Let's get this straight.

It is a common misunderstanding, particularly among some political conservatives, to confuse the civil and criminal aspects of acts that have implications in both domains. For instance, in the Trump-Carroll defamation/sexual abuse lawsuit, Trump was found liable in a civil court. This civil court decision does not equate to a criminal conviction of sexual abuse. The reason is that the standards of proof in civil cases ('preponderance of the evidence') and criminal cases ('beyond a reasonable doubt') are different.

In the Carroll case, Trump was found liable based on a lower burden of proof applicable in civil cases. This does not legally confirm that he committed sexual abuse, as that would require a criminal trial and a different standard of proof. Accusations of 'sexual abuse' in a civil context do not carry the same weight as a criminal conviction. Where Republicans/conservatives and those on the right take issue is when, given the Carrol verdict, someone accuses Trump of being a sex abuser given the verdict. However, though the standard, 'preponderance of the evidence' isn't sufficient to prove legally 'beyond a reasonable doubt', for some (including myself) it's enough to hold the opinion that he is a sex abuser, especially when we consider other acts he has committed which point to this conclusion.

Regarding disqualifications, such as those being discussed in the context of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, they are indeed civil actions, not criminal sanctions. These actions do not impinge on personal liberty but pertain to eligibility for public office based on involvement in rebellion or insurrection against the United States. Like other civil cases, the determination is made based on 'preponderance of the evidence,' not 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' The responsible entity for making this determination varies by state, and the process is akin to civil litigation rather than a criminal trial.

It's really not that complicated, though I do believe there is sufficient intent that eventually I believe Trump will be charged with seditious conspiracy. I think the only reason he hasn't been is that Smith, due to the time constraint of the election, went for lower hanging fruit. If he gets a conviction there, and Trump doesn't become president, I do believe Smith will eventually indict him for it.

 

See #26

There is no right to be on any ballot, anywhere.

Trump has to qualify, first.

Until Trump qualifies, there is no right to vote for him.

You do realize that Trump can sue and appeal to contest his disqualification, right?

There, he will find his 'due process'.

 

Of course Trump plead his case!

 

There is a fourth requirement, review section three of the 14th amendment.

 

Anyone removed from the ballot by whoever is empowered by the respective state constitution to make that determination, the civil standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

If the person removed believes he or she was wrongfully removed, that there wasn't a 'preponderance of evidence', then he or she can sue, or appeal, or both. They can take it all the way to the Supreme Court if they want.

There, he or she will find 'due process'.

No doubt Trump will do just that, and three of the justices he picked, himself. What are the odds he will get a favorable ruling?

I feel bad for the Justices, if they vote in favor of Trump, they will be declared as Trump toadies (by the left, and rightfully so), if they don't, then a barrage of hate and even threats of violence will be levied upon them by Trump's base and Trump will be complicit because he will give tacit approval.

We shall see what the Justices are made of.

 

I have a suggestion
Why don't we have a trial to see if Trump is guilty of an Insurrection?
We can start tomorrow.

 

It is? Please explain.

 

I posted details of your last paragraph in a thread, a few days back:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...settled-it-does-include-the-president.615509/

But, thank for the reminder, and the right needs to be reminded, constantly.

 

Great so I hope my Secretary of State declares Biden guilty of bribery and racketeering and influence peddling and takes him off the ballot here. Maybe other states will do the same.

 

What grand jury indicted Trump followed by when was he arraigned on such charges and when was the trial held and a jury conviction in order to declare he violated a federal law? Let's get this straight the state officials are declaring him guilty of committing a FEDERAL crime and using their government power to sanction him.

 

I never said there was.

There was no preponderance of evidence without the defense being able to present their case.

In the US we don't punish first without due process.

In other words, if they insist on due process, democrats will consider the ruling to be biased.

That is not a requirement. It is a means to disqualify. That is not the same thing.

In front of the Colorado Court who made the decision? No they did not.

In what universe do trials happen that quickly/

 

The men who literally wrote the Amendment were explicitly clear that it would apply to the President.

 

The AUTHORS of the 14th Amendment are ON THE RECORD about INCLUDING the PRESIDENCY in 14.3.

The LANGUAGE explicitly STIPULATES that an Insurrectionist LIKE your TRAITOR-in-CRAP is BARRED from holding "ANY OFFICE" at all.

That INCLUDES your Mango-Lardass who has been PROVEN to be an INSURRECTIONIST in the CO court system all the way to the TOP.

 

It's your right to contact the SoS of your state and sue for Biden to be removed from the ballot. However, you should know the decision to do so is not made arbitrarily. 5 days of testimony and evidence was considered at the lower court level in CO before the judge here rendered her opinion. The case then moved to the SC where the majority made their ruling based on the evidence presented and the arguments made by both sides.
To date, no one has produced evidence of Biden's involvement in "bribery and racketeering and influence peddling" so don't expect an adjudication of the matter to fulfill your fever dream.

 

It wasn't necessary historically because it was used only to prevent former confederate officials from running for office. Being a former confederate official was not a crime. They are trying to keep Trump off the ballot over supposed crimes and Trump, like the rest of us, still has the right to due process of law. If they charge him with insurrection, try him and convict him then they can remove him from the ballot. Hope that helps you understand this better.

 

Nope due process by definition requires a trial.

 

There was no such trial.

 

You've missed the point. Sec 3 of the 14th's historical use notwithstanding, there is no constitutional requirement for conviction of insurrection in order to consider disqualification of a potential candidate. As exemplified in the CO case, and the subsequent appeal to the SCOTUS, Don is being afforded due process. So both your arguments are failures. Hope that helps you understand this better.

 

Your understanding of the constitution is pretty weak here. The 14th amendment also reminds one of the 5 amendment right to due process of law. It also specifies that the barring of an insurrectionist is a power of congress, not the states. So you can apply it when you have charged, tried and convicted Trump of insurrection and then had him barred from office by congressional legislation. This isn't interpretation. It is the actual words of the fourteenth. Removing him from the ballot otherwise i unconstitutional. Sorry.

 

There was an impeachment trial. I don't think impeachment, which is a political process, involves the right of due process of law like a judicial trial would. I'm familiar with the constitution but certainly not a constitutional lawyer. Nevertheless, the fourteenth requires due process and congressional legislation to bar an insurrectionist from seeking political office so it isn't going to happen.

 

PROJECTION content duly noted.

https://constitution.congress.gov/b...te shall make or,equal protection of the laws.

14.3 does NOT require DUE PROCESS anywhere.

14.3 STIPULATES that this APPLIES to ANY and ALL offices in the government of We the People.

14.3 DISQUALIFIES your Traitor-in-Crap because he ACTIVELY participated and provided AID and COMFORT to INSURRECTIONISTS.

14.3 requires that Mango-Lardass needs the SUPPORT of 2/3rds of BOTH houses of Congress to OVERRIDE his BAN on holding ANY office.

FURTHERMORE my understanding above MATCHES that of the ORIGINAL writers of this Amendment.

 

UTTERLY incorrect content duly noted.

See #46 above.

https://constitution.congress.gov/b...te shall make or,equal protection of the laws.

14.3 does NOT require DUE PROCESS anywhere.

 

There was an impeachment trial happened in the senate and Trump was acquitted. I don't think you can use an acquittal as grounds for anything.

 

!4.5 however leaves it to congress to pass enforcement previsions there of and congress had never done so. which means state courts nor secretaries of state can do so until such time as congress shall pass such enforcing legislation. In essence you are arguing that some one can be barred from office on a whim and that all other amendments to the constitution are rendered null an void by 14.3

 

Due process of law is made a right in the 5th amendment. A succeeding amendment doesn't remove the right without specifically doing so. Read section 2 of the fourteenth and tell me how it negates the 5th amendment.

Yes

Not without due process of law and congressional legislation.

At least you understand that congressional legislation is required to ban him in the first place.

Incorrect. Emotional response. Just go back and read more carefully before telling me what the 14th says. There is no interpretation in my comments to you. I only explained what is actually written in the bill of rights. It is plain English. My advice to the dems is to welcome Trump to the ballot since they can't stop him. They have a better chance of beating him in the election than any of the other republican candidates. The constitution requires an election to prevent someone from holding office. Trying to have the judiciary do it is not what the founders had in mind.