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.
Nothing. try reading the words.
More from the link I provided in my last post which demonstrates a conviction is not required under the self-executing 14th Amendment:
No there was a lower court judge in Colorado, then 7 judges on the Colorado Supreme court. All of them found that Trump had engaged in insurrection. The dissenting opinions were based on whether Colorado law gave them the power to bar Trump, not whether he engaged in insurrection.
NopeAdditionally, other state courts have found the Trump engaged in insurrection.
They refused to bar Trump either due to technicalities with the State laws or deferred their decision until SCOTUS ruled.
No court has found that Trump did not engage in insurrection.
Nope. Only the trial judge decided it was an insurrection. Appeals court made no independent determination.
Nope
So, neither the appeals court nor the Colorado supreme court made any objection to the finding the Trump engaged in insurrection.
Is it that they didn't think it was important?
They didn't find any legal error. Clearly I disagree. Both factually and legally.
Here's a question for you to think about. Is a determination of "insurrection" a factual determination or a legal determination?So, they did not find any error, legally or factually, with the determination that Trump has engaged in insurrection.
Here's a question for you to think about. Is a determination of "insurrection" a factual determination or a legal determination?
Got it. You have no interest in an adult discussion, and would rather exchange purile insults.Trump's having engaged in insurrection was a factual determination based on 'preponderance of evidence'.
The trial judge's determination that A. 14 S. 3 did not apply to the Presidency was a legal determination.
Any other stupid questions?
Got it. You have no interest in an adult discussion, and would rather exchange purile insults.
You poopyhead.
I win.
Have a blessed day.
I respond like a dick to dicks.Try not posting like a dick, As you say, the Amendment is silent. So, it could require a conviction. It could require an act of Congress. You don't know. And you won't know until the Supreme Court tells us what it requires.
??? You said definitively that it doesn't require a conviction. Now you say you don't know. Sounds like a dick move to me.I respond like a dick to dicks.
I don't know which is why I started the thread. To discuss and see what ideas others have.
Well I guess you know more dicks than most of us.??? You said definitively that it doesn't require a conviction. Now you say you don't know. Sounds like a dick move to me.
I'm frankly surprised the act of breathing doesn't escape you.Well I guess you know more dicks than most of us.
I EXPRESSED AN OPINION.
opinion
noun
opin·ion ə-ˈpin-yən
a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
We asked them for their opinions about the new stadium.
b: APPROVAL, ESTEEM
I have no great opinion of his work.
a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
a person of rigid opinions
b: a generally held view
news programs that shape public opinion
Not surprising that the definition of OPINION escapes you.
Nope. To date, 8 people have been denied a seat in public office under the purview of the 14th Amendment.
To date, not one of them had been convicted of insurrection or rebellion.
The wording of the 14th doesn't require convictions.I'm frankly not surprised the act of breathing escapes you.
"No, MAGAT, the 14th doesn't require any convictions." is a statement of fact, not opinion.
Just the ones spoken by arrogant ignorants.The wording of the 14th doesn't require convictions.
I see words are hard for you.
No, MAGAT, the 14th doesn't require any convictions.
Try reading.
Nope. Wrong.
No conviction required.
Many Confederates were banned from running for office despite not have been convicted of insurrection.
Your propagandists are lying to you.
The Jefferson Davis Case Showed That Section Three Required No Criminal Conviction and Was Self-Executing
Amici curiae briefs filed in support of the Petitioner by individuals who are not historians claim that “Historical records ... reveal that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment were not concerned that a Confederate leader could attain the presidency” and that “No Republican seriously feared that the national electorate would place a former rebel like Jefferson Davis in the White House.” These assertions are mistaken.
Obstacles to prosecuting Davis had made it increasingly likely that he would not be convicted on treason charges, thus underscoring the need for Section Three. As Lieber had worried, the failure to convict would mean that Davis would not fall under the disqualification provisions of the Second Confiscation Act. Section Three augmented that Act’s disqualification provision by eliminating the need fora treason conviction before a federal jury, at least insofar as prior oath-takers were concerned. Moreover, once underway, the Davis prosecution illuminated the meaning of Section Three by showing that lawyers and judges understood it to be self executing.
