didn't do that for Barack Obama. He didn't have to show his birth certificate.

 

[kyzr]

another thing they got wrong.

LOL!!
Don't be silly.
A president can't revolt against his own government, he runs the government, he can just say what he wants changed with EOs.
Thankfully they didn't get much wrong.

 

[eagle1462010]

They didn't do that for Barack Obama. He didn't have to show his birth certificate.

Accusations by the public arent with the state election officials. Who challenged it in any state?

 

[postman]

Nope. He's not eligible to hold the office of the president.

People keep saying that, but not saying how that is to be accomplished.

As they say, the devil is in the details. And nobody has said who or how, he would be kept off the ballot.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

LOL!!
Don't be silly.
A president can't revolt against his own government, he runs the government, he can just say what he wants changed with EOs.
Thankfully they didn't get much wrong.

The President runs the Executive branch of the government, not all of it.

And trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power would fall under revolting against one's own government, of that there is no question.

The only question for people to ask is if Trump did that or not

 

[Smokin' OP]

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

Really?
Who told you that?

This is nothing compared to what the left have done.

Bullshit.
When did the left EVER try to overthrow the election and the US government?

Fuck your outrage

Fuck you traitor.

 

[SeaMajor7]

People keep saying that, but not saying how that is to be accomplished.

As they say, the devil is in the details. And nobody has said who or how, he would be kept off the ballot.

He's not eligible to hold the office. He doesn't meet the Constitutional requirements.

 

[postman]

You twisting the issue with lawyer speak. He can either prove native born or not. Not a hard issue.

And what of a Native American born without a state birth certificate. Would he be barred from running for any federal office, since he couldn't produce an official birth certificate?

 

[WorldWatcher]

2. Which court is reviewing? ME? Appeals? Or is she waiting for the USSC opinion?

I assume it's the Maine courts at this point.

3. Correct, the question of insurrection was never determined via due process. Innocent until PROVEN GUILTY.
The president and vice president are elected as the head of US Federal government.

Yes it was. FPOTUS#45 was given due process as part of a civil bench trial in Colorado.

"PROVEN GUILTY" is a standard applied to criminal cases. "ENGAGED IN" is the Constitutional standard cited in the 14th Amendment.

The President and Vice President being elected does not make them not officers. Just as Senators and Representatives, also elected, are still subject to the 14th.

If there is an insurrection it would be against the president, there is no fucking way that the Founders thought that the president could revolt against his own government. Which is why the president is not called an "officer".

Read the 14th, insurrection against the Constitution, not the President.

Also, if you go back to the Congressional record and read about the debates there was a specific question as to whether the "any officer" provision applied to the Office of the President and the answer was yes.

WW

 

[postman]

Accusations by the public arent with the state election officials. Who challenged it in any state?

Most of the challengers against Obama were thrown out for lack of standing, or lack of jurisdiction.