Amendment 14 article 3

BudmanTX · Feb 8, 2024

this is from the transcript:

19 The holding of Griffin's Case goes beyond
20 even that by saying that a state is not allowed to
21 implement or enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth
22 Amendment unless and until Congress enacts
23 implementing legislation allowing it to do so.

hate to say this but congress did, by impeaching him the second time and call him an "incitement of insurrection" basically calling him an insurrectionist, that make the 14th section 3 auto......imo

ooof-da · Feb 8, 2024

For me I think the S.C. is simply not going to rule on it because of “optics” but where were those same fears when they took up ROE? meh, id rather have the dipshit on the r ticket cause Hailey is stronger but idgaf…it still isn’t “right” imo

cannabineer · Feb 8, 2024

DIY-HP-LED said:
Opinions are like assholes and those guys never saw modern arms and what they can do, they did say for the purposes of a well-ordered militia under the state's control and retired justices have said, the current SCOTUS and the one for the past few years, are full of shit on the 2nd, it is not just my opinion alone.

I’ll let my bud’ Tommy take this one.

DIY-HP-LED · Feb 8, 2024

Fogdog said:
If the ruling that comes out of today's hearing is that Colorado or any state doesn't have the authority to decide who may run for president in their primary, I think that might be a good ruling.

It's a can of worms, don't get me wrong. If that's all they rule then it just sets us up for more uncertainty, more court cases and chaos in this year's primaries because ruling without providing clarity on the process for disqualification would only say what can not be done, not what to do. That said, I too think that we don't want fifty states making fifty different decisions regarding who may run for the nomination of a political party. I'd like to see some clarity on the disqualification process but I won't disagree if they rule that Colorado did not have the power to exclude Trump from that state's primary ballot.

That's what they pay the SCOTUS the big bucks for, to determine if lower courts are full of shit as a court of review. Trump represents a unique case that is not likely to be repeated often. The further this gets into the election process the harder it will be and if he managed to get elected the fun in congress would really begin if the democrats had a majority and this house is pretty evenly divided. However, a new congress sits after the new year, and they would be the ones counting the electoral votes and declaring Trump disqualified. It stands a good chance of being a democratic congress with some redistricting and the chaos the GOP is in. This will be a fucking mess and what about immunity and getting his trial back on track? Does the public even have any right to hear the evidence before the election or does Donald's novel right's trump the people's right to a trial in this matter.

cannabineer · Feb 8, 2024

Fogdog said:
If the ruling that comes out of today's hearing is that Colorado or any state doesn't have the authority to decide who may run for president in their primary, I think that might be a good ruling.

It's a can of worms, don't get me wrong. If that's all they rule then it just sets us up for more uncertainty, more court cases and chaos in this year's primaries because ruling without providing clarity on the process for disqualification would only say what can not be done, not what to do. That said, I too think that we don't want fifty states making fifty different decisions regarding who may run for the nomination of a political party. I'd like to see some clarity on the disqualification process but I won't disagree if they rule that Colorado did not have the power to exclude Trump from that state's primary ballot.

I hope they don’t go for the fuck-all-y’all punt and rule that it would require a 2/3 vote in both houses to invoke the clause. I don’t put it past these nine.

Fogdog · Feb 8, 2024

DIY-HP-LED said:
That's what they pay the SCOTUS the big bucks for, to determine if lower courts are full of shit as a court of review. Trump represents a unique case that is not likely to be repeated often. The further this gets into the election process the harder it will be and if he managed to get elected the fun in congress would really begin if the democrats had a majority and this house is pretty evenly divided. However, a new congress sits after the new year, and they would be the ones counting the electoral votes and declaring Trump disqualified. It stands a good chance of being a democratic congress with some redistricting and the chaos the GOP is in. This will be a fucking mess and what about immunity and getting his trial back on track? Does the public even have any right to hear the evidence before the election or does Donald's novel right's trump the people's right to a trial in this matter.

Agree with this will be a fucking mess. Not that I agree with the other word salad. This will be a fucking mess if SCOTUS doesn't provide clarification on the disqualification process.

From the line of questions during today's session, and what analysts are saying about that, it appears that SCOTUS will rule that Colorado can't disqualify Trump from running in that state's primary. Other than that, no one is speculating* what else they might rule on if anything.

*other than you

DIY-HP-LED · Feb 8, 2024

cannabineer said:
I’ll let my bud’ Tommy take this one.

View attachment 5368731

Let's put it this way, if respected legal pundits are ok with the disqualification ruling and the reasons for it and the decision is unanimous, then I can't argue with it, and neither can the pundits. However, I do believe there might be a respectful difference of expert opinion and it opens up other implications.

DIY-HP-LED · Feb 8, 2024

Fogdog said:
Agree with this will be a fucking mess. Not that I agree with the other word salad. This will be a fucking mess if SCOTUS doesn't provide clarification on the disqualification process.

From the line of questions during today's session, and what analysts are saying about that, it appears that SCOTUS will rule that Colorado can't disqualify Trump from running in that state's primary. Other than that, no one is speculating* what else they might rule on if anything.

*other than you

The pundits are speculating on it and the implications, all such rulings have implications down the road, especially if they don't disqualify, they did raise valid points of law, but let's not miss the forest because of the trees. The elephant in the room is Trump was an insurrectionist and the nation witnessed it and he has been indicted for those related crimes and hopefully will be tried for them this summer.

cannabineer · Feb 8, 2024

DIY-HP-LED said:
Let's put it this way, if respected legal pundits are ok with the disqualification ruling and the reasons for it and the decision is unanimous, then I can't argue with it, and neither can the pundits. However, I do believe there might be a respectful difference of expert opinion and it opens up other implications.

I’ve noticed that “pundits” in this instance almost always devolves to the same two talking heads: Luttig and Conway. Be nice to have a deeper field.

DIY-HP-LED · Feb 8, 2024

cannabineer said:
I’ve noticed that “pundits” in this instance almost always devolves to the same two talking heads: Luttig and Conway. Be nice to have a deeper field.

I do post them, there are several and they are all over TV and YouTube, I could post more, but most folks see it on TV, and I just post the odd example. They provide a valuable public service in explaining the law, all the networks have built out their legal benches to cover the upcoming shitstorm in court.

DIY-HP-LED · Feb 8, 2024

cannabineer said:
I’ve noticed that “pundits” in this instance almost always devolves to the same two talking heads: Luttig and Conway. Be nice to have a deeper field.

One of their functions is to provide information on the constitution and law to the public and the other is to provide context. So, guys like you and me can have opinions on the matter and you get to vote based on those facts and opinions and by reading the law and constitution and I've posted those things too.

Sometimes it is hard to understand the law without professional guidance, just like most folks can't deal with the math involved in being a psychist, without years of training, mentoring and doing.

Fogdog · Feb 8, 2024

DIY-HP-LED said:
The elephant in the room is Trump was an insurrectionist and the nation witnessed it and he has been indicted for those related crimes and hopefully will be tried for them this summer.

From what was said in the link you made in post #92, the SCOTUS seemed to be deliberately avoiding the "elephant in the room" and was just focusing on an important problem that became evident when Colorado ruled Trump could not run in their state and yet other states said he could run in theirs. I think that problem, while not the one you are focused on, probably did need to be addressed in this hearing. From the link in your very own post, your so called "elephant" will be left in the room awaiting its turn but not right now. Or maybe they are going to address it. Nobody knows.

methinks

DIY-HP-LED · Feb 8, 2024

Fogdog said:
From what was said in the link you made in post #92, the SCOTUS seemed to be deliberately avoiding the "elephant in the room" and was just focusing on an important problem that became evident when Colorado ruled Trump could not run in their state and yet other states said he could run in theirs. I think that problem, while not the one you are focused on, probably did need to be addressed in this hearing. From the link in your very own post, your so called "elephant" will be left in the room awaiting its turn but not right now. Or maybe they are going to address it. Nobody knows.

methinks

We will see, but a unanimous decision must be respected, and it looks like it might be one on this particular issue. What mechanism would be used to disqualify someone under the 14th, the federal courts? The congress (after the election), what kind of trial and what standards of evidence. Sooner or later the elephant in the room must be dealt with.

printer · Feb 8, 2024

BudmanTX said:
this is from the transcript:

19 The holding of Griffin's Case goes beyond
20 even that by saying that a state is not allowed to
21 implement or enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth
22 Amendment unless and until Congress enacts
23 implementing legislation allowing it to do so.

hate to say this but congress did, by impeaching him the second time and call him an "incitement of insurrection" basically calling him an insurrectionist, that make the 14th section 3 auto......imo

Oh no, but you forget that in the Senate the Republicans decided to give Trump a pass as the legal system will take care of him. :roll:

BudmanTX · Feb 8, 2024

printer said:
Oh no, but you forget that in the Senate the Republicans decided to give Trump a pass as the legal system will take care of him.

thanks Moscow Mitch......

cannabineer · Feb 8, 2024

DIY-HP-LED said:
I do post them, there are several and they are all over TV and YouTube, I could post more, but most folks see it on TV, and I just post the odd example. They provide a valuable public service in explaining the law, all the networks have built out their legal benches to cover the upcoming shitstorm in court.

Might you name some of these other conservative contrarians?

DIY-HP-LED · Feb 8, 2024

Maybe they want to duck disqualification and ditch his immunity in a timely manner sending him to Chutkan and hope he will be defeated in the general election (likely) and then they can forget it. Donald goes to prison and further trials, if not, deal with it then, good luck with that!

DIY-HP-LED · Feb 8, 2024

cannabineer said:
Might you name some of these other conservative contrarians?

The two federalist society members, one was a founder wrote a scholarly article, a good example of federalist society opinion and that covers most of the conservative ones. There have been a few rightwing pundits like Dershowitz, but they have been outnumbered by conservatives and liberal experts.

DIY-HP-LED · Feb 8, 2024

cannabineer said:
Might you name some of these other conservative contrarians?

This might be a narrow ruling and unanimous on a specific point of law and few will disagree with it as a technical matter. Hoverer there is still the elephant in the room, but if he is convicted before the election he will likely lose, and they won't have to deal with possible consequences and can avoid the whole mess. They can even refuse to hear his immunity case and the trial begins.

cannabineer · Feb 8, 2024

DIY-HP-LED said:
The two federalist society members, one was a founder wrote a scholarly article, a good example of federalist society opinion and that covers most of the conservative ones. There have been a few rightwing pundits like Dershowitz, but they have been outnumbered by conservatives and liberal experts.

Dershowitz has gone entirely to the dark side. I posted about that a day or two ago.

Amendment 14 article 3

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus