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

[Lastamender]

Why would I talk about your media fed conspiracy theories?

Make a thread.

So protesting fraud did not bring those people to DC on J6? You are an idiot.

 

[BlindBoo]

You want to talk about the obvious you need to talk about the obvious fraud that bought those people to DC.

We can talk about Benedict Donald if you want. His fraudulent claims not only brought his people to DC but also allowed several of them to get a free stay in the federal crossbar hotel. Attaboy Donnie!

 

[Lastamender]

We can talk about Benedict Donald if you want. His fraudulent claims not only brought his people to DC but also allowed several of them to get a free stay in the federal crossbar hotel. Attaboy Donnie!

Fraud happened. It has been uncovered in MI, NY, CO, TX, and CN.

And

NEW: Multiple New Jersey Democrats have been charged with election fraud crimes involving mail in ballots.

Paterson City Council President Alex Mendez was indicted for alleged crimes committed during the 2020 election.

Mendez allegedly supervised an operation that stole mail in ballots from mailboxes and replaced the ones that were not for him.

His wife and two others were also charged.

New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin says Mendez was seen emptying a “large, heavy bag, completely filled with ballots” into a mailbox.

“The defendants are accused of attempting to rig an election in their favor and to deprive the voters of Paterson of having their voices heard,” Platkin said.

“The functioning of democracy relies on voters’ trust that their votes count and those votes determine the outcomes of elections.”

Mendez was able to commit this alleged fraud due to the fact that all ballots were mail-in thanks to the pandemic.

The photos below show Mendez with high profile Democrats including Bill Clinton, Cory Booker and Whoopi Goldberg.

I thought mail-in-ballots were safe and secure?

BREAKING: Multiple New Jersey Dems charged with election fraud crimes involving mail-in ballots... - Revolver News

Gee, guess our elections aren't so secure after all.

revolver.news

Anyone who think that did not happen in the swing states in 2020 is fooling themselves.

 

[BlindBoo]

They have proven that he did. Denying facts and truth is what cowards and traitors do. Guess what that makes you?

Defense Secretary Christopher Miller said “President Trump had authority and responsibility to direct deployment of the National Guard in the District of Columbia, but never gave any order to deploy the National Guard on January 6th or on any other day,” the Pentagon report reads. “Nor did he instruct any Federal law enforcement agency to assist.”

I'm thinking Miller is more reliable than Patel. But I'll let the courts decide.

 

[Lastamender]

Defense Secretary Christopher Miller said “President Trump had authority and responsibility to direct deployment of the National Guard in the District of Columbia, but never gave any order to deploy the National Guard on January 6th or on any other day,” the Pentagon report reads. “Nor did he instruct any Federal law enforcement agency to assist.”

I'm thinking Miller is more reliable than Patel. But I'll let the courts decide.

He never gave that order because the people in charge of the Capitol did not want the guard.

 

[BlindBoo]

He never gave that order because the people in charge of the Capitol did not want the guard.

He never gave the order on Jan 6th. He watched for over 3 hours while the Capitol, Congress, and the Constitution were under attack by his MAGA MOB. He didn't say anything until well after that poor woman was killed while trying to get into the House Chamber.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Impeachment isn't a trial, and nothing is keeping an individual state from barring Trump from the ballot if the officials there determine he is ineligible.

 

[JoeB131]

He never gave that order because the people in charge of the Capitol did not want the guard.

That isn't their job, is it?

Trump organized an angry mob and then didn't take steps to keep it in line through the military or law enforcement, that sounds more and m ore like he did intend to launch a coup.

 

[Lastamender]

He never gave the order on Jan 6th. He watched for over 3 hours while the Capitol, Congress, and the Constitution were under attack by his MAGA MOB. He didn't say anything until well after that poor woman was killed while trying to get into the House Chamber.

That unarmed woman was shot for intimidation purposes, it was murder. And as I said before that decision was Trump's and there is nothing that can be done about it. Twitter deleted a tweet Trump sent out long before those 3 hours were up. Try the truth.

 

[Lastamender]

That isn't their job, is it?

Trump organized an angry mob and then didn't take steps to keep it in line through the military or law enforcement, that sounds more and m ore like he did intend to launch a coup.

He said come to DC to protest. Was MLK arrested for organizing a mob when he came to DC?

The coup was pulled of by Congress. They were complicit and knew an investigation would expose the fraud. So that investigation never happened.

 

[BlindBoo]

That unarmed woman was shot for intimidation purposes, it was murder. And as I said before that decision was Trump's and there is nothing that can be done about it. Twitter deleted a tweet Trump sent out long before those 3 hours were up. Try the truth.

Wrong. She was shot because she was breaking through the last barricaded doorway to the House Chamber. Benedict Donald is practically and morally responsible for the riot and her death.

 

[Lastamender]

Wrong. She was shot because she was breaking through the last barricaded doorway to the House Chamber. Benedict Donald is practically and morally responsible for the riot and her death.

There were cops all around. She could have easily been arrested. You support murder for political gain. That makes you a terrorist. You scumbag.

 

[Catsnmeters]

So protesting fraud did not bring those people to DC on J6? You are an idiot.

Who cares what brought them there?

You think because people are gullable enough that believe their was widespread fraud should get a pass on crimes because they are stupid?

Can I rob a bank because I think there was fraud?

WTF?

 

[Lastamender]

Who cares what brought them there?

You think because people are gullable enough that believe their was widespread fraud should get a pass on crimes because they are stupid?

Can I rob a bank because I think there was fraud?

WTF?

Read my signature. You are the gullible one thinking there was not fraud.

 

[BlindBoo]

There were cops all around. She could have easily been arrested. You support murder for political gain. That makes you a terrorist. You scumbag.

She chose to be the tip of the spear of the surging rioters. Benedict Donald instilled in her the belief that she had the right to hunt down Democrat Congressmen and Congresswomen inside the Capitol! The armed guards in the stairwell would not have been able to stop the surging crowd if she got through. The tip of the spear was blunted.

I do love how fast you show off your incompetence. To paraphrase Salvor Hardin 'Insults are the last resort of the incompetent' (Okay, okay all you sci-fi purist out there, it was Isaac Asimov's character who said "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent")

 

[JoeB131]

He said come to DC to protest. Was MLK arrested for organizing a mob when he came to DC?

The coup was pulled of by Congress. They were complicit and knew an investigation would expose the fraud. So that investigation never happened.

Another idiot who has bought the Big Lie.

Trump lost. He lost fair and square, and he wasn't man enough to deal with it.

 

[Lastamender]

Another idiot who has bought the Big Lie.

Trump lost. He lost fair and square, and he wasn't man enough to deal with it.

You bought the big lie. The fraud becomes more obvious everyday. Fair and square my ass. You got to be an idiot for even saying that. That election had 0 integrity, like you.

 

[otto105]

Youre lying to yourself

Hilarious

 

[otto105]

You bought the big lie. The fraud becomes more obvious everyday. Fair and square my ass. You got to be an idiot for even saying that. That election had 0 integrity, like you.

Where?

 

[Crick]

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.

If that's so, then they will decide in Trump's favor. If not...

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.

You've got that a bit turned around. The effort in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota is to remove him from the ballot. If he is removed from the ballot, he cannot possibly be elected.

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.​

Yep

Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3.

Yep

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~

Your text is in error. Here is the actual text of Section 3

"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."

The text here includes "...or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any state". That description WOULD include the office of the presidency.

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~

I agree with you that Trump has certainly not been convicted of insurrection and one would think that would nip this in the bud, but I have yet to see it mentioned by any of the pundits or experts. I'm curious whether or not everyone affected by this following the Civil War went through a trial and was convicted of insurrection. I suspect they were not; that publicly declaring loyalty to the Confederacy was effectively a de facto admission of insurrection.

That Trump was acquitted by the senate in his second impeachment, however, is irrelevant. Impeachment is not a criminal trial. Someone could be impeached and convicted by Congress and then indicted and convicted by the courts for the same crime without double exposure. They could be acquitted by one and convicted in the other. There is no jurisdictional overlap

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.

The text of section 3 does not say that the section itself may be voided by a two-thirds vote of Congress but that the political disability of an affected individual may be removed. Section 3 is part of the US Constitution and may not be voided by a simple statute.