The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

[Kilroy2]

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

Did I say that. Well post a number. Was it an insurrection against the constitution. Yes

Insurrection - a violent uprising against an authority or government:.

so there was violence and people got hurt, some had weapons, They were there to stop the authority of the government from doing a job defined by the constitution. That is the main concern

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/capitol-protesters-were-armed-with-variety-of-weapons/#:~:text=Before%20and%20after%20the%20storming%20of%20the%20Capitol%2C,crossbow%2C%20a%20stun%20gun%20and%2011%20Molotov%20cocktails.

The authority is the constitution which defines how presidents are elected. .

So trumps actions was against the constitution which defines how presidents are elected.

He exhausted all legal means and he tried one last desperate attempt to cling to power

violent - behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

Constitution is the source of legal authority

trump told his minions to stop the steal, he tried to get pence to change the results. he made calls to states complaining about fraud but they did not agree, legal challenges failed

Trump attempted coercion of Pence as a desperate last effort to accomplish his goal.
He tried to force Pence to unilaterally reject electors on Jan. 6 as Congress met to certify the 2020 election results,

Pence is there to acknowledge the electors and let them cast there electoral vote.

Constitution defines how the president is elected which is a source of legal authority

Trump made claims that were never validated by any authority as being valid that would change the outcome of the vote

Calls made to states resulted in him being told that the results were valid.

Just as trump refused to turn over classified documents, he refused to accept the results and he did what he always does. What he wants to do which puts him in legal jeopardy.

Still lets hear what he finally admits to from the man, the myth, the legend,

‘I didn’t win the election’: Trump admits defeat in session with historians

The ex-president also said that Iran, China and South Korea were happy Biden won, adding that ‘the election was rigged and lost’

www.theguardian.com

Trump admits that he did not win the election. So all his actions are accountable in his attempt to remain in power,

 

[forkup]

You have no special facts to show how non partisan the judges are in their heart of hearts

Just your opinion the same as me

Sure I do. I have the fact that judges rule sometimes for a certain person and sometimes against, and that I can't always tie those rulings to party affiliation.

You require special pleading. I don't. Special Pleading - Definition & Examples | LF

 

[OKTexas]

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office,".
I would say the office of President of the United States is an office. If not legal to hold it, they might not have legal standing to run for it.
Who knows? Maybe the Supremes will say it is not an office. If the conservative court is made up of strict constructionists as most conservatives are, they can still do as they please, whether anybody in Colorado or elsewhere likes it or not.

And the next sentence says exactly who that applies to, why are you being so dishonest? Oh right, you're a fucking commie, that's how you freaks roll.

Now let's see how you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to apply it to a position not included in the 4 corners of section 3.

.

 

[White 6]

And the next sentence says exactly who that applies to, why are you being so dishonest? Oh right, you're a fucking commie, that's how you freaks roll.

Now let's see how you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to apply it to a position not included in the 4 corners of section 3.

.

Typical. When you got nothing, call somebody a "fucking commie".

 

[Kilroy2]

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

Sorry, It's not happening but if you can make an argument then go for your guns


Trump clearly tried to stop a procedure that is clearly outlined in the constitution

• Clause 2 Electors
• Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The authority is the constitution.

Are you denying that rioters had weapons?

Are you denying that anyone got hurt ?

are you denying that they tried to stop an official government activity as defined by the Constitution.

They were there to stop the steal, which would require them to disrupting an official government activity as defined by the constitution

That is the argument so if you got something now is the time.

Article II Section 1 | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

constitution.congress.gov

 

[scruffy]

Did I say that. Well post a number. Was it an insurrection against the constitution. Yes

Insurrection - a violent uprising against an authority or government:.

so there was violence and people got hurt, some had weapons, They were there to stop the authority of the government from doing a job defined by the constitution. That is the main concern

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/capitol-protesters-were-armed-with-variety-of-weapons/#:~:text=Before%20and%20after%20the%20storming%20of%20the%20Capitol%2C,crossbow%2C%20a%20stun%20gun%20and%2011%20Molotov%20cocktails.

The authority is the constitution which defines how presidents are elected. .

So trumps actions was against the constitution which defines how presidents are elected.

He exhausted all legal means and he tried one last desperate attempt to cling to power

violent - behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

Constitution is the source of legal authority

trump told his minions to stop the steal, he tried to get pence to change the results. he made calls to states complaining about fraud but they did not agree, legal challenges failed

Trump attempted coercion of Pence as a desperate last effort to accomplish his goal.
He tried to force Pence to unilaterally reject electors on Jan. 6 as Congress met to certify the 2020 election results,

Pence is there to acknowledge the electors and let them cast there electoral vote.

Constitution defines how the president is elected which is a source of legal authority

Trump made claims that were never validated by any authority as being valid that would change the outcome of the vote

Calls made to states resulted in him being told that the results were valid.

Just as trump refused to turn over classified documents, he refused to accept the results and he did what he always does. What he wants to do which puts him in legal jeopardy.

Still lets hear what he finally admits to from the man, the myth, the legend,

‘I didn’t win the election’: Trump admits defeat in session with historians

The ex-president also said that Iran, China and South Korea were happy Biden won, adding that ‘the election was rigged and lost’

www.theguardian.com

Trump admits that he did not win the election. So all his actions are accountable in his attempt to remain in power,

Sorry, no sale.

Leftards have been trying to sell us bullshit for YEARS now.

This is exactly like the dossier. Three hookers peed on me in Moscow. Yeah right.

 

[Faun]

That's weak.

How fortunate am I your opinion of that is meaningless?

 

[OKTexas]

Typical. When you got nothing, call somebody a "fucking commie".

And deflection is what you commies do when you got nothing.

This is the portion of section 3 that defines exactly to whom that section applies:

who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States,

Now show the class were the President or VP are included.

It's pretzel time, this ought to be good. LMAO

.

 

[Mac-7]

Sure I do. I have the fact that judges rule sometimes for a certain person and sometimes against, and that I can't always tie those rulings to party affiliation.

You require special pleading. I don't. Special Pleading - Definition & Examples | LF

You have more faith in the crackpot judges than I do

 

[White 6]

And deflection is what you commies do when you got nothing.

This is the portion of section 3 that defines exactly to whom that section applies:

who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States,

Now show the class were the President or VP are included.

It's pretzel time, this ought to be good. LMAO

.

He previously took an oath as the executive officer of the United States, POTUS. If that is not correct, I certainly do not know why he signed 220 Executive Orders.
Does that straighten it out for you?

 

[Batcat]

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?

Trump has not been officially charged with leading an insurrection let alone convicted.

I thought in the United States a person was innocent until proven guilty. That was one of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty: How the 5th Amendment Protects You — Americana Corner

The Fifth Amendment contains some of the most critical protections in the Constitution for those accused of crimes, safeguards that help keep a tyrannical government at bay. In total, it declares five separate but related rights to all citizens.

www.americanacorner.com

However it no longer appears we live in a constitutional republic but now we live in a banana republic where the people no longer pick the candidates to represent them unless approved by the judicial system.

In my opinion Joe Biden is supposed to insure the laws passed by Congress are enforced. We have laws prohibiting illegal immigration into our nation that he has totally ignored. Perhaps some states such as Texas and Florida can remove Joe Biden from their ballots.

The President’s Duty to Faithfully Execute the Law

The Honorable Bob GoodlatteA‌braham Lincoln is often paraphrased as saying, “The best way ‌to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” While that paraphrase summarizes the gist of what Lincoln was saying, the full text of his remark is worth repeating. In 1838, early in his career...

www.heritage.org

snip

The President and the Take Care Clause ​

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This clause, known as the Take Care Clause, requires the President to enforce all constitutionally valid Acts of Congress, regardless of his own Administration’s view of their wisdom or policy. The clause imposes a duty on the President; it does not confer a discretionary power. The Take Care Clause is a limit on the Vesting Clause’s grant to the President of “the executive power.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in an opinion handed down just last year striking down the President’s assertion of authority to disregard a federal statute, provided a succinct description of the President’s obligations under the Take Care Clause, as follows:

Under Article II of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the President must follow statutory mandates so long as there is appropriated money available and the President has no constitutional objection to the statute. So, too, the President must abide by statutory prohibitions unless the President has a constitutional objection to the prohibition. If the President has a constitutional objection to a statutory mandate or prohibition, the President may decline to follow the law unless and until a final Court order dictates otherwise. But the President may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections. Of course, if Congress appropriates no money for a statutorily mandated program, the Executive obviously cannot move forward. But absent a lack of funds or a claim of unconstitutionality that has not been rejected by final Court order, the Executive must abide by statutory mandates and prohibitions.

Republicans float booting Biden off state ballots after Trump ruling

Outraged by the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to boot Donald Trump off the ballot, some Republicans are floating the prospect of pushing President Biden off ballots in red states.

nypost.com

snip


Many Republicans peddling the tit-for-tat idea suggested it as a thought experiment to give Democrats a taste of their own medicine, rather than a serious legal undertaking.

“Seeing what happened in Colorado makes me think — except we believe in democracy in Texas — maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing 8 million people to cross the border since he’s been president, disrupting our state far more than anything anyone else has done in recent history,” Lone Star State Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham Tuesday night

 

[OKTexas]

He previously took an oath as the executive officer of the United States, POTUS. If that is not correct, I certainly do not know why he signed 220 Executive Orders.
Does that straighten it out for you?

Typical of you commies, amending the amendment with no approval of 3/4ths of the State legislatures. No where does it mention executives of the US, ie the President or VP. Care to try again, you only made it to half a pretzel on that attempt.

.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

Wow! Op is OBSESSED with President Trump! every thread seems to be a bout Trump Trump Trump.... I think its turned him into wanting Trump sexually....

 

[White 6]

Typical of you commies, amending the amendment with no approval of 3/4ths of the State legislatures. No where does it mention executives of the US, ie the President or VP. Care to try again, you only made it to half a pretzel on that attempt.

.

Got it. Not an Executive. So he and all other presidents had no business signing executive orders, including Trump.

 

[BS Filter]

How fortunate am I your opinion of that is meaningless?

As are all opinions here.

 

[Crepitus]

This decision By Colorado is supported by this country by quite a margin but they think it may be overturned by the supreme court , they think that this very conservative court will do as they are told. What that means is that they may be , with that decision self destructing the American supreme court. If they, the US supreme court, turned over this I would support anything to get rid of conservatives that decide against Colorado.

They all need to go, left and right both.

 

[Kondor3]

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

Wrong. It was at the very least a conspiracy-spawned riotous assault on Congress. At most, it was an actual Insurrection.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Wrong. It was at the very least a conspiracy-spawned riotous assault on Congress. At most, it was an actual Insurrection.

It was the FEDSURRECTION REICHSTAG FIRE you carrion crow FRAUDSTER.

 

[Dagosa]

Trump HAS to be charged under 2383 to be disqualified, here’s why.

as far as I’m aware, there are only 2 statutes that can disqualify a president…treason and insurrection.

Section 5 of the 14th amendment says that Congress has to enforce the 14th amendment by appropriate legislation. This means CONGRESS are the ones who enforce it. They did this by passing 18 US 2383. 2383 says the penalties for being involved with an insurrection are a fine, or imprisonment, or both, AND disqualification from office. Because fines and imprisonment are involved, it makes it a criminal statute, and since you can’t send someone to prison without due process, a charge and conviction in a federal court MUST happen in order to disqualify him from the ballot.

That’s not proof. That’s just your opinion.

 

[MinTrut]

Intelligent people can see right through their desperation. Trump has turned the lot of them into childish blithering idiots. Just look at the sample posting here for proof.

Just when you thought their CovidCon was the worst it would get, we have literal sedition by, for and of the Democrats.