Let's get this straight.

No matter how you try to spin it there is no requirement for prior conviction of insurrection under Sec 3 of the 14th A.

"The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.""

Trump is not being deprived of any of the above. Additionally, he was given due process by both courts in CO.

 

He is just wrong. You have it right. The fifth amendment guarantees the right to due process of law for everyone. The 14th was only used to bar former confederate officials from holding office. Being a former confederate official was not a crime. This is the first time the 14th is trying to be corrupted to apply it to someone over a crime without due process. No charge, trial, conviction and congressional legislation, no ban from the ballot. The constitution is as clear as a bell and the supreme court is likely to explain that to the public in short order.

 

Oh, but you did, you wrote:

They are trying to take away the right of a man to run for president and the right of the people to vote for him with no due process

Sorry, there is no 'right' to be on any ballot, one must earn that right by qualifying, FIRST.

Trump's lawyers argued Trump's case.

It is neither a criminal nor tort sanction, there is no 'punishment'. Disqualification isn't 'punishment'.

A SCOTUS or court ruling constitutes 'due process', no one has to 'insist' on it.

It is a requirement. What is the requirement? The requirement is that the candidate doesn't engage in insurrection against the constitution nor give aid and comfort to the enemies thereof.

IT IS A REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT IS REQUIRED.

Capiche?

 

FLAMEBAITING content duly noted.

WHERE in 14.3 does it REQUIRE a CRIMINAL conviction?

WITHOUT that requirement the 5th Amendment does NOT apply.

There is ZERO requirement for ANY "congressional legislation is required to ban him in the first place".

Congress has the OPTION to LIFT the DISQUALIFICATION from your Traitor-in-Crap but that is BEYOND the reach of Spanker Johnson and the Khaos Kaw-Kuss to achieve given their ongoing DYSFUNCTION.

The TEXT says EXACTLY what it means and NOT what YOU WANT it to mean.

 

Please read the 5th amendment providing the right to due process of law for alleged crimes. Insurrection is a crime. Then read section 2 of the 14th and tell me how it reversed the right to due process. I haven't spun or interpreted anything. I have explained what the constitution says. It is written in plain English. Glad I could help.

 

It was considered to be insurrection against the US.

 

"The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.""

Trump is not being deprived of any of the above. Additionally, he was given due process by both courts in CO.

The Due Process Clause says........"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Trying to disqualify Trump from running for prez in no way violates that clause.

 

This whole discussion is based on abject stupidity.

If you have to go trolling through the rules to find a 150+ year-old clause that was written for a specific reason, namely preventing former CSA combatants and other 'officials' from holding office in the USA after the conclusion of hostilities, then you have nothing. After accomplishing that purpose, it became functionally obsolete, and nobody gave it another thought until the quest to get rid of Trump by any means necessary, legal or illegal, true or false, relevant or not, caused entire swaths of the population to not care about such things as freedom of speech, due process of law, the RKBA, and so many other areas of contention today.

But thanks mostly to the phenomenon known as TDS, "any means necessary" came to exclude the Law, the Constitution, and especially common sense, such pandering is now how things work, and it's acceptable to just boot someone off the ballot if they are sufficiently frightened of them.

Sad. But not at all surprising. But the fact it took y'all so long to even "discover" this loophole is telling in and of itself.

PS... If all you have is a 2 or 3-word response as is typical for you, please don't even bother, you're just wasting electrons.

 

Wrong as usual. The constitution lists all the qualification for president. It does not list the fourteenth amendment as one of them.

 

Winning the primary election will provide that right if he wins it.

It isn't anything. There is no criminal charge, no due process of law and no congressional legislation. Read the last sentence of the 14th amendment.

No one can insist on it. The supreme court decides which cases it will consider. If it decides not to consider a case then the last decision stands. But the last decision was not congressional legislation which is how the 14th is applied.


Capiche?

 

Nor does it reverse the 5th amendment. I can't force you to understand so I will give up trying. I think the supreme court will explain it to you in the near future.

 

Read the 5th amendment. Tell me how the 14th reverses it. Then read the last sentence of the 14th. All I can do is recommend you read the words. They are quite clear.

 

It wasn't a "Trump Toadie" (whatever tf that is) who showed up at a Justice's home armed with the intent of harming him or his family because they didn't like what he ruled, or was about to rule, in Dobbs. Keep in mind, no matter how derelict in it's duty the DOJ was about this in their abject failure to investigate or charge, try, or convict even a single demonstrator, it's a crystal clear violation of federal law to even be protesting at their homes in the first place, even unarmed and with no violent intent.

Keep in mind, I do not want Trump to win. But I am also quite distressed by the behavior I'm seeing from the left, and they're actually hurting their own cause as now I'm much more likely to support Trump because of this horseshit than throwing my vote away on the Libertarian candidate as I previously did. Under no circumstances will I cast my ballot for the current occupant of the Oval after the total thrashing he's done just in the short time he's had.

 

Actually, what we have is a means by which to prevent someone like Trump from running for office again. So that, you know, insurrectionists are not able to obtain a position in the government. What difference does the age of the clause mean?

 

Conservative Repubs are participating in the application of Sec 3 of the 14th.

 

I don't remember my exact words, but they were to the effect that anyone can run, providing they meet the basic qualifications. That does not mean they are entitled to get on the ballot. So I was right again.

Less than two weeks for such a case. That is not due process.

They removed a person's and the citizen's rights without due process.

No I do not capiche because a requirement is not the same as a disqualification.

 

The fifth amendment applies to every crime. No exceptions at all. The 14th does not reverse the 5th. Nowhere in the bill of rights is there a reversal of the 5th. It is the law of the land. This is the first time in history that the 14th amendment has been corrupted to apply to any crime let alone insurrection without due process. It has only been used to prevent confederate officials from having elected office and being a confederate official was not a crime and therefore didn't require due process. Insurrection is definitely a crime. It requires due process. Charge him, try him, convict him and get congressional legislation and then you can remove him from the ballot. That is what the constitution requires. The 5th and 14th amendments are as clear as a bell.

Read the last sentence of the 14th amendment and don't respond any longer without understanding what the amendment says. Since you won't look it up and read it, I'll post it for you here: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Clear enough? It gives enforcement power for article 3 to the congress, not to the administration or the states. What the states are doing is a corruption and unconstitutional. It is politics at its worst. It is hurting the democrat cause and helping Trump. That makes it no only unconstitutional but also incompetent.

I don't think so. The supreme court will do that. I do agree that the congress is dysfunctional, though. Your garbage words and intermittent capitalization make reading what you write less than easy.

True. That is why my comments were faithful to the TEXT, not an interpretation of it.

 

To be clear there is no time frame for the requirement for due process of law. It means that there is a legal process for dealing with crimes and torts and it must be followed. Declaring guilt without due process and and then taking an enforcement action by any body other than congress is simply unconstitutional. The 14th amendment assigns enforcement to congress, not to the states. It wasn't meant to keep Trump off the ballot because it will not. It was meant to hurt his campaign. Besides due process and legislation, only the voters can remove him from the ballot by selecting someone else in the primary election. What the states are trying to do is not going to succeed. It won't keep him off the ballot and it won't hurt his campaign.

 

But the comlexity of the trial would require more than two weeks. There are more hours of tape to review than that.

 

No it doesn't.

due process
noun

1
: a course of formal proceedings (such as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles
called also procedural due process

 

“I disagree with that conclusion,” Delahunty answered. “I looked into that question more, and I was persuaded that he was really wrong. I think that term is, in essence, a term of art and had a specialized meaning.”

But under questioning from Murray, Delahunty maintained that he “took no position” on the question, which he called “disputed among scholars.”

Murray pointed to a commentary written by Delahunty for The Federalist, a conservative website, in August. In that article, Delahunty wrote of Section 3: “Although it does not explicitly refer to presidents or presidential candidates, comparison with other constitutional texts referring to ‘officer(s)’ supports the interpretation that it applies to the presidency too.”

“You wrote that article in August of this year, before you were hired by Donald Trump as a paid expert in this case, right?” asked Murray. “Since the time you wrote that article in The Federalist, you’ve been paid about $60,000 by Donald Trump for your work in this case?”

“Yes,” Delahunty replied.

Testimony on 14th Amendment continues on final day of Colorado Trump trial - Colorado Newsline
The final day of a weeklong trial in a challenge to former President Donald Trump’s constitutional eligibility to seek office again began with a protracted dispute over how much expertise an expert witness called by Trump’s legal team really had. Robert Delahunty, a retired law professor and...
coloradonewsline.com

Luckily for Trump, the evidence and expert testimony heard by Judge Wallace only lasted 5 days. Cuz Don's "experts" were clowns who contradicted their own testimony.

 

Maybe that is why you're having difficulty accepting the legitimacy of the process in CO's lower court. The hearing was not about establishing guilt in a criminal sense. It was about whether the evidence of Trump's actions was compelling enough to warrant preclusion from the ballot in CO. Not a criminal finding.

 

It does. It requires that you don't engage in insurrection, etc., etc.,etc.

But if you don't want to call it that, it doesn't matter.

Because the fact remains, if you engage in insurrection you will be disqualified.

But, you are, indeed, wrong, on the term 'requirement'.

A document listing requirements for qualification for an office, a requirement can be considered to be anything that you can be disqualified for if.....

1. You do not possess certain items listed in the requirements.
2. You engage in prohibited acts given in the document.

I verified this with BING AI

ME:

Is the following accurate? A document listing requirements for qualification for an office, a requirement can be considered to be anything that you can be disqualified for if.....

1. You do not possess certain items listed in the requirements.

2. You engage in prohibited acts given in the document.

BING AI

Yes, your description is generally accurate in the context of qualification requirements for an office. In such documents, requirements for eligibility can indeed be categorized into two primary types:

1. Possessive Requirements: These are prerequisites that a candidate must possess or fulfill to be eligible for office. They typically include aspects like age, citizenship, residency, educational qualifications, or other specific criteria that are deemed necessary for holding the position. If a candidate does not meet these criteria, they are considered unqualified.
   
   
2. Prohibitive Conditions: These refer to actions or conditions that disqualify a candidate from holding office. Engaging in prohibited acts, such as insurrection or rebellion (as outlined in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution), or having conflicts of interest, criminal convictions, or other disqualifying factors fall under this category.

In summary, eligibility for office is determined both by what qualifications a candidate possesses and by what disqualifying actions or conditions they do not possess or have not engaged in.

 

That's incorrect. A court making a ruling is part of due process.

 

hey were kept off the ballot because they engaged in a rebellion against the union.

Then the framers of the 14th amendment decided to make the language broad, in the event there were persons in the future who might engage in insurrection or rebellion.

Section three is a disqualification process. Nothing is being deprived. there is no 'right' to be on a ballot.

You have to qualify, first. THEN you have a right to be on the ballot.

Without the gov depriving you of liberty, possessions (material or abstract, such as a 'right') there is nothing triggering due process.

That being said, if someone who is disqualified believes the disqualification wasn't just, they can sue or appeal and a judge can offer 'due process' insofar as the disqualification was fair, just, and done according to law.