US Politics Thread 2021-24

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Skybird

It seems this legal understanding of it gets more and more support even from conservative and traditionalist judges and law experts.

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...idency/675048/

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

So the above quote is the meat and potatoes of the article you linked too. Only problem I see using this as a way to prevent Trump from running is simple. Trump has never been charged with or convicted of insurrection or giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

Sensational media headlines and personal feelings don’t count as evidence.

[mapuc]

Nevertheless there has been in at least two States submitted a (forgot what you call it) They are hoping that the judges in these two states will follow their demand by follow 14th Amendment section 3.

Markus

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Nevertheless there has been in at least two States submitted a (forgot what you call it) They are hoping that the judges in these two states will follow their demand by follow 14th Amendment section 3.

Markus

I think there are more than two states going that route. I said before neither party wants Trump or Biden to run. So they just keep chipping away at the finances of one through endless litigation and threaten inquiry into Biden’s crackhead son to take them out of the race.

[mapuc]

Makes one wonder. Why are the Dems protecting their President. He has shown on several occasion that he is unfit for the Oval office ?

Of course it all depend on the VP without her there's nothing they can do. She's not gonna stab her boss in the back.

Markus

[Catfish]

Trump tried to exchange all judges to those (supposed by him) supporting him, we will see how much others are left.

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Nevertheless there has been in at least two States submitted a (forgot what you call it) They are hoping that the judges in these two states will follow their demand by follow 14th Amendment section 3.

Markus

That is only going to matter if it happens in states that Trump might have a chance of winning. It's not going to hurt his chances of winning if the moves come from Blue states that weren't going to give their electoral votes to him anyways.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

So the above quote is the meat and potatoes of the article you linked too. Only problem I see using this as a way to prevent Trump from running is simple. Trump has never been charged with or convicted of insurrection or giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

Sensational media headlines and personal feelings don’t count as evidence.

Section three doesn’t require a conviction. The wording is engaged.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Section three doesn’t require a conviction. The wording is engaged.

I think I preferred having bio weapons thrown at us to overturn what was going to be a runaway election instead of all these lawyers being tossed about this election cycle.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Section three doesn’t require a conviction. The wording is engaged.

So who gets to decide that?

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Section three doesn’t require a conviction. The wording is engaged.

What’s your point, that’s not even an argument Roland you have to prove he engaged in a criminal act. Since the inception of my country there is this thing called presumption of innocence.

It would be like me arbitrarily saying you're in engaged in molesting little children because you're a Democrat and not having to prove you are a child molester.

Or someone arbitrarily saying I'm engaged in drug trafficking because I travelled between the Bahamas and Miami and not having to prove I was actually smuggling contraband.

In your world it seems you prefer the Roland Freisler and Nazi people’s court method of justice, no proof needed, only rhetoric, headlines and drama to send the accused to the gallows and the simpleton mob will go along with it. But in my country you charge someone with engaging in a criminal act then comes the tuff part of proving unlawful conduct. Like I told Skybird earlier sensational media headlines, your personal emotions and feelings are not evidence.

[mapuc]

Here is this famous 14 Amendment section 3

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.

The sentence "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same"
Maybe it could be this part they are using in their subpoena against him.

Markus

[Jeff-Groves]

Funny how they want to skip parts of the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments isn't it?
"Innocent until proven Guilty" Is NOT in the Constitution, but implied by all 3 amandements and has been upheld many times over.
You also need to read The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.

You can't skip 5 and 6 and cherry pick the part of the 14th you want then ignore The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.

[Buddahaid]

It doesn’t put anyone in jail unlike a trial verdict. It’s one of the most interesting aspects coming out of this partisan mess.

[Rockstar]

But Roland you can go to jail for it. Sorry Roland, headlines, rants, trying to convince oneself by talking about it over and over in your head, personal feelings or dreaming about it aren’t evidence. In my country you don’t get to arbitrarily convict someone of engaging in unlawful conduct without first proving it.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
U.S. Code

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Maybe in your country, but not in mine.

[mapuc]

I guess this is the question the court has to figure out-Did He encourage the spectators to attack the Congress or not ?

What I wonder is-Where in his speech did he do this ?
I have never found out where
(I'm going to follow the trial with interest-To see where he has said things that encouraged his followers to attack the Congress)

Markus