The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

[ThisIsMe]

We disqualify people all the time from job opportunities just based on evidence as determined by a court to be suffivient and not the full due process of a trial.

Having an insane man promote violence of any type and especially in insurrection activities, CONSTANTLY , should be enough to have his eligibility for any public employment any kind, passed on by court judges at a minimum.

You can’t compare this to “just any job”. It’s not the same.

But yeah, let’s go with that. I’m curious to see how the future of elections will be when a state can just disqualify a candidate they don’t like simply by “working” the law to interpret it in a way that disqualifies them.

Also, according to you..we can now assign penalties to someone without even charging them with the statute that those penalties are derived from.

You are saying that, even though insurrection is a criminal statute, we don’t have to assign all of the penalties prescribed by the criminal code…if that the case, why do we have to assign any penalties? Why not just throw the code out and just kind do whatever we want.

 

[Faun]

In both sentences, it’s the same meaning. I didn’t change the meaning. I was being brief but I had posted the full section many times. You’re splitting hairs here.

In both cases it says “Congress SHALL have the power..” not “Congress MAY have the power..”it doesn’t say “Congress AND STATES” shall have the power.

Ok, let’s go with this. Are you suggesting that the amendment was written for ANYONE but that “oh and Congress will also be able to do this”? If the meaning is what to think it is, the entire writing of section 5 would have been pointless, they could have just stopped at section 4, because apparently, your version is that the 14th amendment is self enforcing, and any court or state can just do it on their own.

Should we look at all the other times the constitution uses the word “shall” and say “well they could…but they don’t have to…we can leave that up to other bodies”?

Ok then. Let’s play that game. Good luck getting any president to run 2 terms since many different courts can interpret the constitution and laws in many different ways. So, what it will boil down to is, people in certain states just won’t be able to vote for the candidate if their choosing.

If you insist you're not lying then you're simply illiterate. You literally shifted the operative phrase subjected to "shall" from "have to power to," to, "enforce."

Those two sentences do not mean the same thing.

One means Congress has to enforce it, the other means Congress doesn't have to enforce it.

As far as whether or not states can enforce it, YOU already supplied the answer to that when YOU pointed out states can't impeach a president because the Constitution declares the House shall have "SOLE" power to impeach; while the 14th Amendment does NOT include such a limitation.

 

[Faun]

Ahh so it’s legit then? Funny how one changes their mind when it’s for their benefit..

Nope, it's not legit. It's showing you did what you accuse me of doing.

 

[Faun]

Ok then, it’s a civil matter..then Jack smiths case is dead, since trump has already been convicted in a Colorado court…Jack smiths case runs afoul of double jeopardy.

There ya go…

WTF is wrong with you? That is not double jeopardy. Holyfuckingshit.

 

[Dagosa]

You can’t compare this to “just any job”. It’s not the same.

yes, it is a job. They are hired and fired like anyother job.

But yeah, let’s go with that. I’m curious to see how the future of elections will be when a state can just disqualify a candidate they don’t like simply by “working” the law to interpret it in a way that disqualifies them.

No sane person complains that people with a background of accused domestic and child abuse can’t get certain types of jobs. Aamof, they support it. You’re whining that Trump hasn’t had due process. He’s having it now.
listen to his rhetoric. The court acts on evidence of past and future behavior. He’s done and said everything to support continued quest to being a dictator. The mfker admits it. It’s like a priest admitting he would be a child molester.

Also, according to you..we can now assign penalties to someone without even charging them with the statute that those penalties are derived from.

Do you call it a just response for some one who admits to being a child molester and will continue to be be a child molester from not hiring them as a school bus driver !

You are saying that, even though insurrection is a criminal statute, we don’t have to assign all of the penalties prescribed by the criminal code…if that the case, why do we have to assign any penalties? Why not just throw the code out and just kind do whatever we want.

Child molestation has criminal penalties for it, yet we allow hiring constrictions just on the evidentiary suspicion he’ll repeat his conduct by a COURT to that end.

Trump has already announced that his oath means nothing and through his attorneys, that’s his defense….he has through his attorneys announced that anything he says under oath means nothing. Now he’s running around promoting fascism and dictatorship which you bozos WANT…WTF ?

 

[jbander]

Interesting times, right?

Trump will be on the ballot in CO at this point, but Maine Democrats are committing insurrection now, so SCOTUS must act as quickly as challenges can be brought to this sinister treason.

Mainer democrats are committing insurrection , Now that is funny , stupid but funny. Where do these clowns get this goofball stuff.

 

[Dagosa]

Mainer democrats are committing insurrection , Now that is funny , stupid but funny. Where do these clowns get this goofball stuff.

Hilarious. You have to be a goof ball to even listen to Trump for more than 2 minutes. By in large, it’s the white male majority fearing they are soon to become the white male minority. It has always included conspiracy theories and racism. That’s the tie that binds them together. Funny, they never deny it.

 

[Kilroy2]

Mainer democrats are committing insurrection , Now that is funny , stupid but funny. Where do these clowns get this goofball stuff.

if democrats are committing insurrection then the republicans must have done it back in the previous election. It easy to blame others but few republicans blame Trump for his actions. There are some but the rest seem to ignore it as an inconvenient truth.

 

[Delldude]

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

'Engaged' in an insurrection, ok.

Isn't that a violation of US Code?

 

[Concerned American]

Mainer democrats are committing insurrection , Now that is funny , stupid but funny. Where do these clowns get this goofball stuff.

Hide and watch what happens in Maine. You'll find out that the ACLU nut SOS in Maine--AND YOU, are on the wrong side of this one.

 

[Faun]

'Engaged' in an insurrection, ok.

Isn't that a violation of US Code?

It could be.

 

[Delldude]

It could be.

Either it is or it isn't.

 

[Faun]

Either it is or it isn't.

No, it could be. If someone is charged with insurrection, maybe they're found guilty in court or maybe they're not.

 

[Delldude]

No, it could be. If someone is charged with insurrection, maybe they're found guilty in court or maybe they're not.

The key point is it's a federal felony. How many were charged with video evidence that same day for breaching and/or entering the capitol. Something like 40,000 videos, but it seems not one has been found of Trump that day committing insurrection that proves He broke federal law.

Not one charge.

 

[Faun]

The key point is it's a federal felony. How many were charged with video evidence that same day for breaching and/or entering the capitol. Something like 40,000 videos, but it seems not one has been found of Trump that day committing insurrection that proves He broke federal law.

Not one charge.

In terms of the 14th Amendment, it's a judgment call. Just like it was in the 1800's when some were banned from public office despite not being charged with insurrection or rebellion.

 

[braalian]

I’m no Trump supporter, but disenfranchising 40-50% of the electorate is like throwing a lit match onto a powder keg

 

[Delldude]

In terms of the 14th Amendment, it's a judgment call. Just like it was in the 1800's when some were banned from public office despite not being charged with insurrection or rebellion.

Only problem for you is congress and Lincoln declared an insurrection.....and anyone who had participated was, under the 14th, ineligible.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

And you're wrong.
What are you going to do when red states pull Biden off their ballots and say he's not fit to run?

 

[Faun]

I’m no Trump supporter, but disenfranchising 40-50% of the electorate is like throwing a lit match onto a powder keg

How is it disenfranchised them when they can still vote for any Republican they want, including Trump?

 

[Faun]

Only problem for you is congress and Lincoln declared an insurrection.....and anyone who had participated was, under the 14th, ineligible.

Good thing Biden declared it was an insurrection then.