Reply to Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]What's interesting is that the unanimously have agreed there was no insurrection, it sounds like a legal argument for the Democrats to stop saying there was one. [/quote]

It absolutely was an insurrection.  This SCOTUS is getting farther and farther off the rails with every comment and decision to come out of it.[/quote]

No one on Jan 6th has been charged or convicted of insurrection.[/quote]

What do you think seditious conspiracy is?  It's insurrection.  [/quote]

Quite literally not the same thing which is why they are separate charges.

NYT:  “While they clearly overlap, “sedition” centers more on plotting and incitement, whereas “insurrection” is generally understood to mean the actual violent acts of an uprising aimed at overthrowing the government.”  Seditious conspiracy “is a federal crime found in Section 2384 of Title 18 of the United States code. That law makes it a crime for two or more people to actively plot to overthrow by force the federal government, to levy war against it, to unlawfully seize federal property or “by force to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States.”… Insurrection charges are considered difficult to prove and are exceedingly rare. While many people have called the events of Jan. 6 an “insurrection,” the Justice Department has not charged any rioters with that crime.”[/quote]

Yeah, the Fourteenth Amendment is expansive, it refers to being engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.  Seditious conspiracy counts too.

The Supreme Court didn't touch insurrection because Trump will lose under that.  They need some other technicality.[/quote]

It’s not a technicality to not allow the states to independently disqualify someone who hasn’t even been charged with the act in question.[/quote]

Primaries and primary ballots are governed by state laws. There is no national ballot. Each candidate has to file and comply with the state law process to be on the ballot. Colorado requires a candidate to be eligible for the office so it has to investigate and make a determination if a candidate’s eligibility is challenged.

The flip side of “Colorado can’t decide for everyone that he is not eligible” is “Other states can’t decide for everyone that he is eligible.” The 14th Amendment exists. It has to be defined and interpreted by the Supreme Court. Any other decision by SCOTUS is illegitimate. [/quote]

Colorado has decided Trump can not have his name on the ballot in Colorado because he is an insurrectionist. This has nothing to do with other states or SCOTUS. SCOTUS is acting illegally. The only thing SCOTUS can do is apply the Colorado decision that Trump committed insurrection to every state. It is not up to the SCOTUS to weight the impact of that decision only to enforce the constitution.
[/quote]

The US Supreme Court gets the final say on how the 14th amendment is interpreted, but it seems they don’t want to do that because they don’t want to acknowledge or discuss insurrection. They seem to want to invent a jurisdictional dodge that no state can make that call about a national candidate, which is a completely made-up distinction and means no one can make the call since the states are the ones that certify the ballots and certify the elections. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics