Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nope, he wasn't. He had his day in court.
Which is accordance with section 3 of the Constitution.
LOL
You're such a moron. YOU just made my case for me. Your first example was denied a seat in office until he was granted amnesty by president Grant.
Your second example was also denied a seat until the Supreme Court overturned his conviction.
If they were denied, they could never had held office under any circumstance.
Vance was elected by the state legislature to his U.S. Senate seat. His appointment was challenged by the losing candidate. Neither were seated. At the time, President Andrew Johnson's amnesty program did not apply to former U.S. Representatives. Ultimately re-elected in 1878 and served a long U.S. Senate tenure.
Conviction appealed and overturned by the US Supreme Court after disqualification.
Faun: I take no pride beating down rightards......
Wrong.
No court ever ruled that Trump was guilty of insurrection.
Trump never defended himself from a charge of insurrection in any court.
So the CO ruling clearly is illegal.
It was never legally determined by a court of law, that Trump was guilty of insurrection.
Has any such formal declaration or conviction of insurrection ever been made over Trump?
No, of course not.
So then it is just conjecture and opinion on the part of a Colorado bureaucrat, who does not have the authority to declare anyone to be guilty of insurrection.
They weren't denied if they succeeded in running for office.....Still those two were denied under the 14th.
Every Democrat has violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.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?
They weren't denied if they succeeded in running for office.....
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress,
Every Democrat has violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Prove me wrong.
Like I said, you can’t refute it.You're insane and hallucinating. That's the proof you seek.
Like I said, you can’t refute it.
Then the 14th didn't apply.I'm agreeing they weren't denied indefinitely as there were circumstances which reversed their eligibility. Until then, however, the 14th Amendment applied to them and they were denied public office.
Your accusations are less worthy than mine.Already did.
Then the 14th didn't apply.
Your accusations are less worthy than mine.
You're implying they got off on technicalities after being disqualified.Of course it did. Until the insurrectionists were legally forgiven for their alleged crimes against the U.S..
You're implying they got off on technicalities after being disqualified.
Yes they got off on technicalities, like I said.I didn't imply any such thing. In fact, I stated EXACTLY what occurred to reinstate their eligibility.
I’m so old i remember when people had to be criminally convicted of a felony to have their Constitutional rights stripped.Nope. My accusations are spot on. Here, watch this...
I'm a Democrat... what violent attack against our government did I do?
