Amendment 14 article 3

DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I believe this topic would benefit from a specific thread, since it promises to be a lively topic over the next weeks or months.

From the Guardian.

www.theguardian.com

US historians sign brief to support Colorado’s removal of Trump from ballot

Twenty-five civil war and Reconstruction scholars support invoking 14th amendment to bar Trump from ballot over January 6
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
The conservatives on the SCOTUS like history and basing calls on it, might as well be real history. IMO they have themselves in a legal philosophical box if they wanna let Trump off over insurrection. A court already found he was an insurrectionist as a finding of FACT, not of law and they will have to deal with that elephant in the room as well as the well documented intentions of the framers and founders. Courts rarely overturn findings of fact.

If Trump is indeed an insurrectionist and is disqualified, then an insurrection happened and those who gave aid and comfort are at jeopardy of disqualification too. There are a lot of elected republicans on video who did that and continue to do so.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
If Trump is disqualified it should impact his legal statues and no consideration will be given to politics or political impacts. It might be hard for the SCOTUS to not disqualify Trump, when six months later he will be convicted in DC for those crimes and in Georgia after that. If he is disqualified all those elected fake electors are toast too, it covers presidential electors and fake ones will count!

FIFY
 
Last edited:
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
DIY-HP-LED said:
If Trump is disqualified it should impact his legal statues and no consideration will be given to politics or political impacts. It might be hard for the SCOTUS to not disqualify Trump, when six months later he will be convicted in DC for those crimes and in Georgia after that. If he is disqualified all those elected fake electors are toast too, it covers presidential electors and fake ones will count!
Click to expand...
What about his illegal statues?

1706468704838.jpeg


 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
DinGrogu said:
Democrats are such hypocrites. Defending democracy by interfering with elections. Got it, lol.
www.newsweek.com

Banning Trump From the Ballot Doesn't Defend Democracy. It Subverts It

Those who care about defending democracy can only hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down this disgraceful effort to rig the 2024 election.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
Click to expand...
Nope, not enforcing the constitution is undemocratic, the law of the land applies to all and popularity among some is no defense.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
DinGrogu said:
Democrats are such hypocrites. Defending democracy by interfering with elections. Got it, lol.
www.newsweek.com

Banning Trump From the Ballot Doesn't Defend Democracy. It Subverts It

Those who care about defending democracy can only hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down this disgraceful effort to rig the 2024 election.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
Click to expand...
Putin is not qualified to run either, maybe he has a case too? I mean since the constitution doesn't apply why not? He could be Trump's VP pick and might be out of a job, or window, in Moscow soon.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I believe this topic would benefit from a specific thread, since it promises to be a lively topic over the next weeks or months.

From the Guardian.

www.theguardian.com

US historians sign brief to support Colorado’s removal of Trump from ballot

Twenty-five civil war and Reconstruction scholars support invoking 14th amendment to bar Trump from ballot over January 6
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
I think people overthink this when we talk about "his judges" on the SCOTUS.

The language of the 14th on this subject is clear and unambiguous. Also, from what the people who wrote the amendment also said in their other writing regarding their intent, is clear and unambiguous. There is always a chance that some justices will be willing to dispense with all of that and stand the English language on its head to justify ruling that a president can commit insurrection and unlike anybody else still be qualified to hold an office in state and federal government. There is a chance that I can walk through a wall too, quantum physics says so.

When all 9 justices are confronted with the clear and unambiguous language in the 14th A, their own legacy will be on the line, not just Trump's and I think they will consider that before making the unanimous ruling to disqualify Trump. And make our democracy more secure when doing so.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
DinGrogu said:
Democrats are such hypocrites. Defending democracy by interfering with elections. Got it, lol.
www.newsweek.com

Banning Trump From the Ballot Doesn't Defend Democracy. It Subverts It

Those who care about defending democracy can only hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down this disgraceful effort to rig the 2024 election.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
Click to expand...
Except, Democrats aren't the ones pushing for Trump to be disqualified. This is a legal matter, not a political one. Except everything is political nowadays, at least, that's how Republicans view the rule of law.

The language in the constitution is clear. One may not be under 35, must be a natural born citizen and may not have committed insurrection or give aid or comfort to those who commit insurrection if they have made an oath to protect the Constitution.

Other than that, Trump should be allowed to run for the office of President just like anybody else. A ruling is forthcoming from the SCOTUS on the matter. As somebody who abides by the framework of the Constitution, which makes the SCOTUS the final arbiter in legal arguments regarding the Constitution, I'll accept their ruling even if its against all reason regarding the language of the Constitution. What about you?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
DinGrogu said:
I thought you had to be found guilty of a crime before being charged but that's not how Democrats think it works.
Click to expand...
Read the article in post 1.

Also, there is no need to criminally charge insurrectionists in order for them to be recognized as such. Your loaded comment sets up a strawman.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
DinGrogu said:
I thought you had to be found guilty of a crime before being charged but that's not how Democrats think it works.
Click to expand...
I'll make it simple for you.

No charges need to be filed although lawsuits in court to challenge Trump's qualifications must be. Does somebody have to be charged with being under the age of 35? They can't because it's not a crime but is a disqualification. They simply must be over 35. And not violate the terms spelled out in section 3 of the 14th.

Is this where you claim double jeopardy?
 
Last edited:
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
DinGrogu said:
Democrats are such hypocrites. Defending democracy by interfering with elections. Got it, lol.
www.newsweek.com

Banning Trump From the Ballot Doesn't Defend Democracy. It Subverts It

Those who care about defending democracy can only hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down this disgraceful effort to rig the 2024 election.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
Click to expand...
Tobin’s argument is circular. While article 3 was drafted as a consequence of the Civil War, suggesting it only applied to Civil War traitors is neocon nonsense. It applies as written to all insurrectionists.

Expect a few GOP legislators to run afoul of it as well. The restoration of a republic requires that.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
DIY-HP-LED said:
An originalist and federalist society member I believe, as are all the conservative justices and the federalist society has rather strong opinions and legal arguments about the matter.
Click to expand...
Trouble is, the FS has been a farm team for judges who bring a distinct casuistry to originalist doctrine.

slate.com

Originalism Demands Only One Answer in the Supreme Court’s Big Elections Case

The independent state legislature theory is an abomination to originalism, and for genuinely originalist justices, Moore should be an easy case.
slate.com slate.com
 
jimihendrix1

jimihendrix1

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top