Reply to Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]This is probably what the SCOTUS will do as well...wait for the ballots on the general election.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1740012599557914874[/twitter][/quote]

I doubt that.  
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law.  It really is that simple.   [/quote]

This isn't a criminal matter, so there doesn't need to be a criminal charge.

This is a finding of fact that the defendant "engaged" in an insurrection, and a court, after a 5 day hearing with witnesses, a defense and no dispute of facts, found that the defendant did, in fact, engage in an insurrection and as such, was not eligible to appear on a state ballot for office, pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Article 3.

What you have posted is not, in fact, a part of the Amendment, but rather a newly conjured requirement that is beyond the plain text and understanding of, and intention behind, the Amendment to the Constitution.[/quote]

Of course it would be a criminal matter. It would be "insurrection" according to you. That's one step removed from treason.

You want it so bad, you'll twist your logic into a pretzel to get your way. It's not happening.

Trump 2024![/quote]

The 14th amendment specifically said "engaged in" not "convicted of".

On this web-page, there are 8 people who were deemed to be disqualified by the 14th amendment from holding further public office.  5 of the 8 people were not convicted of a crime and yet they were still barred by the insurrection clause from holding future public office.

That said, there were hundreds of people barred from future public office at the end of the Civil War and the majority of them never went to trial, let alone received a conviction.

The GOP has somehow distorted the 14th amendment to require a conviction for insurrection, despite it never having been a requirement in the past, including after the Civil War, when the 14th amendment was passed and when the majority of those people guilty of the insurrection were still potentially going to run for public office.

[url]https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/[/url]

There is no requirement for a conviction for insurrection.  It really is that simple.[/quote]

To be particular, a majority of the US Senate "convicted" Trump of insurrection. It simply didn't rise to the 2/3 majority to bar him from office via the impeachment route because the rest of the GOP said the courts should handle it.

Well, the courts are handling it and now the GOP move the goalposts again.[/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