Activist files legal challenge to disqualify Trump from 2024 presidential race in Michigan

I'm reading other respected legal scholars who are saying the opposite. So what?

And I'm scared of encountering bears rummaging through my trash in my neighborhood..... Well, wait, no, I'm not scared of that. I just don't go outside when they're doing that.

I mean you've had almost 3 years of this and haven't landed a punch yet.

So why not just be confident in your ability to just do it again? Or maybe you're just a little nervous that now that the cheating has been witnessed it'll make it tougher to cheat a second time?

 

What’s frightening about another TRAITOR tRump “term”, isn’t just that he would do an equally bad job of being President, which, judging from his current speeches, seems likely. And, to your point, the only Constitutional remedy for that is the ballot box.

The “fear” Section 3 of the 14th amendment addresses is the case where someone used the power of office to, attempt, to overthrow OUR Government and it’s Constitution. You can’t do that and come back, run for office, get elected and, then use the experience gained from your failed attempt to try it again.

No, no, no, NO! You can’t do that no more.

 

So you're really worried that you can't beat him again now that the 2020 fraud is out in the open. That's what I figured.

 

I'd consider 2 bi-partisan impeachments and 4 indictments to be "landing a punch" on a legally confirmed sexual abuser.

But I imagine it would be very difficult to knock a manatee out. You just gotta keep punching. It was never going to be a knockout... We'll settle for a win on points..

Since you like boxing analogies, Trump committed several low blows on America, by punching it in the nuts. That's grounds for disqualification, in boxing AND America...

 

This doesn't really make sense without a conviction to be honest, you can't just disqualify someone based on an accusation. That's no better than trying to overturn an election based on fraud allegations without ever proving said allegations.

 

No, actually “I” am not. But, we ARE a Nation of laws and the law says, TRAITOR tRump has eliminated HIMSELF from running for national office, EVER, again.

 

As hard as they've tried they have yet to convict. Looking at the current indictments, where they were obtained (DC? C'mon!), and the prosecutor's records behind them all they've done is give Trump a televised platform to relitigate 2020.

But since you brought it up, when exactly do you folks get tired of losing and publicizing Trump's campaign? At some point one would think you'd decide to just be quiet and go back to just trying to win the election like you did the last time.

But given Democrat's hysterics which seem completely out of sync with claims of confidence in their chances, something's just off.

I think it's because deep down they know they won't have those 2020 tricks to rely on again.

 

You sure don't sound confident.

 

But,

“Section 3 of The 14th Amendment does not expressly require criminal conviction and historically, one was not necessary.”
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/lsb/lsb10569

so, there is that.

 

In addition, different but an even more grave end result, the 25th A which just requires the Cabinet to vote on it.

With certainty, it's for SCOTUS to hash out if they chose to take it up.

 

Nobody running for office is talking about this losers legal challenges... that's just the media and individuals like you and I... and I'm not going to stop.

BTW, how many times has Biden mentioned these indictments? It's not like he's not getting asked nearly daily.

Now let's reverse reality for a second (you should be good at this)

How many times a day would Mango be tweeting about Biden's 4 indictments??

Again, the word you need to learn is "projection". It really is the key to understanding 95% of what Trump does and says on any given day...

 

They'll have to, as soon as some brave SOS says they're taking him off the ballot.

Still wondering who that is going to be? It could certainly be Nessel in Michigan.

 

Mangolini gets a pass because he convincingly plays the part of a privileged "loudest whining victim", the improved mantra of the currently constituted R Party.

 

You’re reading, “I” don’t “sound” at all.

But ,for TRAITOR tRump to win reelection he would have to run the red state table (likely) and flip 2 or 3 blue states he lost in 2020 (unlikely).

What IS most likely, is, IF, TRAITOR tRump gets on all State ballots (not a sure thing at this point) he’s GOING to lose AND, take a lot of republican candidates with him, up and down the ballot. (Not a bad thing)

To my mind, it’s important to enforce the 14th AND, prosecute his tyranny, as an example of what happens when you F*** with The United States. No matter who you think you are.

 

Murderers are indicted for murder all the time and few if any of them said 'I am hereby going to murder you".

A direct command is not required for the responsibility of act.

What is the standard?

That is a reasonable person can see that his words and rhetoric over a period of led to and is responsible for the action.

So, I repeat:

Here are the facts:

Trump told his base that Democrats stole the election.

He told them that at every rally.

He's been saying that over and over and over again.

He still says that.

The mob on the day of 1/6 attacked the capitol.

They were enraged, filled with anger.

What was the source of their anger?

It was revealed with their mantra: 'stop the steal', which they have been repeating at rallies for some time.

Therefore, Trump is responsible for that anger.

Anger trigged the attack.

Therefore, Trump is responsible for the attack.

During the many months he has been saying, or rather LYING that 'democrats stole the election, enraging his base, causing a volcanic welling up of anger on 1/6, he managed a fleeting mention: 'go peacefully'.

Therefore, a teaspoon of ILL WILL does not get a TRUCKLOAD of ILL WILL off the hook,

Capiche?

 

You call it insurrection and I call it politics. The only reason you call it insurrection is that you expanded the actual definition to include those activities. Al Gore did about the same thing.

 

I agree you're ill-informed.

You do understand that any attempt to bar Trump using the 14th Amendment is like opening Pandora's Box, right?

There is a legal question concerning the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment, namely, it was never ratified.

That is not merely "talk" or wishful thinking.

To prove that, I refer you to para (b) of the syllabus in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) which states:

(b) The question presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted,...

[emphasis mine]

Para (b) was addressed later in the opinion with this:

Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then-existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive.

[emphasis mine]

In other words, the Supreme Court dodged a bullet by refusing to address it.

The Supreme Court kicked the can down the road because it feared the potential impact on prior decisions revolving around the 14th Amendment. In other words, we're going to turn a blind eye because that might make us look bad and even if it doesn't make us look bad, it will create more work than we care to do.

The Republicans engaged in chicanery and shenanigans to get the 14th Amendment proposed and submitted to the States for ratification.

For example, we have Senator John P. Stockton of New Jersey, a Northern State. The Senate consisted of 50 Senators. In order to propose an amendment, 34 Senators must vote yea.

Stockton took the oath and was seated as the Senior Senator from New Jersey on December 5, 1866. Stockton was a vocal critic of the 14th Amendment and refused to support it. Senator Thaddeus Stevens then made a motion to unseat Stockton on grounds that he was elected by a plurality and not a majority, even though New Jersey State statutes and the statutes of other States allowed Senators to be chosen by the State legislatures based on a plurality of votes and not a majority of votes.

The motion was defeated on the first vote 22-21 but later that evening, someone unknown convinced one of the Senators to change his vote and so lo and behold the next day the vote was retaken and passed 22-21.

Now only 33 Senate votes are necessary to propose the 14th Amendment.

If you're wondering why the vote was 22-21 even though there were 50 Senators, it is because that was a vote by a committee and not by the full Senate.

I will be the first to plead ignorance on Senate rules and Senate committee rules in part because they basically change year-to-year, nonetheless the issue still remains as to whether Senate rules or Senate committee rules gave Senator Stevens the authority to call a vote, or to call a re-vote, and whether he even had the authority to unseat Senator Stockton.

Note that in accordance with the Constitution, it requires a 2/3rds majority vote by both the House and the Senate to expel a member of Congress. Stockton was only unseated, but Stevens also barred him from voting in the full Senate, and barred other Senators as well in order to guarantee submission of the 14th Amendment to the States for ratification. Similar games were played in the House.

The issue surrounding Stockton is not the only issue.

Three States, namely New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon initially ratified the 14th Amendment. But, prior to the 14th Amendment being ratified, New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon rescinded their ratification and they rescinded prior to the necessary number of State ratifications to have the amendment certified.

Consider the situation today. We have 50 States so it takes 38 States to ratify an amendment. Suppose 34 States ratify a proposed amendment. It has not been ratified. Now suppose 3 States rescind their ratification. It still isn't ratified. That's exactly what happened to the 14th Amendment.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from rescinding ratification prior to actual ratification and certification. The 9th and 10th Amendments permit States to rescind ratification. Basic contract law stemming from 800 years of English Common Law permits them to rescind ratification prior to an amendment being officially ratified and then also subsequently certified.

Note that under present conditions, should 38 States ratify an amendment, that amendment is not officially an amendment yet.

There is a certification process ironically similar to the process of certifying the vote for the President and Vice-President, and once certified, the amendment is then presented to the President, and then it is officially an amendment.

The Republicans simply ignored the fact that New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon rescinded their ratification.

So, if Trump's attorneys have even one brain cell, they will force the issue and we'll see what happens.

 

Republicans can bar him from running as a Republican. Because the Republican Party hasn't taken a position, I have to assume they're brain dead.

Trump's job was to defeat Billary. The fact that Millions of Democrats and Independents voted against Billary (not the same thing as voting for Trump) to spare America from 4 to 8 years of another Clinton White House says it all.

Trump did his job by keeping Billary out of the White House. Time to move on.

 

SCOTUS would, no doubt.

 

Al Gore protested the 2000 election all the way to the Supreme Court. He stopped short of criticizing OUR whole National election, the FBI, CIA, Justice Department and all National officials that didn’t agree with him. He didn’t round up a Seditious Cartel of lawyers and turn his White House Staff into co-conspirators to overturn the election after it was plain and legally proven he lost. He didn’t enlist his Vice-President to accept fake electoral electors. He didn’t call a mob to Washington to attack OUR Capitol and delay the certification of votes for Bush II. He went to Bush’s inauguration and participated in the peaceful transition of power.

So, AbsaByGodLutely NOT, Al Gore did nothing like the tyranny TRAITOR tRump tried to mount against OUR United States.

 

Actually, people didn’t vote against HRC. They stayed home and didn’t vote; because they were influenced by Comey and the Russians and, she was a shoe in any way.

 

You are well aware the very reason it takes time for the US legal system to deliberate and move through its process is to assure fairness. Maybe in Russia you are not used to that concept?

Your entire platform is based on worshipping someone you know is surrounded by people convicted of crimes on his behalf. You know damn well his business dealings have led to earlier convictions and he uttered over 36,000 lies just in the 4 years he was President.

You are the first along with your other Trump supporters to scream he is being unfairly set up and has done nothing wrong and then when the system carefully manages the issues you whine its too slow?

You would wet your pants in a tantrum if they proceeded to quickly claiming he was bulldozed so give it up.

Its over.

This whining the legal system is too slow is pure Russian insipid script that ridicules democratic legal systems. I am calling your whining about the US legal system as transparent Russian sputum posed as Trumpet advocacy.

The US legal system has built in fairness doctrine procedures. It slows the process but it assures open, fair and transparent proceedings precisely so that when people like you are exposed when you spew your martyr persecution crap. So deal with it or better still go live in a country where a dictator rules and the legal system is controlled by that dictator.

Trump is not your Messiah. He is not up on a cross. He's a two bit, lying sack of **** and the consequences of his constant avoidance of the negative consequences of his behaviour by letting others fall on the sword for him is coming to an end.

Each day as the skin on his flesh rots and drops off and you scurry to pick up that rotted flesh and try stick it back on his face, the more futile your exercise becomes.


The ugliness and rot is far deeper than the skin he tries to spray orange.

 

If Trump is taken off the ballot in any state, Trump would sue and appeals would eventually be decided by the Supreme Court.

 

If Trump is ruled as having 'participated in, or giving aid or comfort to an insurrection', by SCOTUS, then the Constitution disqualifies him from office,

Are you objecting to the constitution?

 

The 14th amendment does not require a conviction, only a determination, which no doubt is the Supreme Court