Trump, the 14th and barring from office

[MinTrut]

I see when you have nothing to say you say it anyway.
Irrelevant.

Projection.

300th thread on this topic, and total garbage.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

First, the Ballots

I don't see anything in the text that calls for, permits, or forbids removing a person's name from the ballots. In the primaries this is solely a State decision and in the General this still falls to the states although Federal jurisdiction may be inferred via the VRA.

I don't see that SCOTUS has any jurisdiction in the primary prospect and its jurisdiction in the General is "iffy."

Certification at the State

This is the first place I see that Trump could be excluded. State legislatures, under the 14th, could refuse to certify a Trump win and decide to submit a different slate of electors or no electors at all.

The Congress

One of three places Trump could be declared an insurrectionist. Courts, and State Legislatures being the others. My reading says that a majority of each House, any State legislature, or any Federal court has the authority to declare Trump an insurrectionist at which time Trump can only enter any Federal office, elected or not, upon a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress.

Not sure how it would work in the Congress. Would each House hold a separate vote as to whether Trump is an insurrectionist? Would the VP declare Trump ineligible and the collective Congress vote?

My thinking favors the latter as the VP is "in charge" during the certification process.

My own thinking here is that Trump is ineligible to hold any Federal office with the actual events and the numbers of people convicted for their actions under Trump's direction/banner.

I'd like to discuss how such a ban would be implemented.

Yep, dems say no charge is needed, all you have to do is get a state court, Secretary of State, or some other official to simply say he committed insurrection and that’s enough.

I’m on board with it being this easy. I can’t wait for scotus to green light that idea, and then red states can start removing Biden from their ballots.

This election year is going to be very interesting.

 

[ThisIsMe]

"shall have engaged"
Is not the same as "have been convicted of"

And the 14th does not include any judicial remedies, only a 2/3 vote by congress to remove the ban.

Given that the 14th does not give the Courts jurisdiction but does give it to the legislature(s) my view is that only the legislatures at the State and Federal levels can make the determination.

So, what does section 5 mean to you? There are those who argue it puts the enforcement solely on Congress, and that they did so via the insurrection act, which means a charge and conviction is mandatory to disqual him from office.

What are your thoughts on that?

Also, to remove someone from the ballot without first charging him with insurrection would be a bad precedent. How can you punish someone without first charging with an offense. What is happening right now is that dems are just going off of the assumed stance that he committed insurrection. There are those who don’t believe what happened would qualify as an insurrection

You’d essentially be removing an entires party’s option to vote for their candidate, without even going to court to officially declare an insurrection had taken place.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Try rereading the OP
I said I didn't think removal was an option.

You're arguing an irrelevant position.

You should take your own advice.
Unless Colorado had an insurrection within their state they have no standing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

One more time MAGA.

Section 3 DOES NOT REQUIRE A CONVICTION. IT STATES ONLY TO HAVE FOUND TO BE ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION. It does get tiresome repeating the obvious.

Your irony is ironic simp

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I knew he'd get your attention
and
View attachment 894476

Your faggotry is noted

 

[Faun]

What is the difference, in your world, between a riot, and an insurrection?

They're both uprisings. But in the case of an insurrection, it's against the government to oppose execution of the law.

 

[MisterBeale]

They're both uprisings. But in the case of an insurrection, it's against the government to oppose execution of the law.

That's garbage reasoning.

Riots against the government, might be called, treason, or sedition conspiracy. . but words have meaning, we need to be precise in our language and not stretch meanings to weaponize the state against the people.

Liberty is at stake.

There is no way in hell, that one should manipulate the language, and call what happened on Jan. 6th, into a "insurrection." The agenda of the bureaucracy and the managerial class is clear, to anyone with a thimble full of intelligence.

Partisans should not be allowed to force their will onto the nation, but disenfranchising them.

We will just have to wait for a SCOTUS ruling.

 

[Faun]

That's garbage reasoning.

Riots against the government, might be called, treason, or sedition conspiracy. . but words have meaning, we need to be precise in our language and not stretch meanings to weaponize the state against the people.

Liberty is at stake.

There is no way in hell, that one should manipulate the language, and call what happened on Jan. 6th, into a "insurrection." The agenda of the bureaucracy and the managerial class is clear, to anyone with a thimble full of intelligence.

Partisans should not be allowed to force their will onto the nation, but disenfranchising them.

We will just have to wait for a SCOTUS ruling.

What you call "garbage reasoning" is actually me posting the definition.

Insurrection

A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens.​

 

[MisterBeale]

What you call "garbage reasoning" is actually me posting the definition.

Naw, I already posted a definition earlier.

An insurrection is organized. . . what happened on Jan. 6th? Was not.

An insurrection is armed and violent. What happened on Jan. 6th? Not a single shot was fired by the rioters. The only gunpowder used, was by the capitol police.

Thus? You are wrong.

 

[Faun]

Naw, I already posted a definition earlier.

An insurrection is organized. . . what happened on Jan. 6th? Was not.

An insurrection is armed and violent. What happened on Jan. 6th? Not a single shot was fired by the rioters. The only gunpowder used, was by the capitol police.

Thus? You are wrong.

False. Nothing in the definition requires the insurrection to be armed with guns.

Insurrection

A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens.​

 

[Faun]

They can remove everybody from the ballots if they want. Let them.

WE THE PEOPLE have the RIGHT to write in on the ballot ANYBODY we choose. And there's NOTHING they can do about that!

Actually, there is something they can do about it. They can choose to not count any write-ins for Trump.

 

[theHawk]

Nor does have to a conviction of Insurrection, he only has to found to have engaged in Insurrection.

There was no insurrection to engage in.

 

[0311]

That's garbage reasoning.

Riots against the government, might be called, treason, or sedition conspiracy. . but words have meaning, we need to be precise in our language and not stretch meanings to weaponize the state against the people.

Liberty is at stake.

There is no way in hell, that one should manipulate the language, and call what happened on Jan. 6th, into a "insurrection." The agenda of the bureaucracy and the managerial class is clear, to anyone with a thimble full of intelligence.

Partisans should not be allowed to force their will onto the nation, but disenfranchising them.

We will just have to wait for a SCOTUS ruling.

And exactly times has SCOTUS ruled in favor P01135809? His history of winning there sucks big time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What you call "garbage reasoning" is actually me posting the definition.

Insurrection​

​

A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens.​

So all of 2020 was an insurrection?
That would mean Harris and Biden and most democrats should be removed from office since they defended and bailed out the insurrectionist

 

[Faun]

So all of 2020 was an insurrection?
That would mean Harris and Biden and most democrats should be removed from office since they defended and bailed out the insurrectionist

Who from government was attacked, PussyBitch? What law was opposed? Do you ever exhibit the use of more than 2 brain cells at any given time?

 

[MisterBeale]

False. Nothing in the definition requires the insurrection to be armed with guns.

Insurrection​

​

A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens.​

If I actually believed that Trump was involved in "a rising against civil or political authority?"

You might. . . might, have a case. But, since I think that whole narrative is bullshit? meh.

". . . On the evening of January 5—the night before a white supremacist mob stormed Capitol Hill in a siege that would leave five dead—the acting secretary of defense, Christopher Miller, was at the White House with his chief of staff, Kash Patel. They were meeting with President Trump on “an Iran issue,” Miller told me. But then the conversation switched gears. The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. “We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’” Miller responded. “And [Trump] goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking bullshit. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’” At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, “‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God.”

âThe President Threw Us Under the Busâ: Embedding With Pentagon Leadership in Trumpâs Chaotic Last Week

Throughout the final, frenzied days of the Trump administration, a reporter rode shotgun with the outgoing acting defense secretary, Christopher Miller, the man who, under the distracted eye of his commander in chief, became America’s de facto guardian.

www.vanityfair.com

Live with Tarik Johnson, Former Lieutenant with Capitol Police - Viva Frei​

Tucker Carlson on Twitter Ep5 - Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund reveals truth on January 6th​

 

[0311]

If I actually believed that Trump was involved in "a rising against civil or political authority?"

You might. . . might, have a case. But, since I think that whole narrative is bullshit? meh.

". . . On the evening of January 5—the night before a white supremacist mob stormed Capitol Hill in a siege that would leave five dead—the acting secretary of defense, Christopher Miller, was at the White House with his chief of staff, Kash Patel. They were meeting with President Trump on “an Iran issue,” Miller told me. But then the conversation switched gears. The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. “We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’” Miller responded. “And [Trump] goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking bullshit. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’” At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, “‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God.”

âThe President Threw Us Under the Busâ: Embedding With Pentagon Leadership in Trumpâs Chaotic Last Week

Throughout the final, frenzied days of the Trump administration, a reporter rode shotgun with the outgoing acting defense secretary, Christopher Miller, the man who, under the distracted eye of his commander in chief, became America’s de facto guardian.

www.vanityfair.com

Live with Tarik Johnson, Former Lieutenant with Capitol Police - Viva Frei​

Tucker Carlson on Twitter Ep5 - Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund reveals truth on January 6th​

Fucker Carlon, purveyor of Russian Propaganda. Fuck him. Fucking traitor is all that asshole is.

 

[MisterBeale]

Fucker Carlon, purveyor of Russian Propaganda. Fuck him. Fucking traitor is all that asshole is.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Who from government was attacked, PussyBitch? What law was opposed? Do you ever exhibit the use of more than 2 brain cells at any given time?

Your definition
A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens.
BLM were the insurrectionists against the city police