The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

[Nostra]

Colorado says Trump is an insurrectionist. That's good enough for me! California and Maine are also considering it.

Colorado said that?

Link?

 

[Lakhota]

Colorado said that?

Link?

 

[Nostra]

View attachment 877056

So, still no link. Just regurgitating what your handlers tell you to think.

Funny shit.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Lol, this guy is truly deranged. Poor little traitor.

He says he's "non-partisan"..........Ha ha ha ha haaa. He won't even own it.

 

[OKTexas]

View attachment 877056

Hey commie, that was a civil proceeding, not criminal. You commies will swallow all the jizz your masters will feed you. LAMO

.

 

[Kondor3]

who the fuck is my orange baboon god?....geezus christ dipshit say the assholes name....or did your gods tell you you couldnt?...yep nice and compliant....

Make sense, fool...

And whatever in-the-world does that have to do with whether or not Trump can be barred from office via the 14th?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Great! As I can think of about 40 red states who also have the right to run THEIR elections, and Biden will be off the ballot in every one of them.

Then in the future, there will never be another election where all 50 states agree to the same ballot on anything.

Well except of course you will need a constitutionally acceptable cause on which to exempt Biden from being on the ballot.
The remedy for presidents is impeachment but your guys aren’t doing to well with that.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes, a government can be overthrown.
No, Trump did not attempt to overthrow the government.
Neither did the J6 protestors.

Well trying to replace a duly elected president with one that was not is a bit coup-ish which has an overthrow-y feel to it. No?

 

[jbander]

SC(r)OTUS will do exactly as their billionaire handlers tell them to do.

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.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

So let's get something straight here. You're saying CO can take it upon themselves to enforce federal law. Does that mean the States that so desire can start deporting illegals at will? Come on commies, let's see a bit of consistency and intellectual honesty, for once.

.

 

[forkup]

Trump is that he's made his supporters immune to actual reason.
the same can be said of the die hard party people....

You aren't arguing against "die hard party people" you are arguing against me. You are making an appeal to hypocrisy against a strawman. Two fallacious arguments for the price of one.

I'll just ask you this. Are there any circumstances under which YOU would accept as correct any ruling against Trump that is to his detriment? Any evidence that can be presented? Any testimony you would accept?

I think the answer to this question is no.

 

[Orangecat]

Well trying to replace a duly elected president with one that was not is a bit coup-ish which has an overthrow-y feel to it. No?

Good luck with that wishy-washy bullshit opinion in a court of law.

 

[forkup]

The judges are largely full of crap also

After years on the bench they become convinced they are all-knowing gods in their own right

Judging stuff is literally in their name and job description.

You where arguing they can't simply judge somebody as an insurrectionist. I'm arguing that judges are the people that the constitution gives the authority to make those judgements.

 

[Nostra]

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.

The country supports this by "quite a margin"?


Got a link to that jbander ?

 

[Orangecat]

This decision By Colorado is supported by this country by quite a margin

You pulled that "fact" out of your ass.
Regardless, the law isn't a popularity contest, kid.

 

[Mac-7]

Judging stuff is literally in their name and job description.

True

“Pompous asshole” should be included in their job title also

I think if a lower court federal judge gets overturned 3 times he should be removed from the bench

 

[Orangecat]

View attachment 877056

You get your legal advice from a meme? How precious.

 

[Orangecat]

If you insist on making sense, our liberals will be frothing — more than they already are.

As if those clowns have the intellectual capacity to understand anything more complex than a bumper sticker.

 

[Orangecat]

Judging stuff is literally in their name and job description.

You where arguing they can't simply judge somebody as an insurrectionist. I'm arguing that judges are the people that the constitution gives the authority to make those judgements.

Maybe they can just judge someone as a murderer, on rumors and hearsay, without any due process.
Does that sound like something they can just do?

 

[BS Filter]

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?

You better read it again and use a dictionary.