Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst

[Marener]

Funny shit

Republicans are nothing if not hypocritical. See how your own tactics can be used against you?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Republicans are nothing if not hypocritical. See how your own tactics can be used against you?

Bullshit that's a lie democrats did keep a republican off the ballot in select states and that Republican still won

 

[JoeB131]

You want to go with the I surrection claim them you need to prove a insurrection happened. Not be ause you leftists wish to use it for political expediency but actual proof of an insurrection. And it must fit the legal definition of insurrection.

Um, it was on TV. We all watched it unfold.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Um, it was on TV. We all watched it unfold.

Ok let's see the legal definition of insurrection.
GO______

 

[JoeB131]

Ok let's see the legal definition of insurrection.

That's why we are having a court hearing and Trump is on trial.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's why we are having a court hearing and Trump is on trial.

No numbnuts we have a legal definition of insurrection in law books. It's already defined. So what is it?

 

[Marener]

Bullshit that's a lie democrats did keep a republican off the ballot in select states and that Republican still won

What are you talking about?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What are you talking about?

Why are you so lacking in historical comprehension? If what I said confuses you do some research of American history mid 19 century.

 

[berg80]

Didn't read the spiel that is your post but I do agree that Trump should not be removed from the ballot as he hasn't been convicted of insurrection.

Sec. 3 of the 14th A makes no requirement for conviction.

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again​

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 Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[rampart]

Yes. All Of the Confederate were not convicted, but the Section applied to all of them, meeting the section 3 wording and requirements....

Is that what your post is trying to say?

no conviction was necessary to prevent robt e lee or jeff davis from running for president. their involvement with the confederacy was so obvious, as was trump's leadership of the jan 6 revolt, that no trial was necessary to show that they had broken their oaths.

 

[Marener]

Why are you so lacking in historical comprehension? If what I said confuses you do some research of American history mid 19 century.

And what does mid 19th century politics have to do with anything?

Thats pretty pathetic.

 

[wamose]

I expect Colorado and Minnesota to do stupid shit like this but I thought Michigan was better. Maybe their big Muslim population catapulted them into this dark place. All in all, this just goes toward proving how unhinged and bigoted the Democrat party has become, trying to hang onto power. Power has become their heroin and when you worship power, you become incapable of representing people. MAGA.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Sec. 3 of the 14th A makes no requirement for conviction.

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again​

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 Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

www.theatlantic.com

Fuck off, Stalinberg!!!!
MAGA gonna git ya!!!!!!

 

[Care4all]

There was no insurrection fucking idiot.

Perhaps that will be the ruling, perhaps it won't.

 

[konradv]

Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst​

Judges Have No Legal Authority to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballots

These anti-Trump ballot challenges are lawfare at its worst, trying to use the law and the courts as a political weapon.

www.dailysignal.com

2 Nov 2023 ~~ By Hans von Spakovsky

As state court proceedings get under way in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota in lawsuits aimed at barring Donald Trump from appearing as a presidential candidate on the ballot in next year’s presidential election, the judges in those cases should understand that the text, history, and application of the 14th Amendment make it clear that they have no legal authority to take any such action.
Due to Trump’s supposed actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the challengers are trying to argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the disqualification clause, prevents him from being president even if he is elected, so he should be removed from the ballot by state election officials.
Section 3 provides that:

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

Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3.
There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
Trump Didn’t Hold An Applicable Office
First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official. Trump has never been any of those.
He has never held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the federal government.
Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3.
~Snip~

No Conviction for ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’​

Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2383, which makes it a crime to engage in “any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States.”
More importantly, in the second impeachment resolution of Trump on Jan. 11, 2021, he was charged by the House of Representatives in Article I with “Incitement of Insurrection.” Yet, he was acquitted by the Senate.
Given our federal constitutional system, state and federal courts should not gainsay the findings of Congress on this issue. The risk of inconsistent rulings from state and county election officials, as well as from the many different courts hearing these challenges, could cause electoral chaos.
~Snip~

Section 3 No Longer Extant?​

Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already adopted by one federal court—that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.
Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the end of the Civil War. It was aimed at the former members of the Confederate government and military who had previously been in Congress or held executive posts.
All of the challengers filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from their state ballots are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3, which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign officials.


Commentary:
Excellent, reasoned and backed by historical fact, SCOTUS rulings and Congressional Acts by the author Hans von Spakovsky.
Democrat Socialists of America Commies use of Lawfare is obviously subjective and unconstitutional. Any judge participating in such shenanigans, should face pushback and disbarment.

It’s telling that even if convicted of crimes, Trump’s allies would still support him! If the rule of law isn’t accepted, why should they be accepted as fellow citizens? They’re approaching the same level of unrest, as the more radical groups of the Vietnam era!

 

[Rawley]

It's all under the same Chapter of US CODE.... Insurrection, Sedition, Subversion etc etc are all together, there are like 6 or 7etc....different U.S. Codes encompassing the whole category of betrayal.

Completely different laws.

This clause in the COnstitution does not apply to the President
THe Biden Administration admits it wasn't a insurrection
Your party charged him with insurrection, there was a trial, he was acquitted.

These hyperpartisan idiots filing these lawsuits are blowing smoke up your ass and you're gleefully regurgitating it. THey are playing you for a useful idiot.

 

[MarathonMike]

Trying to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot Is Unconstitutional and Lawfare at Its Worst​

Judges Have No Legal Authority to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballots

These anti-Trump ballot challenges are lawfare at its worst, trying to use the law and the courts as a political weapon.

www.dailysignal.com

2 Nov 2023 ~~ By Hans von Spakovsky

As state court proceedings get under way in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota in lawsuits aimed at barring Donald Trump from appearing as a presidential candidate on the ballot in next year’s presidential election, the judges in those cases should understand that the text, history, and application of the 14th Amendment make it clear that they have no legal authority to take any such action.
Due to Trump’s supposed actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the challengers are trying to argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the disqualification clause, prevents him from being president even if he is elected, so he should be removed from the ballot by state election officials.
Section 3 provides that:

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

Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3.
There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
Trump Didn’t Hold An Applicable Office
First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official. Trump has never been any of those.
He has never held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the federal government.
Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3.
~Snip~

No Conviction for ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’​

Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2383, which makes it a crime to engage in “any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States.”
More importantly, in the second impeachment resolution of Trump on Jan. 11, 2021, he was charged by the House of Representatives in Article I with “Incitement of Insurrection.” Yet, he was acquitted by the Senate.
Given our federal constitutional system, state and federal courts should not gainsay the findings of Congress on this issue. The risk of inconsistent rulings from state and county election officials, as well as from the many different courts hearing these challenges, could cause electoral chaos.
~Snip~

Section 3 No Longer Extant?​

Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already adopted by one federal court—that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.
Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the end of the Civil War. It was aimed at the former members of the Confederate government and military who had previously been in Congress or held executive posts.
All of the challengers filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from their state ballots are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3, which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign officials.


Commentary:
Excellent, reasoned and backed by historical fact, SCOTUS rulings and Congressional Acts by the author Hans von Spakovsky.
Democrat Socialists of America Commies use of Lawfare is obviously subjective and unconstitutional. Any judge participating in such shenanigans, should face pushback and disbarment.

Democrats are not even trying to pretend anymore. They have gone full Totalitarian Regime corrupting the DOJ, FBI, and the Media to keep their power.

 

[BlindBoo]

He shouldn't be on any states ballot. But where's the fun in that?

Play Ball!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The nomenclature for The Democratic Party is not The Democrat Party, see the diff? Can't you people read or spell?

Uh wut

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That is your opinion, not a fact.

No shit, genius.