Poll: Who has enforcement authority of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution?

[ThisIsMe]

To agree or disagree with the way it was derived, you would have to read it.

I don’t need to read it to disagree with how it was derived. The news has been over it quite exhaustively. I disagree because I don’t believe you can hold a person to account for an act that they haven’t been charged with. I don’t believe someone can just say “I think he did it, therefore he’s guilty”. I think there needs to be a charge, a trial, and a conviction. You realize that there are those who don’t believe J6 was an actual insurrection, but a riot that got out of control? You realize that many believe that trump didn’t try to overthrow the government but instead thought he had been cheated in the election and just wanted to send the votes back to the states for another look? But he didn’t get that benefit of the doubt because 3 democrat appointed judges just decided he was guilty, it doesn’t matter what his attorney said.

it’s that, with which I disagree

 

[SavannahMann]

I don’t need to read it to disagree with how it was derived. The news has been over it quite exhaustively. I disagree because I don’t believe you can hold a person to account for an act that they haven’t been charged with. I don’t believe someone can just say “I think he did it, therefore he’s guilty”. I think there needs to be a charge, a trial, and a conviction. You realize that there are those who don’t believe J6 was an actual insurrection, but a riot that got out of control? You realize that many believe that trump didn’t try to overthrow the government but instead thought he had been cheated in the election and just wanted to send the votes back to the states for another look? But he didn’t get that benefit of the doubt because 3 democrat appointed judges just decided he was guilty, it doesn’t matter what his attorney said.

it’s that, with which I disagree

So you are going to take the outrage from someone who didn’t read it, and use that as the “factual” basis for your own outrage.

Cato, who is not to be confused with Leftists by any stretch read it. Actually read it. And had lawyers on staff read it.

https://www.cato.org/blog/agree-it-or-not-colorado-supreme-courts-opinion-disqualifying-trump-triumph-judicial

So does that change your opinion?

Ignorant means you just don’t know. I am ignorant of millions of pieces of information. Probably trillions.

Definition of IGNORANT

destitute of knowledge or education; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified; resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence; unaware, uninformed… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

What do we call it when someone could learn, but won’t?

 

[Curried Goats]

First off, what is a bingo? lol, did you just win a a game?

A Bingo is my shorthand for ignorant bigots.

Ahh, “hearing” where democrat appointed judges get to ignore any defense, and just deem he was guilty. They determined he “engaged in insurrection”, determined by democrat appointed judges.

Sour grapes? Pobrecito.

Ok, I’ll buy that. Gotta say..not gonna be a pretty election season if they win..gonna be lots of disqualifications going around, I’m kind of excited!

Sure.

I'm not really moved by the predictions of morons.

When has a state ever disqualified a democratic presidential candidate? Not in recent history.

In these filings they actually point out how Joe Biden isn't on the ballot in the New Hampshire primary for example. States keeping people off the ballot for one purpose or another isn't that uncommon. As a candidate you get a right to have that decision adjudicated. That's your due process right there.

Yeah, I’m asking now a state can accuse someone of insurrection, and remove him from the ballot, but ignore the criminal statute? Can they do that with any other crime?

In Colorado the State didn't accuse him of anything. A group of Republican voters in Colorado challenged Trumps right to appear on the ballot and the State adjudicated that claim. It is through that legal process that those judges found Trump to be an insurrectionist. Not criminally. Criminal penalties require criminal trials and convictions. But to adjudicate whether or not he can appear on the ballot due to being an insurrectionist does not. That's how the legal system works. E. Jean Carrol didn't need Trump to be criminally convicted of rape in order to successfully sue him for defamation over lying about that rape.

Oh, I know. I can see several red states “determining” Biden is in dereliction of duty, and guilty of insurrection against the cotus by not upholding its laws. And it will all be legitimate, because the state said so.

I'm sure you can. But you're a MAGAt moron. You don't know how to separate your cosplaying fantasies from how reality actually operates.

It’s very understood, the left are a great teacher. What you have taught the right is, no charge, no conviction are needed to remove a candidate from the ballot. All that is required is for something to think the candidate did something worthy of removal. A judge, even a Secretary of State.

If you morons think that's what the laws of your States say then give your best moron try. I'll enjoy watching the attempt.

I’m giving up on the argument of needing a charge to take action against someone and going with the much easier and more effective system of just interpretation and “because they said so”. It actually makes things so much easier.

What's makes things easy in a court of law are your opponents being absolutely clueless how to conduct themselves during one. Alina Habba being the moron she is certainly didn't do her client any favors in court this week.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So, section 5 has no relevance, right? ANYONE can enforce section 3? Right?

It has no relevance in the way you characterize it.
The states have to determine if Trump is eligible just as they do with every other potential candidate. Section 3 states very clearly who is ineligible.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I don’t need to read it to disagree with how it was derived. The news has been over it quite exhaustively. I disagree because I don’t believe you can hold a person to account for an act that they haven’t been charged with. I don’t believe someone can just say “I think he did it, therefore he’s guilty”. I think there needs to be a charge, a trial, and a conviction. You realize that there are those who don’t believe J6 was an actual insurrection, but a riot that got out of control? You realize that many believe that trump didn’t try to overthrow the government but instead thought he had been cheated in the election and just wanted to send the votes back to the states for another look? But he didn’t get that benefit of the doubt because 3 democrat appointed judges just decided he was guilty, it doesn’t matter what his attorney said.

it’s that, with which I disagree

So you disagree based on your perception that the appearance of partisan motivations on the part of the judges is somehow unfair but you admit to not really knowing if that is true because you haven’t bothered to find out.

So just a superficial guttural response? Style over substance?

Who do you expect to spoon feed you the actual relevant bits?

 

[Nostra]

It has no relevance in the way you characterize it.
The states have to determine if Trump is eligible just as they do with every other potential candidate. Section 3 states very clearly who is ineligible.

They don’t have enforcement power over the 14th, Simp.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They don’t have enforcement power over the 14th, Simp.

They have “enforcement” of ballot eligibility.
Section 3 simply outlines who is ineligible and under what circumstances. There is nothing to “enforce”.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So you are going to take the outrage from someone who didn’t read it, and use that as the “factual” basis for your own outrage.

Cato, who is not to be confused with Leftists by any stretch read it. Actually read it. And had lawyers on staff read it.

https://www.cato.org/blog/agree-it-or-not-colorado-supreme-courts-opinion-disqualifying-trump-triumph-judicial

So does that change your opinion?

Ignorant means you just don’t know. I am ignorant of millions of pieces of information. Probably trillions.

Definition of IGNORANT

destitute of knowledge or education; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified; resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence; unaware, uninformed… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

What do we call it when someone could learn, but won’t?

I didn’t read any outrage from anywhere. I read that Colorado decided, without charge, to remove a candidate from the ballot. I also read that Colorado is one of the 18 states to sign on to the national popular vote compact.

I don’t need someone to explain to me that a group of liberal judges decided to remove someone from the ballot because they felt he committed insurrection, that the main Secretary of State tried to remove him from the ballot because 3 people made a claim he committed insurrection and wanted him off the ballot.

I don’t need to read anything to know these things, it’s all over the news. I disagree that a court has the authority to remove someone from the ballot without charging them under the insurrection act, or charging them under article 14 section 3. I disagree that a judge can just say “he’s guilty, here’s a punishment”.

Those are things that are not in question.

However, now that the cat is out of the bag…I’ll fully support it when red states do it to the democrat candidates.

 

[ThisIsMe]

A Bingo is my shorthand for ignorant bigots.

Sour grapes? Pobrecito.

Sure.

I'm not really moved by the predictions of morons.

In these filings they actually point out how Joe Biden isn't on the ballot in the New Hampshire primary for example. States keeping people off the ballot for one purpose or another isn't that uncommon. As a candidate you get a right to have that decision adjudicated. That's your due process right there.

In Colorado the State didn't accuse him of anything. A group of Republican voters in Colorado challenged Trumps right to appear on the ballot and the State adjudicated that claim. It is through that legal process that those judges found Trump to be an insurrectionist. Not criminally. Criminal penalties require criminal trials and convictions. But to adjudicate whether or not he can appear on the ballot due to being an insurrectionist does not. That's how the legal system works. E. Jean Carrol didn't need Trump to be criminally convicted of rape in order to successfully sue him for defamation over lying about that rape.

I'm sure you can. But you're a MAGAt moron. You don't know how to separate your cosplaying fantasies from how reality actually operates.

If you morons think that's what the laws of your States say then give your best moron try. I'll enjoy watching the attempt.

What's makes things easy in a court of law are your opponents being absolutely clueless how to conduct themselves during one. Alina Habba being the moron she is certainly didn't do her client any favors in court this week.

A Bingo is my shorthand for ignorant bigots

And you think im a bigot because?

Sour grapes? Pobrecito.

Not sour, I just think it’s wrong, but I can’t wait to point back to that comment when red states start throwing Biden off the ballot.

In these filings they actually point out how Joe Biden isn't on the ballot in the New Hampshire primary for example. States keeping people off the ballot for one purpose or another isn't that uncommon. As a candidate you get a right to have that decision adjudicated. That's your due process right there.

I thought Biden just missed the filing deadline, it’s not like they removed him from the ballot.

In Colorado the State didn't accuse him of anything. A group of Republican voters in Colorado challenged Trumps right to appear on the ballot and the State adjudicated that claim. It is through that legal process that those judges found Trump to be an insurrectionist. Not criminally. Criminal penalties require criminal trials and convictions. But to adjudicate whether or not he can appear on the ballot due to being an insurrectionist does not. That's how the legal system works.

That’s my point m, you say they found him to be an insurrectionist…HOW? He was never charged with insurrection, he was never put on trial for insurrection, so the only way they found him to be an insurrectionist is someone had to just “deem” it so.

My point was, is that you are suggesting that a court can find him guilty, liable, whatever, for an action that is a crime, with legal jeopardy, and not charge him and get him for that.

I'm sure you can. But you're a MAGAt moron. You don't know how to separate your cosplaying fantasies from how reality actually operates.

It’s not cosplay or a fantasy, it’s an actual possibility, and if it happens, you all will only have yourself to blame. You started down this road

If you morons think that's what the laws of your States say then give your best moron try. I'll enjoy watching the attempt.

The laws say anyone who engaged in insurrection against the constitution is ineligible to hold office. The fact that you all say no charge is needed means it’s up to the interpretation of the state.

I too will enjoy watching the attempt.

 

[Concerned American]

And you think im a bigot because?



Not sour, I just think it’s wrong, but I can’t wait to point back to that comment when red states start throwing Biden off the ballot.



I thought Biden just missed the filing deadline, it’s not like they removed him from the ballot.



That’s my point m, you say they found him to be an insurrectionist…HOW? He was never charged with insurrection, he was never put on trial for insurrection, so the only way they found him to be an insurrectionist is someone had to just “deem” it so.

My point was, is that you are suggesting that a court can find him guilty, liable, whatever, for an action that is a crime, with legal jeopardy, and not charge him and get him for that.




It’s not cosplay or a fantasy, it’s an actual possibility, and if it happens, you all will only have yourself to blame. You started down this road



The laws say anyone who engaged in insurrection against the constitution is ineligible to hold office. The fact that you all say no charge is needed means it’s up to the interpretation of the state.

I too will enjoy watching the attempt.

Thank you. I've quit responding to these posters. They all keep spouting the same irrelevant points over and over without any explanation of how someone can be deemed a participant in an event that has never been established as ever happening.

 

[Curried Goats]

And you think im a bigot because?

Your support of a bigot and a bigot party.

Not sour, I just think it’s wrong, but I can’t wait to point back to that comment when red states start throwing Biden off the ballot.

I can't wait either. I love reading the legal reasonings of Republican Bingos. Some of the best free comedy you can get.

I thought Biden just missed the filing deadline, it’s not like they removed him from the ballot.

They did keep him from the ballot. Because he missed a filing deadline. There are multiple reasons why you could be kept off a ballot. Filing deadlines and insurrection are a couple of them.

That’s my point m, you say they found him to be an insurrectionist…HOW?

Through a hearing where the litigants against Trump got to present evidence of him engaging in insurrection, lawyers for Trump getting to dispute those claims with their own evidence and a judge adjudicating the matter.

He was never charged with insurrection, he was never put on trial for insurrection, so the only way they found him to be an insurrectionist is someone had to just “deem” it so.

No one just "deemed" it so. They ruled it so after a trial. It just wasn't a criminal trial. It's why the judgement doesn't come with any criminal penalties.

My point was, is that you are suggesting that a court can find him guilty, liable, whatever, for an action that is a crime, with legal jeopardy, and not charge him and get him for that.

Not all legal jeopardy is criminal jeopardy. I agree he faced legal judgement here. Just as he received legal judgment in the civil fraud case by E. Jean Carrol that found him guilty of lying about raping her even though he has never been criminally prosecuted for raping her. Those are two different courts and you don't need a judgement from one before you can get a judgement in the other.

It’s not cosplay or a fantasy, it’s an actual possibility, and if it happens, you all will only have yourself to blame. You started down this road

I'm not even the slightest but worried.

The laws say anyone who engaged in insurrection against the constitution is ineligible to hold office. The fact that you all say no charge is needed means it’s up to the interpretation of the state.

Yes. States rights. They get to determine the manner and place in which they hold elections. The people politically against a more federally regulated system are Republicans themselves.

I too will enjoy watching the attempt.

You only think so now but we'll learn you when the time comes.

 

[SavannahMann]

I didn’t read any outrage from anywhere. I read that Colorado decided, without charge, to remove a candidate from the ballot. I also read that Colorado is one of the 18 states to sign on to the national popular vote compact.

I don’t need someone to explain to me that a group of liberal judges decided to remove someone from the ballot because they felt he committed insurrection, that the main Secretary of State tried to remove him from the ballot because 3 people made a claim he committed insurrection and wanted him off the ballot.

I don’t need to read anything to know these things, it’s all over the news. I disagree that a court has the authority to remove someone from the ballot without charging them under the insurrection act, or charging them under article 14 section 3. I disagree that a judge can just say “he’s guilty, here’s a punishment”.

Those are things that are not in question.

However, now that the cat is out of the bag…I’ll fully support it when red states do it to the democrat candidates.

Usually when I read something like this I post that clip from Star Wars where Luke says every world of what you just said. Is wrong.

Instead I think that your post should be used as part of a challenge. Tell me you get your news from propaganda sites without saying it directly.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Thank you. I've quit responding to these posters. They all keep spouting the same irrelevant points over and over without any explanation of how someone can be deemed a participant in an event that has never been established as ever happening.

They just don’t realize the precedent they are setting, I guess they don’t think this stuff will ever come around on them.

There will be a time, maybe very soon, where they will be on the receiving end of this “justice”, and they are going to come here and bitch and moan about it, and the right will just point to these threads and say “told ya so”

 

[SavannahMann]

They just don’t realize the precedent they are setting, I guess they don’t think this stuff will ever come around on them.

There will be a time, maybe very soon, where they will be on the receiving end of this “justice”, and they are going to come here and bitch and moan about it, and the right will just point to these threads and say “told ya so”

We don’t realize the precedent? Precedent is what you guys are ignoring.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Your support of a bigot and a bigot party.

I can't wait either. I love reading the legal reasonings of Republican Bingos. Some of the best free comedy you can get.

They did keep him from the ballot. Because he missed a filing deadline. There are multiple reasons why you could be kept off a ballot. Filing deadlines and insurrection are a couple of them.

Through a hearing where the litigants against Trump got to present evidence of him engaging in insurrection, lawyers for Trump getting to dispute those claims with their own evidence and a judge adjudicating the matter.

No one just "deemed" it so. They ruled it so after a trial. It just wasn't a criminal trial. It's why the judgement doesn't come with any criminal penalties.

Not all legal jeopardy is criminal jeopardy. I agree he faced legal judgement here. Just as he received legal judgment in the civil fraud case by E. Jean Carrol that found him guilty of lying about raping her even though he has never been criminally prosecuted for raping her. Those are two different courts and you don't need a judgement from one before you can get a judgement in the other.

I'm not even the slightest but worried.

Yes. States rights. They get to determine the manner and place in which they hold elections. The people politically against a more federally regulated system are Republicans themselves.

You only think so now but we'll learn you when the time comes.

Your support of a bigot and a bigot party.

I guess that makes you a creepy child sniffer then.

They did keep him from the ballot.

“They” didn’t do anything. If you miss a deadline, that’s on you, not “them”.

lawyers for Trump getting to dispute those claims with their own evidence and a judge adjudicating the matter.

And they did l that without ever charging trump with the thing they used to remove him from office. You think that’s “justice”?

Also, do you really think those judges were ever going to rule any other way? The hearing was for optics only. Just like the J6 committee, those judges already had it in their minds what they were going to do.

No one just "deemed" it so.

You do realize that there was never a trial to determine that what happened on J6 was actually an insurrection. There are many, including myself, that do not agree that what happened for that description, but all of these “trials” and committees are operating under that assumption that what happened that day was an insurrection, nobody has ever put that under legal scrutiny.

This means that someone “deemed” it so.

But, you all are setting a very potent precedent here, one that could, and probably will come back to bite you somewhere down the line.

 

[ThisIsMe]

We don’t realize the precedent? Precedent is what you guys are ignoring.

Yes, you don’t realize the precedent. The precedent that you can now assign a punishment to someone without even charging them. That’s a precedent YOU all are setting right now. That states can unilaterally decide who can and cannot be on the ballot, without ever charging someone. They are just saying “he did it, so he’s gone!”

I still do not understand, why none of your lefty lawyers and politicians are avoiding charging him under the 14th amendment or with US 2383. With how badly the left hates trump, there has to be a reason they are not going after those specific statutes…my feeling is because they don’t think they could get it to stick..which should tell you something about the J6 committee, the Colorado case, and the Maine Secretary of State.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes, you don’t realize the precedent. The precedent that you can now assign a punishment to someone without even charging them. That’s a precedent YOU all are setting right now. That states can unilaterally decide who can and cannot be on the ballot, without ever charging someone. They are just saying “he did it, so he’s gone!”

I still do not understand, why none of your lefty lawyers and politicians are avoiding charging him under the 14th amendment or with US 2383. With how badly the left hates trump, there has to be a reason they are not going after those specific statutes…my feeling is because they don’t think they could get it to stick..which should tell you something about the J6 committee, the Colorado case, and the Maine Secretary of State.

Punishment? Nobody has a right to elective office. Service is an honor. A privilege. It isn’t a right. Punishment would be if someone took away Trumps Life, Liberty, meaning incarceration, or property without due process of law. There is no right to run for office. There is no right to be on a ballot.

In fact. Neil Gorsuch wrote that the States have an interest in removing unqualified candidates from a ballot. He wrote that as an appeals court judge. The Colorado Supreme Court quoted him and the decision as one of the precedents guiding their decision.

The Country didn’t collapse because an unqualified candidate was removed from the ballot.

 

[Rawley]

I don’t need to read it to disagree with how it was derived. The news has been over it quite exhaustively. I disagree because I don’t believe you can hold a person to account for an act that they haven’t been charged with. I don’t believe someone can just say “I think he did it, therefore he’s guilty”. I think there needs to be a charge, a trial, and a conviction. You realize that there are those who don’t believe J6 was an actual insurrection, but a riot that got out of control? You realize that many believe that trump didn’t try to overthrow the government but instead thought he had been cheated in the election and just wanted to send the votes back to the states for another look? But he didn’t get that benefit of the doubt because 3 democrat appointed judges just decided he was guilty, it doesn’t matter what his attorney said.

it’s that, with which I disagree

Not just Trump. Biden's own. DOJ has lodged over 3,000 criminal charges in connection with January 6th. Not a single person has been charged with insurrection. If the most partisan DOJ in history does not consider it an insurrection, it's flatly absurd for anyone else to call it an insurrection.

To me, that is game, set match.

 

[SavannahMann]

Not just Trump. Biden's own. DOJ has lodged over 3,000 criminal charges in connection with January 6th. Not a single person has been charged with insurrection. If the most partisan DOJ in history does not consider it an insurrection, it's flatly absurd for anyone else to call it an insurrection.

To me, that is game, set match.

Well there was this.

U.S. House Jan. 6 panel report finds Trump incited insurrection, demands accountability • Kansas Reflector

The U.S. House Jan. 6 committee late Thursday published its findings in a report that harshly criticized former President Trump.

kansasreflector.com

 

[Rawley]

Punishment? Nobody has a right to elective office. Service is an honor. A privilege. It isn’t a right. Punishment would be if someone took away Trumps Life, Liberty, meaning incarceration, or property without due process of law. There is no right to run for office. There is no right to be on a ballot.

In fact. Neil Gorsuch wrote that the States have an interest in removing unqualified candidates from a ballot. He wrote that as an appeals court judge. The Colorado Supreme Court quoted him and the decision as one of the precedents guiding their decision.

The Country didn’t collapse because an unqualified candidate was removed from the ballot.

Did you read that opinion? How do you think it's applicable to the present case?