The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

[Staidhup]

It’s apparent several posters are not lawyers yet they exhibit a profound knowledge of the law and 14th amendment. What a joke!

 

[ThisIsMe]

Sure there are. The 14th Amendment doesn't state he must first be convicted in criminal court. And some have been previously banned from public office without being charged.

Ok, so, insurrection is a criminal offense lol. Are you saying you can charge someone with a civil charge on a criminal statute?

So…is Jack smiths case a criminal or a civil case?

 

[ThisIsMe]

To indicate Congress can pass legislation in regards to that Amendment.

no, it says Congress is the enforcement mechanism behind the amendment, and they DID pass legislation, which is the charging statute.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You lying skeeve, you totally changed the meaning. It says Congress shall have the power to enforce, which mean Congress can enforce it with legislation if they want to. You omitted the words, have the power to, which intentionally, and dishonestly, shifts the obligation bestowed on "shall" from Congress can enforce it, to, Congress has to enforce it.

And no, Congress is not the only body which can enforce it. For that to be the case, it would have to say something along the lines of, Congress shall have sole power to enforce. Just like you so eloquently elaborated about the House having sole power to impeach.

You destroyed your own argument with that one. Deal with it and mosey on.

You all keep saying I omitted words and changed the meaning. I did no such thing lol. I’ve even quoted the full amendment. Even in the post you replied to, I said “shall have the power”. It’s YOU who is changing the meaning, by ignoring the operative word “shall” which is a word that denotes a mandate. It doesn’t say “Congress MAY pass legislation”, it says “SHALL pass legislation”, which means it’s a power they have. Also, it doesn’t say anywhere in the constitution that states have the right to declare an insurrection, the 14AS5 says CONGRESS does.

Congress shall have the power to enforce…that’s a clear statement, it doesn’t says “Congress and the states shall…”. That means that there has to be some action on the part of Congress to enforce the amendment. And once again, we come full circle to the U.S. code 2383…which is the legislation they passed.

But digress, you and I will get nowhere in this discussion..so, in all reality…I hope they actually do disqual trump from several states, but, I don’t think you’re going to like how that turns out, because red states are starting to talk about taking Biden off the ballot in their states.

So, basically, you disqualify Trump, they’ll disqualify Biden…neither of them will get elected and each side will have to vote for someone else.

That should be fun….

 

[ThisIsMe]

section 5 of what article. you could have quoted it.

I’ve quoted it multiple times, it’s the article we’ve been talking about for weeks now..go look it up

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well, it’s more than an allegation. The court can adjudge guilt or innocence. It doesn’t take much to see Trump instigated an insurrection. And even the state Supreme Court had access to evidence. I’d read the minority opinion.

Nah, there was no incitement, there was some divisive language, and he told everyone the election had been stolen, but he never even once hinted at people attack the capitol. Just the opposite in fact.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nope. The Colorado state Supreme Court found there was ample evidence to indicate Trumps involvement in a violent attempt to alter a legitimate election procedure.

Yep, because trump was never charged with the criminal statute of insurrection. We can go round and round about this. Insurrection is a FEDERAL crime, under title 18 of the U.S. code, which is the criminal code, this means that it has to be a federal trial. The 14A gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment with legislation which they did by passing the criminal code that one who committed insurrection would be charged with.

Take a look at post #632 that I replied to you with, I’d like to know how someone can be charged both criminally and civilly under the same amendment. Both Colorado and Jack smith are using the 14AS3 to disqualify Trump, so if that is a civil issue, then Colorado has already charged and convicted Trump, which means Jack smiths case is over.

 

[Concerned American]

Colorado Disqualified Trump From 2024 Ballot Based On 14th Amendment — Here’s What To Know About Their Reasoning​

Section three of the 14th Amendment, enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, states no person shall “hold any [state or federal] office” if they’ve previously taken an oath of office and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [U.S.], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The debate over whether Trump could be disqualified under the amendment gained steam among legal experts earlier this year after conservative legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulson said in a forthcoming law review article, which was published as a preprint, that the Jan. 6, 2021, rebellion disqualifies Trump from being president again—and “the case is not even close”—arguing the section is still in effect and is “ready for use.”

That sentiment was echoed by other legal experts, with conservative legal scholar J. Michael Luttig and left-leaning Laurence Tribe jointly writing for the Atlantic in support of Trump being disqualified under the 14th Amendment, arguing, “No person who sought to overthrow our Constitution and thereafter declared that it should be ‘terminated’ and that he be immediately returned to the presidency can in good faith take the oath” required of presidents.

Colorado Disqualified Trump From 2024 Ballot Based On 14th Amendment — Here’s What To Know About Their Reasoning

The Colorado Supreme Court is the first to say Trump should be disqualified from the ballot—but even conservative legal experts have pushed that legal argument in recent months.

www.forbes.com

I guess, like the CO supreme court has admitted, YOU WERE WRONG!!!!! As usual. LMAO

 

[Dagosa]

Yep, because trump was never charged with the criminal statute of insurrection. We can go round and round about this. Insurrection is a FEDERAL crime, under title 18 of the U.S. code, which is the criminal code, this means that it has to be a federal trial. The 14A gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment with legislation which they did by passing the criminal code that one who committed insurrection would be charged with.

Take a look at post #632 that I replied to you with, I’d like to know how someone can be charged both criminally and civilly under the same amendment. Both Colorado and Jack smith are using the 14AS3 to disqualify Trump, so if that is a civil issue, then Colorado has already charged and convicted Trump, which means Jack smiths case is over.

For the umpteenth time, a judge(s) in this case, can examine the evidence and determine if the named person qualifies. You don’t seem to get , trials aren’t always necessary for eligibility.

Geesus, it’s public record that Trump conducted certain activitie……you ask the dumbest questions. Trump was never charged with anything in Colorado.. But, his documented conduct was there to see for the state Supreme Court.

 

[Kilroy2]

Yep, because trump was never charged with the criminal statute of insurrection. We can go round and round about this. Insurrection is a FEDERAL crime, under title 18 of the U.S. code, which is the criminal code, this means that it has to be a federal trial. The 14A gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment with legislation which they did by passing the criminal code that one who committed insurrection would be charged with.

Take a look at post #632 that I replied to you with, I’d like to know how someone can be charged both criminally and civilly under the same amendment. Both Colorado and Jack smith are using the 14AS3 to disqualify Trump, so if that is a civil issue, then Colorado has already charged and convicted Trump, which means Jack smiths case is over.

Of·fi·cial
/əˈfiSH(ə)l/

adjective

• 1.relating to an authority or public body and its duties, actions, and responsibilities:"the governor's official engagements"SimilarceremonialformalsolemnritualisticOppositeinformal

noun

• 1.a person holding public office or having official duties, especially as a representative of an organization or government department:" a union official"

 

[ThisIsMe]

For the umpteenth time, a judge(s) in this case, can examine the evidence and determine if the named person qualifies. You don’t seem to get , trials aren’t always necessary for eligibility.

Geesus, it’s public record that Trump conducted certain activitie……you ask the dumbest questions. Trump was never charged with anything in Colorado.. But, his documented conduct was there to see for the state Supreme Court.

[Quite]For the umpteenth time, a judge(s) in this case, can examine the evidence and determine if the named person qualifies. You don’t seem to get , trials aren’t always necessary for eligibility.[/Quote]

Oh my gosh…under what authority? How many times must I say this, the 14th amendment is enforced by CONGRESS through passing legislation, which is a criminal code. Insurrection is a CRIMINAL code under title 18. No court can just assign guilt to someone without a trial being held. Further, the constitution does not grant any state the power to declare someone to be guilty of a federal crime. Before a state can remove someone from a ballot, the person must first be charged with the crime.

And no, it’s not a stupid question. You are trying to assert that a Colorado state court can convict someone as a civil matter that the federal government is trying to prosecute criminally, under the same amendment. How does that work? How can the 14th amendment be used as a civil matter and be a criminal matter. If you are going to try and say that the case Jack smith is bringing is also a civil matter, then it’s over because Colorado already convicted trump as a civil matter (though they stayed their order). This means trump can’t be tried for it again.

Again, insurrection is a criminal act, so if anyone wants to disqualify him, it has to be in a criminal court.

If Colorado deemed him to have committed insurrection, then why aren’t they trying to prosecute him under the criminal code? Because doing so would mean they would have to actually charge him with insurrection, and so far, everyone seems to be avoiding that.

You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Dagosa]

Oh my gosh…under what authority?

The 14;amendment

 

[ThisIsMe]

The 14;amendment

…doesn’t give states any power in enforcing the 14th amendment.

 

[fncceo]

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again​

Apparently not...

Trump back on ballot in Colorado while state Republicans appeal ban to Supreme Court

The Colorado Republican Party has appealed that state's Supreme Court decision that found former President Donald Trump is ineligible for the presidency.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Dagosa]

…doesn’t give states any power in enforcing the 14th amendment.

No where in any of the state court challenges in Colorado or any other that were decided the other way, has either side contested that TRUMP engaged in insurrection…..no one.
So arguing that Trump did not, is a losing battle. Find another tactic….

Secondly. You don’t know shit about due process. It’s being practiced now and Trump’s side gets to challenge the rulings, even up to the Supreme Court.


That shows that for the most part only the rich get due process.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No where in any of the state court challenges in Colorado or any other that were decided the other way, has either side contested that TRUMP engaged in insurrection…..no one.
So arguing that Trump did not, is a losing battle. Find another tactic….

Secondly. You don’t know shit about due process. It’s being practiced now and Trump’s side gets to challenge the rulings, even up to the Supreme Court.


That shows that for the most part only the rich get due process.

doesn’t matter, we keep going in circles here. I’ve explained that section 5 empowers Congress. There is a criminal code for insurrection. The penalties tied to that code could include prison, this is a criminal act, that Congress passed, that the 14th amendment has empowered only them to do.

As I’ve already stated, I think you are incorrect, and neither of us will convince the other so, I’ll state it like I did awhile ago. I really hope the Colorado decision sticks, because I don’t think it’s going to work out like you all think it will.

 

[Dagosa]

doesn’t matter, we keep going in circles here. I’ve explained that section 5 empowers Congress. There is a criminal code for insurrection. The penalties tied to that code could include prison, this is a criminal act, that Congress passed, that the 14th amendment has empowered only them to do.

As I’ve already stated, I think you are incorrect, and neither of us will convince the other so, I’ll state it like I did awhile ago. I really hope the Colorado decision sticks, because I don’t think it’s going to work out like you all think it will.

Amendment 14 is simple. You engage in any form of insurrection, you can’t run for president. Case closed.

 

[jbander]

Why did he lie during one of his two failed prez campaigns claiming he was #2.

I have never got a response from Diaper Dell ever but he still thinks he should get a response. That's funny!

 

[Faun]

Ok, so, insurrection is a criminal offense lol. Are you saying you can charge someone with a civil charge on a criminal statute?

So…is Jack smiths case a criminal or a civil case?

I said no such thing. And Trump was not charged with anything in his civil trial.

 

[Faun]

no, it says Congress is the enforcement mechanism behind the amendment, and they DID pass legislation, which is the charging statute.

No it doesn't state that. That is what you wanted it to state which is why you dowdified what it said to read like you want; but again, it merely gave that power to Congress but not solely to Congress.