Let's get this straight.

But it does apply, now.

Almost all?

Really.

I expect a 6/3 conservative court to go with Trump, because it seems highly improbable that 3 of the justices Trump appointed would rule to take him off the ballot. Thomas is a Trump toadie, and Alito, another Trump toadie, that's 5 right there. As for Roberts, it's 50/50 which way he will go. The best he can do is 6/3, the worst he can get is 5/4.

Let me put it to you this way:

Trump is a threat to national security, a threat to democracy, and utterly unfit for the office, a man whose character is far below any standard right thinking persons should want on the highest office.

We need to stop this man by any available, legal, means.

 

You quote says so. Read it again.

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

You are saying Trump has a right to run for president, which is an entitlement to be on a ballot. It is the same thing.

And that is wrong. That is what you wrote, okay? I mean, say what you mean. Take a moment to think your thoughts through.

As for

There are only three requirements to run for president. Citizenship, residency and age. If you have those qualifications, you have the right to run for president.

That is true ONLY if you aren't prohibited to hold office via section 3/14.

 

They are not the same thing. You can run for president, but never get on a ballot. Getting on the ballots are just a step in the process before election. A person could for president and never make it that far. In addition you could run as a write in candidate.

 

That's not accurate. You've made several misconceptions and inaccuracies regarding the concept of due process and its application in legal proceedings:

In legal terms, due process refers to the fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement. It is not a singular act but a series of steps or procedures designed to ensure fairness and justice in legal proceedings. This includes the right to be heard, the right to a fair trial (if one is required, not always required, however), the right to counsel, and the right to appeal, among others.

Trump's disqualification is not a criminal sanction, it is an civil action, administrative. Due process in this context would not necessarily involve a trial or a criminal hearing. It could, for instance, involve administrative hearings, appeals to electoral commissions, or other procedures relevant to election laws.

Moreover, you incorrectly assume that due process only pertains to criminal cases and involves trials or hearings related to criminal charges. Due process applies to both criminal and civil proceedings, and it encompasses a wide range of legal processes, not just trials or criminal hearings.

And, you imply that a judge cannot make a ruling unless there is a trial or a criminal case, specifically mentioning the absence of charges of insurrection against Donald Trump. This is inaccurate. Judges can and do make rulings in various contexts, including pre-trial hearings, civil cases, and administrative matters, none of which necessarily involve criminal charges. The ability of a judge to rule on a matter is not solely dependent on criminal charges being filed.

You overlook other forms of legal resolutions like summary judgments, administrative decisions, or arbitration outcomes. These are instances where a judge or a legal body can make a ruling without a full trial or criminal hearing.

Hell, due process does not necessarily even require a court proceeding. It states that administrative and executive proceedings can satisfy the Due Process Clause, and judicial review of the factual conclusions of state regulatory agencies might not be required, nor may judicial review be required at all. This implies that due process can be met in various ways, including potentially through a judge's ruling alone. For more details, you can read the full context here.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/05-procedural-due-process-civil.html

You don't have to be charged with a crime to file an appeal. Appeals are not limited to criminal cases; they can also occur in civil cases, administrative decisions, and other legal disputes.

 

If you are disqualified, you can't be written in. In fact, you might be prosecuted for campaigning for a write in vote.

If you are qualified, 99.99% of the time we are talking about being on the ballot.

for all intents and purposes,. it is the same thing. Quit nitpicking you way out of an argument you clearly lost.

 

If they are afraid of becoming pariahs, they are not doing their job due to being influenced.(politically ) If they are being pressured by the R's , they cannot do their job objectify as the law requires. How can they retain an credibility??

 

In order to QUALIFIED to become POTUS you MUST meet the FOLLOWING criteria as STIPULATED in the Constitution.

You MUST be a natural born citizen.

You MUST have attained a certain AGE.

You MUST NOT have ENGAGED/SUPPORTED in Insurrection against the United States.

You CAN be a CONVICTED murderer and STILL become president but you CANNOT have engaged/supported INSURRECTION.

Your Traitor-in-Crap is currently EXERCISING his 5th amendment due process rights in several CRIMINAL courts.

They have NOTHING whatsoever to do with his QUALIFICATIONS to infest the Oval office.

He is DISQUALIFIED because of his OWN ACTIONS.

He ALONE is to BLAME for what HE chose to DO of his OWN free will.

Your Traitor-in-Crap DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF.

Reality matters.

 

Projection content duly noted.

 

Am I understanding you CORRECTLY that you are going to SUPPORT someone who ENGAGED/SUPPORTED insurrection AGAINST the government of We the People?

 

No we don't.

 

HILARIOUS that you just CONTRADICTED your own baseless position.

If there was NO due process REQUIRED for the Confederate Insurrectionists in order to BAN them from holding office under 14.3 then there CANNOT be any need for due process under 14.3 NOW because NOTHING else has changed.

14.3 BANNED the racist white southern INSURRECTIONS from holding office WITHOUT due process THEREFORE it can BAN your INSURRECTIONIST Traitor-in-Crap WITHOUT due process.

Mango-Lardass does NOT get SPECIAL treatment under the Law of the Land.

 

So now you are TRASHING the 6th Amendment out of EXPEDIENCY?

Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The RIGHT to a speedy trial just got DUMPED in order to PROTECT your Traitor-in-Crap using LEGAL DELAYING tactics?

Hilarious.

 

It was NOT an "opinion".

It was a Finding of FACT by the judge after seeing ALL the EVIDENCE and hearing the TESTIMONY of WITNESSES from BOTH sides.

An opinion would be that your Traitor-in-Crap is an honest person.

A Finding of FACT would be that he CHEATED on ALL of his WIVES.

The Court made a Finding of FACT that your Traitor-in-Crap engaged/supported an INSURRECTION and then RULED that DISQUALIFIED him under 14.3 of the Constitution.

REALITY matters.

 

WRONG on MULTIPLE counts again.

The STATES are REQUIRED to abide by the CONSTITUTION and the Law of the Land. NO EXCEPTIONS allowed.

The STATES have been EMPOWERED to run the elections.

THEREFORE the STATES are following the Law of the Land which DISQUALIFIES your Traitor-in-Crap under 14.3.

ONLY Congress has the ability to REMOVE that automatic DISQUALIFICATION.

 

The above is a DISQUALIFYING statement in that it DENIES factual REALITY.

There are 91 Federal CRIMINAL Indictments that your Traitor-in-Crap has been CHARGED with in Federal COURTS.

The statement above is DISQUALIFYING because it DENIES documented REALITY and as such whatever CREDIBILITY you MIGHT have had on this topic has EVAPORATED.

Without CREDIBILITY nothing else you post on this topic will be taken seriously.

I RECOMMEND that you RESCIND that statement if you want anything else you contribute to be taken seriously.

/jeopardy music....

 

In other words, it is not the same thing. Removing him from the ballot does not mean he cannot be elected and run for president. It just reduces the chances.

The bottom line is the democrats cannot beat Trump at the polls, so they are dreaming up other excuses to get him off the ballot.

 

Please help me understand why you keep bringing this up since.........Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

Well, touché! Some appear to be on the lavish dole of American oligarchs bent on putting their ideological dreams onto every American.

 

That he committed the crime of insurrection for which he is not even been charged

 

Because the 14th amendment says no such thing. There is no historical precedent because the 14th has never been invoked in relation to a crime. Every invocation in history was aimed at banning former confederate officials from running for office. They weren't banned for insurrection. They weren't charged with insurrection. They were banned for having served in confederate politics. Being a former confederate official was not a crime so there could be no conviction, no trial, no due process of law. The current situation relates to a crime. We all have a right to due process of law if we are accused of criminal activity. Insurrection was and is a crime. There must be due process of law. Period. Hopefully the supreme court will explain it to you in a manner you can understand. I now give up trying.

 

They're saying Trump committed Insurrection. I write he did not. Now there is a disagreement between two groups of people on this. How to LEGIT come to a conclusion on the issue? Charge a person, arrest him, try him in court observing due process and come to a judgement. There's a reason that isn't happening. I'm right and those charging him with Insurrection are wrong. So, elite Fascists simply declare him guilty and take his rights. Outrageous.

 

Seriously?

Do you actually believe that the Traitor-in-Crap did NOT incite/support an Insurrection against the government of We the People?

The angry mob wanted to HANG the Vice President just because he was LEGITIMATELY certifying that Biden won in 2020.

How does incitement/support of an angry mob in order to DISRUPT the PEACEFUL transfer of power NOT reach the level of a CRIME against We the People?

 

Dude I don't believe there was even an insurrection. That, the belief that J6 was an insurrection is the first and most prevalent of the J6 lies

 

But it's coming from you.