Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot. I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime. Let’s beat him at the ballot box. [/quote] If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?[/quote] I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose. [/quote] My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection. It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this. And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.[/quote] Wut? The president isn’t included …. In what now? [/quote] Yes, Trump is above the law like all rich folks.[/quote] That’s not what PP wrote. President isn’t included in the “officers” specified in the wording. See Robert’s previous ruling.[/quote] It is a patently absurd position to state that the provision applies to every officer EXCEPT the POTUS. He takes an oath just like the rest of them. And, if anything, it should apply to him/her the most, as the most powerful position in government.[/quote] It makes *complete* sense that the president would be excluded. The people vote directly and have the final say.[/quote] No, the people in American do not vote directly, where have you been.[/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