Maine strips Trump from the ballot, inflaming legal war over his candidacy

Yeah... That's the sauce. Given your history on the persecution of the previous president, your newly minted perplexation is certainly entertaining.

 

Yet Republicans LITERALLY wanted Trump to be able to wipe his ass with the Constitution and use his authoritarian power to declare himself the ruler regardless of how the people voted. Funny, that.

 

That is hilarious...
"Most democrats don't believe the constitution should be retained"

In FACT:
I know alot of Democrats, and not one of them falls into the category "don't believe the constitution should be retained".
Thus, it begs the question:
Where does somebody even come up with such a misguided bullshit generalization?

 

LOL!

Please direct me to the "mountain of evidence" against Joe that David Weiss missed.

 

Which is an actually lazy way of confirming that you have absolutely nothing.

 

The only thing funny about your post is your assertion that you actually "know people".... But aside from your active willingness to try to deflect for your team in public, did you want to defend democrat's and their active participation in giving aid and comfort to say the Russians, vis a vis, their little war with Ukraine and democrats actions to ensure the BBL price of oil remains high so Russians can continue to finance said war? Or, Biden's giving 100s of billions of dollars to Ukraine to satisfy his defense contractors bottom line? Aide and comfort to US enemies is an actionable offense of the 14th amendment as well. I know, it's annoying having to actually follow the law and all, and it sure seems that democrats willingness to deprive folks of due process, to leave citizens victim to crime, etc, sure presents a compelling case that democrats would rather the constitution didn't exist at all so they could just dictate to the world around them without all those pesky laws/constitutional restrictions, etc.

 

Exactly...
Confirming that they have NOTHING...
(Yet another RW talking point totally destroyed)...

 

Nice splice job. I bet it actually took your real time and effort. But alas, you're failing. As noted, " given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof is as simple to prove against Biden as any. Treason comes to mind. High crimes and misdemeanors comes to mind. I mean, there's an F'in list man. So, enjoy your imaginary win. For all the time it took to point out that you're clapping for Biden here. This is you actively clapping for someone who's trying to destroy the US. Or haven't you figured that out yet?

 

If Joe has done something illegal, why keep it secret?

 

It's so simple that you can't do it?

 

Do what? Engage you with your sophistry? That didn't take long.

 

Are you going to come up with any evidence? That's where the rubber meets the road; it's the opposite of "sophistry".

 

The evidence has been produced. It's been publicly declared. And still, you are oblivious to it. In any event, your sophistry has been dealt with.

 

Justifiable opinions.
There was a J6 rally. He gave a speech. He helped organize or bring people to the rally. He riled up a mob of people and told them to go fight like hell or they wouldn't have a country anymore.

So, yes, there's opinions as to how involved he was. And how much responsibility he bears for telling his mob to go and fight.
Then many stormed the Capitol to halt the democratic election process and send congress people into hiding for several hours.

Had he not done any of that, there'd be no one questioning his constitutional eligibility.

 

State how you come to that conclusion using the words of Section 5.
Afterall, all States conduct their own elections. There's no federal elections in USA.

 

The 14th Amendment is a Federal Law(which has an offense related to it, for its enforcement.). Exactly like for example, espionage. Let's take Trump's documents case. Those are federal charges, not State charges. Trump's not facing the 'State of Florida' in that case, but the 'United States'.(By contrast, Georgia is a State case)

Point being,a State cannot bring Federal charges. Any more than the US Government could bring State charges. Which means little miss tyrant in Maine is out of bounds, as was the Colorado four. In fact, the Colorado case is so out of bounds, they should've followed what every other Court has done: Dismissed on the lack of standing that plantiffs have, by law.

This case is so trash, it's not worth hearing on the merits.

 

you need to turn off ABC news and open your eyes to reality

 

What does that have to do with conducting investigations? Investigating is not condemnation. Let the courts decide the final outcomes. But be sure that JUSTICE plays by the same rules for everyone.

 

I have, which is why I went with what Trump and his allies actually did and not your imaginary ABC boogeymen.

 

what Trump and his allies did?

Do you mean get themselves shot dead for the high crime of criminal trespass ?

 

Thousands of people committed criminal trespass. Only one was shot, and it was clearly justified. But I was talking about the fake elector scheme. Let me guess: you are incapable of discussing that.

 

Biden is NOT "trying to destroy the US"...

 

Let's be clear about a few things

First- Donald Trump is who he has always been. That includes when he was a member of your Democrat party. I do not think anyone would accuse him of being a man of virtue and yes, including when he was a Democrat.

Now, with that set aside, the 2020 election was a foregone conclusion before vote #1 was even cast. Without Covid mandates this time around, it is important to toss as much crap as possible onto the wall about Trump. Accusations are flying and some like you so desperately want to believe anything bad about Trump. You then turn your sights upon those who do not support your Democrat party and label them as MAGAs or some other thing that you think to be an insult.

That is the sad reality of where we are today. I will continue to say the same thing. No American should have done to them what has been done to Donald Trump. Sadly, the stoked hatred is so bad among Democrat voters that you cannot see that it's an attack on liberty and the Constitution what the DC machine has done and continues to do. I actually have pity for you and those who believe all the accusations. Where did we as society fail you where you abandon seeking the truth ?

 

I was never a member of the Dem party and have, in fact, regularly voted in GOP primaries. All you are doing is confessing why it was irresponsible for you to support his garbage.

What you and Trump fail to comprehend is that the votes WERE cast . . . and you and he want to remove all rights from our citizens to vote so you can appoint him instead.

I'm sorry you think that Trump should be above the law and the Constitution and should be able to overthrow all elections and declare himself dictator. I still disagree.

 

Am I a lawyer? No. Never claimed to be. But that does not mean that I can't read and understand law.

Does the Insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment require a conviction? The answer to that also resides in the both the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Emphasis added by me.)

Fourteenth Amendment Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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. (Emphasis added by me.)

To understand how this applies to this case, you have to understand the relationship between a "Right" and a "Liberty". While this is an over-simplified response to the relationship, but I find it appropriate for this case.

What does liberty mean in rights?
As used in Constitution, liberty means freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon an individual. Freedom from restraint refers to more than just physical restraint, but also the freedom act according to one's own will.

The right that we are dealing with is Trump's right to run for President. Unless he is disqualified under the 14th Amendment his right remains intact. In the US, Insurrection is defined as a criminal offense under 18 U.S. Code §2383. Therefore, Due Process would require a criminal trial. Without Due Process, Trump's right to run for a second term remains intact.

You mentioned the March 4th trial date, but that does not apply to this issue. Why? Because Trump has not been charged under 18 U.S. Code §2383. Basically, Trump has been charged with Obstruction and conspiracy, but not insurrection. Others that took part in the Jan 6 protest did get charged with Insurrection, but not Trump. You can bet that if the facts had been there to support a prima facie charge of Insurrection against Trump, he would have been charged.

So, what do we have. No charge for, or conviction of, insurrection means no due process to disqualify Trump of his right to run for President. I hope that clears up this issue in your mind.

BTW, I think the DC appeals court will decide that Trump was acting as a candidate and not as the President when attempting to overturn the 2020 Presidential election. I also expect that they will drag things out until after the March 4th date. I then have no doubt the SCOTUS will schedule the hearing of the case after the 2024 elections. That means that the case will go to the largest jury this country can muster. It will be an issue in the 2024 General elections.