The minority's opinion on today's case is truly mindblowing.

Itchy trigger finger?

 

When someone can be found guilty of a crime without any indictment, without any trial, and with nothing but the opinion of the mob... w are done as a nation. The Supreme Court did nothing less than save our country with their decision.

Without due process... courts, trials, juries, a defense... we are no better than any of the tyrants we have fought to survive throughout history. The tyrants almost became... us.

 

They are stating points of fact in accordance to the 14th amendment and what it says.
They are the Constitutional experts appointed to this task.
You just want to discard their claims as conversation because they are telling you exactly what I have been telling you?
There is no ability for a state to make this claim
There is no ability to adjudicate anyone of a crime in a civil setting
And this amendment doesn't even cover presidents, which is why they were removed from the original documents.

And the reason they were removed can be found in the conversations recorded when ratifying the bill.

I don't remember who it was making the statement but he concluded, we don't need to list the president or vice president as there is no reason to believe any Confederate could ever run and be voted into the office of president.

 

Can't you see the Revolutionary Democrat Army showing up in hose and heels with beards breaking through their makeup?

 

No one's suggesting that Congress change the constitution. It can, however, pass legislation to implement and element of the constitution.

And SCOTUS did not opine on whether or not Section 3 applies to presidents or vice president.

It did, however, state that it's necessary to determine who exactly it applies to, and that congress is empowered to determine how this would be done.

 

They're not saying exactly what you've been telling me. What counts is how they resolved their thoughts and concerns, devil's advocate questions, responses they received, and all else that comprises a hearing, into a a final opinion - a final expression of what they have concluded from all the foregoing.

For the godzillionth time, no one is saying that a crime be tried in a civil setting.

There can be a CIVIL proceeding to determine if someone engaged in insurrection, incurring a CIVIL penalty of disqualification.

AND

There can be a CRIMINAL proceeding to determine if someone engaged in insurrection, incurring a CRIMINAL penalty.

Neither precludes the other.

 

A civil process with a civil penalty is not "finding someone guilty of a crime".

 

And it also established that no one is guilty of a crime without the proper application of Juris Prudence... judge, trial, defense, conviction... stuff like that.

 

And Trump has had neither. Just the OPINION f the MOB.

 

A civil proceeding is not a criminal proceeding.

 

Exactly.

 

Really, show me
I've provided you with the actual statements and links for the SCOTUS
Now, show me the legislation that supports this

Then explain why not one single Democrat in Congress believes you or these theories,
Wonder why

 

Trump was found ineligible through statutory provisions and proceedings in Maine, affording every opportunity to make his case, and through civil court proceedings in Illinois and Colorado, with the latter passing through two courts to end up with SCOTUS.

 

Trump has never been convicted of any CRIME in any CRIMINAL COURT in the nation. Insurrection is a crime. No one can just say he's guilty. It takes a CONVICTION in a CRIMINAL COURT. And, as stated before... Trump has never been convicted of any crime in any criminal court... anywhere.

 

Just like the states, legislation can be passed by Congress that defines who can be disqualified and the process for doing so. This would be a civil process because the penalty would be civil - disqualification.

This is what SCOTUS says is required in order to implement Section 3.

 

It only takes a conviction in criminal court if one is seeking to impose a criminal penalty.

A civil proceeding suffices for a civil penalty.

 

Yet it doesn't include the president.
And they can't legislate that it can.
Now what

 

The state has no such power.
Already adjudicated

 

Show us this legislation.
I'll wait

 

SCOTUS has not decided if it does or does not apply to the president.

It HAS, however, said that Congress needs to pass legislation defining who it applies to.

 

Adjudicated yesterday.

Point still stands that, as things were, decisions were reached through statutory and court proceedings not, as the poster suggested, by the mob.

 

Its just more wishful thinking on the part of democrat fairy tales.
The SCOTUS has already recognized the fact that it doesn't include the president.
And the historicals on the Amendment verify why the president was removed.

THey can't legislate that it applies to a president. Its already determined in the amendment

 

No, SCOTUS did not determine that Section 3 does not apply to a president.

It did not reach any conclusion on this issue.

 

Insurrection is a criminal act. You cannot label someone an insurrectionist without a criminal conviction any more than you can say Biden is a murderer without getting a conviction to that effect in a criminal court. Well, I guess you can SAY it without a criminal court conviction, but it doesn't mean anything without it.

 

Not at all, but good flamebait. Gotta give you that.