Anonymous
02/09/2024 06:57
Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Anonymous wrote:Why do Democrats want him off the ballot?? According to you guys he will never win against Biden. Why replace him with Haley who will win against Biden??
The woman who brought the lawsuit in Colorado was a lifelong Republican.
But I understand the MAGA cult doesn’t deal in facts.
Anonymous
02/09/2024 06:52
Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Anonymous wrote:Why do Democrats want him off the ballot?? According to you guys he will never win against Biden. Why replace him with Haley who will win against Biden??
The Colorado lawsuit was brought by Republicans.
Anonymous
02/09/2024 06:47
Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We need a new Amendment which would include the president and Vice president are officers.
No president can pardon himself.
No one convicted of a felony can run for any Federal office.
Any person who thwarts the peaceful transfer of power shall ever be eligible to run for federal office
They already are officers. It is literally called the Office of the President, right in the Constitution. And officer is an office holder. The President holds the Office of the President, which makes him an officer. Anyone coming to a different conclusion about that needs to go back to school and learn how to read.
Even the liberals aren’t convinced. WSJ: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was doubtful that Section 3 covers Mr. Trump at all. “Why didn’t they put the word ‘President’ in the very enumerated list?” she asked. The disqualification clause mentions the Senate and House, as well as presidential electors, before sweeping in “any office, civil or military, under the United States.”
Anonymous
02/09/2024 06:35
Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.
Sorry.
Might as well just crack open that case in the National Archives and set the Constitution on fire, since the words CLEARLY written on it apparently now mean absolutely nothing to SCOTUS.
It’s actually quite the opposite but nice try.
Opposite? You're confused. The Constitution LITERALLY refers to the Presidency as an OFFICE.
You keep saying this, but you are not reading it in the full context of the Constitution. First, here is the 14th Amendment provision:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Pretty clear from that alone, given that it specifically names Senators and Representatives, and also specifically names "electors" of President and Vice President, that the President and Vice President were intentionally excluded. Otherwise, why were they not named? But if you want to take it a step further, then look at section 4 or Article II of the Constitution:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
That appears to speak of President and Vice President as not being "officers" of the United States, otherwise there would be no reason to name then specifically. And it doesn't say "and all other" civil officers.
Also, the Constitution and amendments refer to Senators and Representatives as holding "office," so by your reasoning, they would be covered by the 14th Amendment, yet they are specifically names whereas the President and Vice President are not.
Not to mention that the president was in earlier drafts and was later dropped from the amendment.
Anonymous
02/09/2024 06:04
Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Why do Democrats want him off the ballot?? According to you guys he will never win against Biden. Why replace him with Haley who will win against Biden??
Anonymous
02/09/2024 00:52
Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.
Sorry.
Might as well just crack open that case in the National Archives and set the Constitution on fire, since the words CLEARLY written on it apparently now mean absolutely nothing to SCOTUS.
It’s actually quite the opposite but nice try.
Opposite? You're confused. The Constitution LITERALLY refers to the Presidency as an OFFICE.
You keep saying this, but you are not reading it in the full context of the Constitution. First, here is the 14th Amendment provision:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Pretty clear from that alone, given that it specifically names Senators and Representatives, and also specifically names "electors" of President and Vice President, that the President and Vice President were intentionally excluded. Otherwise, why were they not named? But if you want to take it a step further, then look at section 4 or Article II of the Constitution:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
That appears to speak of President and Vice President as not being "officers" of the United States, otherwise there would be no reason to name then specifically. And it doesn't say "and all other" civil officers.
Also, the Constitution and amendments refer to Senators and Representatives as holding "office," so by your reasoning, they would be covered by the 14th Amendment, yet they are specifically names whereas the President and Vice President are not.
It DOES NOT say they are not officers. They are two SPECIFICALLY NAMED officers, after which it goes on to reference the rest of the officers of the United States more generically.
Furthermore, it then further reinforces it by saying "shall be removed from Office" which also clearly implies they are indeed officers. The Office of the President is a formal office, held by an officer - that being the President.
Anonymous
02/09/2024 00:49
Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Anonymous wrote:We need a new Amendment which would include the president and Vice president are officers.
No president can pardon himself.
No one convicted of a felony can run for any Federal office.
Any person who thwarts the peaceful transfer of power shall ever be eligible to run for federal office
They already are officers. It is literally called the Office of the President, right in the Constitution. And officer is an office holder. The President holds the Office of the President, which makes him an officer. Anyone coming to a different conclusion about that needs to go back to school and learn how to read.
Anonymous
02/09/2024 00:12
Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
We need a new Amendment which would include the president and Vice president are officers.
No president can pardon himself.
No one convicted of a felony can run for any Federal office.
Any person who thwarts the peaceful transfer of power shall ever be eligible to run for federal office
No president can pardon himself.
No one convicted of a felony can run for any Federal office.
Any person who thwarts the peaceful transfer of power shall ever be eligible to run for federal office
Anonymous
02/09/2024 00:07
Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.
Sorry.
Might as well just crack open that case in the National Archives and set the Constitution on fire, since the words CLEARLY written on it apparently now mean absolutely nothing to SCOTUS.
It’s actually quite the opposite but nice try.
Opposite? You're confused. The Constitution LITERALLY refers to the Presidency as an OFFICE.
You keep saying this, but you are not reading it in the full context of the Constitution. First, here is the 14th Amendment provision:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Pretty clear from that alone, given that it specifically names Senators and Representatives, and also specifically names "electors" of President and Vice President, that the President and Vice President were intentionally excluded. Otherwise, why were they not named? But if you want to take it a step further, then look at section 4 or Article II of the Constitution:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
That appears to speak of President and Vice President as not being "officers" of the United States, otherwise there would be no reason to name then specifically. And it doesn't say "and all other" civil officers.
Also, the Constitution and amendments refer to Senators and Representatives as holding "office," so by your reasoning, they would be covered by the 14th Amendment, yet they are specifically names whereas the President and Vice President are not.
Well. They aren't kings so if they aren't officer, what the hell are they? They are elected to the Office of the President and Vice President. The key we it rd it s OFFICE which makes them OFFICERS!!!
Anonymous
02/08/2024 23:55
Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.
Sorry.
Might as well just crack open that case in the National Archives and set the Constitution on fire, since the words CLEARLY written on it apparently now mean absolutely nothing to SCOTUS.
It’s actually quite the opposite but nice try.
Opposite? You're confused. The Constitution LITERALLY refers to the Presidency as an OFFICE.
You keep saying this, but you are not reading it in the full context of the Constitution. First, here is the 14th Amendment provision:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Pretty clear from that alone, given that it specifically names Senators and Representatives, and also specifically names "electors" of President and Vice President, that the President and Vice President were intentionally excluded. Otherwise, why were they not named? But if you want to take it a step further, then look at section 4 or Article II of the Constitution:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
That appears to speak of President and Vice President as not being "officers" of the United States, otherwise there would be no reason to name then specifically. And it doesn't say "and all other" civil officers.
Also, the Constitution and amendments refer to Senators and Representatives as holding "office," so by your reasoning, they would be covered by the 14th Amendment, yet they are specifically names whereas the President and Vice President are not.
Anonymous
Anonymous
02/08/2024 23:44
Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Anonymous wrote:Trump's lawyer said that the 14th amendment did not say he could not run for President. So he can run but, if elected, he cannot serve. That's fine with me.
Until he murders the good half of Congress so he’ll get that 2/3 vote he needs.
Anonymous
02/08/2024 23:43
Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.
Please elaborate. I don't follow.
That was one of the hypotheticals proposed during the oral arguments. One of the justices (Roberts?) said that if this happens that Republican states would rush to disqualify Democrats from the ballot.
If a Democrat has incited an insurrection, yes. But, to date, no Democrat has done this! How stupid is Roberts!
It gets even more stupid (and I was right, it was Roberts.)
“One major question was about the power of states in enforcing that Insurrection Clause, Section 3. Chief Justice John Roberts actually said this:
John Roberts, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: In very quick order, I would expect, although my predictions have never been correct, I would expect that a goodly number of states will say, whoever the Democratic candidate is, you're off the ballot, and others, for the Republican candidate, you're off the ballot, and it'll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election.
That's a pretty daunting consequence.”
OMG you dripping moron, a “handful of states” decide EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. You worked for the Bush campaign trying to get SCOTUS to vote your way when only one state got to decide the 2000 presidential election! J. F. C.
Anonymous
02/08/2024 23:42
Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Trump's lawyer said that the 14th amendment did not say he could not run for President. So he can run but, if elected, he cannot serve. That's fine with me.
Anonymous
02/08/2024 23:41
Subject: Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump
Anonymous wrote:Trump's lawyer said that the 24th amendment did not say he could not run for President. So he can run but, if elected, he cannot serve. That's fine with me.
14 amendment.