The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

[Kilroy2]

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.

There is nothing to sale , there is only denial of the obvious

 

[jbander]

They all need to go, left and right both.

Nope even if they are both as corrupt as hell , which they are not. One has found their way by existing for the rich entirely and one has found a way to exist by also serving the people, So no you are wrong.

 

[scruffy]

There is nothing to sale , there is only denial of the obvious

That's what you said about the pee tapes too.

 

[OKTexas]

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

Still laughing at the illiterate commie. See if you can get your mommy to explain it to ya child.

.

 

[forkup]

You have more faith in the crackpot judges than I do

It's not about trust. It's about not liking the alternative.

I rather have faith in the judicial system, with all it's protections and rules to prevent abuse. I don't always like the outcome, and sometimes mistakes are made but abuse is hard.

You rather have faith in the word of Trump because you feel he's looking out for you. No matter how many times he has lied and screwed other people for personal benefit.
.
Look at how this conversation has progressed. It went from having a discussion about Trump being removed from the ballot to you basically admitting that you prefer a Trump dictatorship over a constitutional Republic. I want to say I understand how that happens and I appreciate the candor, but that to me is kind of incredible. To have a US citizen express a willingness to live in a dictatorship. The reason that happened is because you elected Trump and he has forced you to defend one outrageous act after another. So now it's become automatic. He can do and say things completely at odds with what would have probably been your perception of what America is 6 or 7 years ago, to now defending dictatorship.

 

[Mac-7]

It went from having a discussion about Trump being removed from the ballot to you basically admitting that you prefer a Trump dictatorship over a constitutional Republic.

No, thats you putting words in other people’s mouth

The usual question is “have you stopped beating your wife?”

Now I’m supposed to either convict trump or admit to you that I support a dictatorship

But I refuse to do either

The partisan lib judges in colorado are flunkies for the corrupt washington insider crowd

And they are abusing the blind reverence you have for them

 

[forkup]

No, thats you putting words in other people’s mouth

The usual question is “have you stopped beating your wife?”

Now I’m supposed to either convict trump or admit to you that I support a dictatorship

But I refuse to do either

The partisan lib judges in colorado are flunkies for the corrupt washington insider crowd

And they are abusing the blind reverence you have for them

Because I dont think is as bad or even worse than letting the washington establishment continue ruling over us

We need a change of course

This was your response to me asking why a Trump presidency doesn't scare you. It was preceded by you admitting Trump was flirting with doing "everything short of taking up arms" to stay in power. Which was the "something" you claimed was unclear.

 

[Mac-7]

This was your response to me asking why a Trump presidency doesn't scare you. It was preceded by you admitting Trump was flirting with doing "everything short of taking up arms" to stay in power. Which was the "something" you claimed was unclear.

Your side has already resorted to anything short of taking up arms to remove trump from power

Now I wonder if America will ever have an honest election again

The left has learned how to assure itself of victory and there is no turning back now

 

[jknowgood]

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

Like I said you're a bunch of drama queens.

 

[Crepitus]

Nope even if they are both as corrupt as hell , which they are not. One has found their way by existing for the rich entirely and one has found a way to exist by also serving the people, So no you are wrong.

They all had the opportunity to vote themselves an ethics standard and every single one declined to do so.

They must all go, left and right both.

 

[BackAgain]

Like I said you're a bunch of drama queens.

Exactly.

 

[justoffal]

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?

YAWWWWWN.....boring.

 

[justoffal]

They all had the opportunity to vote themselves an ethics standard and every single one declined to do so.

They must all go, left and right both.

Because it's similar to a perjury trap dip shit.

 

[Crepitus]

Because it's similar to a perjury trap dip shit.

lol. Sure. Let;s go with that.

They are all corrupt. Left and right must go.

the building needs a flush handle.

 

[jbander]

They all had the opportunity to vote themselves an ethics standard and every single one declined to do so.

They must all go, left and right both.

You mean the Supreme court , didn't understand your point , I could live with that. I don't agree if you meant all politicians. There is a simple perspective i make my judgements with, The only reason the right exist is to transfer the wealth to the top and to achieve that they have to insure as many people as possible are kept stupid and hate driven. That game isn't played by the left. Not saying their is no corruption , Point being if they were both as corrupt(which they are not) their driving philosophy make dems 100 times the value of any hate party member.

 

[jbander]

They all had the opportunity to vote themselves an ethics standard and every single one declined to do so.

They must all go, left and right both.

By the way the ethics standard in no way should be a choice. It should be law.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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

That’s reading the constitution and the law. Are you suggesting it’s not a criminal statute? If that’s the case, then trying to convict trump goes afoul of the double jeopardy laws, since he has already been tried for this in impeachment.

The left used to say “well that’s different because that’s an impeachment, and this is a criminal trial” as a way of saying it doesn’t run afoul of double jeopardy, ok, then, if it’s a criminal trial, which, since the penalties are prison and monetary fines, it is a criminal trial, then a charge and conviction under the insurrection statute is mandatory.

You say I’m wrong, tell me what part?

 

[WorldWatcher]

That’s reading the constitution and the law. Are you suggesting it’s not a criminal statute? If that’s the case, then trying to convict trump goes afoul of the double jeopardy laws, since he has already been tried for this in impeachment.

The left used to say “well that’s different because that’s an impeachment, and this is a criminal trial” as a way of saying it doesn’t run afoul of double jeopardy, ok, then, if it’s a criminal trial, which, since the penalties are prison and monetary fines, it is a criminal trial, then a charge and conviction under the insurrection statute is mandatory.

You say I’m wrong, tell me what part?

Let's take a famous case we are all familiar with.

OJ Simpson was not convicted in a criminal trial, yet still found liable in a civil trial. OJ did not run afoul of "double jeopardy" which applies ONLY to being tried twice criminally for the same offense.

Trump has not been tried criminally as impeachment is a political action, not a criminal one. So even trough he was not convicted by the Senate, that does not preclude criminal charges now that he is out of office. Not being convicted by the Senate also does not preclude other civil action for the same things. The action in the Colorado courts is a civil action, not a criminal one, nor does the Senate's failure to convict have any bearing.

WW

 

[ThisIsMe]

Let's take a famous case we are all familiar with.

OJ Simpson was not convicted in a criminal trial, yet still found liable in a civil trial. OJ did not run afoul of "double jeopardy" which applies ONLY to being tried twice criminally for the same offense.

Trump has not been tried criminally as impeachment is a political action, not a criminal one. So even trough he was not convicted by the Senate, that does not preclude criminal charges now that he is out of office. Not being convicted by the Senate also does not preclude other civil action for the same things. The action in the Colorado courts is a civil action, not a criminal one, nor does the Senate's failure to convict have any bearing.

WW

yes, but OJ was charged with the appropriate crime, had a trial, and was convicted. He was convicted and sentenced according to the punishment allows for the crimes he was convicted of.

What I’m saying about trump is that, you all haven’t even charged him with the statute that is necessary to prevent him from holding office. Again, as far as I’m aware, the cotus lays out only 2 scenarios where a president is disqualified. Treason and insurrection. It says that Congress is responsible for creating legislation to enforce that. They did so with the insurrection and rebellion act (2383), that statute carries prison time and monetary fines, which means they HAVE to charge and convict him under that statute to disqual him.

You can’t charge someone with another crime and then assign the penalties from a different charge.

See what I mean?

 

[WorldWatcher]

yes, but OJ was charged with the appropriate crime, had a trial, and was convicted. He was convicted and sentenced according to the punishment allows for the crimes he was convicted of.

Ummm - OJ wasn't convicted.

What I’m saying about trump is that, you all haven’t even charged him with the statute that is necessary to prevent him from holding office.

There is no "conviction" provision in A14S3, the determination is "engaged" in.

Again, as far as I’m aware, the cotus lays out only 2 scenarios where a president is disqualified. Treason and insurrection.

Actually 4:

• Age 35+
• 14 Years a Resident
• Natural born citizen
• Not engaged in insurrection or rebellion and not provided aid and comfort to those who did

It says that Congress is responsible for creating legislation to enforce that.

No it doesn't. Congress can make laws from a federal perspective. Article I, Section 4 places the responsibility for federal elections on the State (unless Congress enacts a rule/law that applies).

The Colorado action as based on State powers under A1S4.

They did so with the insurrection and rebellion act (2383), that statute carries prison time and monetary fines, which means they HAVE to charge and convict him under that statute to disqual him.

You can’t charge someone with another crime and then assign the penalties from a different charge.

Trump wasn't charged with a crime in Colorado, it was a civil/administrative matter as to qualifications for the CO ballot.

WW

See what I mean?