The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

[Harry Dresden]

Make sense, fool...

And whatever in-the-world does that have to do with whether or not Trump can be barred from office via the 14th?

thats what posters here are telling you ....and you are talking about trump?.....why didnt you say so dipshit?

 

[Harry Dresden]

You aren't arguing against "die hard party people" you are arguing against me. You are making an appeal to hypocrisy against a strawman. Two fallacious arguments for the price of one.

I'll just ask you this. Are there any circumstances under which YOU would accept as correct any ruling against Trump that is to his detriment? Any evidence that can be presented? Any testimony you would accept?

I think the answer to this question is no.

.i dont give a flying fuck about your hero trump.....if he and his tons of luggage goes down......so be it.....he is way to old to run.....does that answer your question fuckup?....

 

[Cellblock2429]

J. Michael Luttig is a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University.

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.

Trump Is Constitutionally Prohibited From the Presidency​

I agree with Luttig and Tribe. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution seem clear to me! What will SCOTUS do? What do you think?

/——/ democRATs have to change their shorts every time Trump’s poll numbers surge and Dementia Joe’s numbers tank.

 

[forkup]

.i dont give a flying fuck about your hero trump.....if he and his tons of luggage goes down......so be it.....he is way to old to run.....does that answer your question fuckup?....

It answers a question.

The question wether or not you're worth my time.

 

[Harry Dresden]

It answers a question.

The question wether or not you're worth my time.

well you can always be a pussy and put me on ignore then you wont have to stay up nights worrying about that....

 

[ThisIsMe]

A president can contest an election... in court. Where judges adjudicate those challenges.

He can't just ignore those rulings. Try to get the DOJ to lie about the investigations into election fraud. Coordinate statements by people stating they are the duly elected electors within a state and that they elected him. Tell a Secretary of States he wants him to " find him votes." Try to get the VP to ignore the actual certified election results the States send. And finally instigate a mob to attack the Capitol.

All these things are not how you contest elections in a Constitutional Republic. It's how you do it in Zimbabwe.

Ok then…so charge him with insurrection….why the delay. If what you say is true, this should have already happened.

 

[Godboy]

No, I don;t live in CO, I don't have any say one their judges.

You dont have any say on Supreme Court judges either.

 

[jknowgood]

Were we a third-world $hithole when the 14th was applied to Insurrectionists in the 1860s and 70s? No. Same now. No Sale.

It was a protest, you drama queens need to chill out.

 

[jbrownson0831]

J. Michael Luttig is a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University.

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.

Trump Is Constitutionally Prohibited From the Presidency​

I agree with Luttig and Tribe. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution seem clear to me! What will SCOTUS do? What do you think?

Lakookta which reservation will you move to when Trump wins???

 

[jbrownson0831]

Colorado has the right to run the election in their state.
If found guilty of being responsible for taking part in a plot to overthrow the election, ending in sending a mob to march on The Capital. He definitively went back on his oath to protect and defend the constitution and should be disqualified to run for any office, across the country.

Wow and sometimes you seem so intelligent.

 

[Dr.Know]

J. Michael Luttig is a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University.

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.

Trump Is Constitutionally Prohibited From the Presidency​

I agree with Luttig and Tribe. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution seem clear to me! What will SCOTUS do? What do you think?

another idiotic post ,,,,TRUMP DID NOT INCITE TROUBLE AT J6 THE FBI DID ! Where is the evidence showing Trump conspiring to commit sedition ???? THere is none.

 

[Nostra]

Colorado Supreme Court has made the first move and remove Donald Trump from the ballot

Now a republican is trying to see if he can get enough votes to make a law that says that states cannot do this. He only pushing for the Supreme court to be able to remove someone from the ballots.

Yet they can appeal the verdict and it will go before the Supreme court. So why do they need a law.

Also it is clear that each state is responsible for it elections.

So it going to supreme court and congress needs to step back as it now a judicial matter

Step back like Tater did the other day when said Trump was clearly an insurrectionist?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Colorado has the right to run the election in their state.
If found guilty of being responsible for taking part in a plot to overthrow the election, ending in sending a mob to march on The Capital. He definitively went back on his oath to protect and defend the constitution and should be disqualified to run for any office, across the country.

You use the term "if found guilty", which implies the application of a criminal standard, and muddies the water. FPOTUS#45 was not charged with a crime and the court proceedings used to determine quilt or innocence. It was an administrative/hearing for eligibility.

The more precise verbiage would have been "if found to have engaged in" which is more appropriate for this type of civil process.

Just say'n. IMHO.

WW

 

[miketx]

J. Michael Luttig is a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University.

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.

Trump Is Constitutionally Prohibited From the Presidency​

I agree with Luttig and Tribe. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution seem clear to me! What will SCOTUS do? What do you think?

Do you media fed idiots ever stop yapping about trump?

 

[Faun]

It was a protest, you drama queens need to chill out.

Nope, it was an insurrection...

Insurrection

A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens.​

 

[White 6]

You use the term "if found guilty", which implies the application of a criminal standard, and muddies the water. FPOTUS#45 was not charged with a crime and the court proceedings used to determine quilt or innocence. It was an administrative/hearing for eligibility.

The more precise verbiage would have been "if found to have engaged in" which is more appropriate for this type of civil process.

Just say'n. IMHO.

WW

I would prefer a criminal standard, but there is none mentioned in the 14th Amendment anywhere, so it is not actually a requirement:

So my "preferences" do not really count for much.



​

 

[jknowgood]

Nope, it was an insurrection...

Insurrection​

​

A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens.​

I guess when you loons tried to breach the Whitehouse, that was a real insurrection.

 

[Independent thinker]

J. Michael Luttig is a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University.

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.

Trump Is Constitutionally Prohibited From the Presidency​

I agree with Luttig and Tribe. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution seem clear to me! What will SCOTUS do? What do you think?

Thanks for your warped TDS opinion. But, even democrats are worried Trump is going to win in 2024. Why do they worry about that if Trump can't be president again?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I would prefer a criminal standard, but there is none mentioned in the 14th Amendment anywhere, so it is not actually a requirement:

​

​

View attachment 877148​

So my "preferences" do not really count for much.​

​

​

​

​

Just say'n in keeps the language clearer as it separates the Colorado administrative action from the language of conviction of a crime.

Not saying you have to, just a suggestion made in good faith.

WW

 

[scruffy]

I would prefer a criminal standard, but there is none mentioned in the 14th Amendment anywhere, so it is not actually a requirement:

Rocket scientist. ^^^

​

​

View attachment 877148​

So my "preferences" do not really count for much​

This is why libtards shouldn't be allowed to vote.