Activist files legal challenge to disqualify Trump from 2024 presidential race in Michigan

SCOTUS would, the logical place

 

No. You've not successfully refuted any point I raised, given your vague generalities lack substantive content.

See:

 

Nothing partisan there.

 

Just the truth, not MAGrate alternative facts; truth.

Sorry “you can’t handle the truth”.

If you don’t have a rebuttal, don’t feel obligated to say something stupid and make your position worse.

Or not.

 

You really shouldn't jump to conclusions about someone who you don't know, let alone someone whose knowledge you can't know.

And I'll do you the same favor, okay?

You raise several points about the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment, the process of its ratification, and its implications for Donald Trump's eligibility to run for office again. Let's break down your argument and examine each point:

Legitimacy of the 14th Amendment
You argue that the 14th Amendment was never legitimately ratified and cite the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education as evidence. However, the Court's decision in that case does not question the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment itself. Instead, it discusses how to interpret the Amendment in the context of school segregation. The Court did not "dodge a bullet" on the Amendment's legitimacy; it simply focused on the issue at hand, which was segregation.

Process of Ratification
You bring up the case of Senator John P. Stockton and claim that his unseating was part of a scheme to ensure the 14th Amendment's passage. While it's true that political maneuvering often plays a role in legislative processes, this does not necessarily invalidate the Amendment. The 14th Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states and has been part of the Constitution for over 150 years. It has been cited in numerous Supreme Court decisions and is a cornerstone of American civil rights law.

Rescinding Ratification
You argue that New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon rescinded their ratification of the 14th Amendment, and therefore it should not be considered valid. However, the U.S. Constitution does not provide a mechanism for states to rescind ratification once an amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states. The 14th Amendment was ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the states, and its validity is widely accepted.

Implications for Donald Trump
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does state that individuals who have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States are disqualified from holding office. However, applying this to Donald Trump would require a legal process and a formal finding that he engaged in such activities. I believe it will be decided by the Supreme Court, should his qualification be challenged, and it looks like it will happen.

Conclusion
While your argument raises some interesting historical points, it does not provide a compelling case against the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment or its applicability to Donald Trump. The Amendment has been a part of American constitutional law for over a century and has been cited in numerous landmark cases. Its legitimacy is not seriously questioned in mainstream legal discourse. Therefore, your argument seems more speculative than substantive.

 

You are going to need to get a conviction with the charge of treason or sedition if the goal is to remove his eligibility to run.

That's the point.

 

Where have you based this perspective?

Source this?

 

You think the conservative SC will make that determination?

Also. Constitutional Scholars.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39

 

But, you’re wrong.

Section 3 of The 14th Amendment does not expressly require criminal conviction and historically, one was not necessary.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/lsb/lsb10569

 

In other news, Democrats can be removed from all red state ballots for being a part of the Biden Administration's general corruption.

 

Probably not, at least not “all”.

First of all there are only Loney Q accusations against President Biden, no facts.

Second of all red State Secretaries of State are not MAGrate toadies.

 

Here, I agree. Given the plausibility that:

1. It was an insurrection
2. Trump, at the minimum, aided and gave comfort to (insurrectionists)

So, both sides should force the issue, so it can be settled once and for all.

So, if.....

A. SCOTUS rules it was an insurrection, but refuse to determine whether Trump 'participated in, or gave aid and comfort to',

Then Smith, and Willis will duke it out in court.

B, SCOTUS rules it was an insurrection and Trump, at the minimum, gave aid and comfort to, and rules he is disqualified, then

Then he will be disqualified from holding a public office ever again.

I'm hoping for B. If he is acquitted (I doubt it) or there are hung juries in the 4 indictments, (which is entirely possible), then he will still be disqualified, and I can live with that. I just don't want Trump to be president,. ever again.

I"ve had a fear that Democracy was being dismantled with other repub presidents, but I do have that fear with Trump. He is unfit to be President. Repubs should never have elected him, he poses a danger to US National Security. Hell, his waiving TS docs around to those who weren't cleared to see it should be enough for reasonable folks, that he is a threat to US National Security

 

Irrational beliefs, slogans, partisan gobbledegook, are not rebuttable. I thought I covered that already.
I removed you tedious "weasel work" image, It's irrelevant to the discussion.

 

I just told the truth. It is you who doesn't seem capable of handling it. You are a partisan. Therefore you have nothing for me.

 

Hahaha! The folks who are afraid of Trump are just silly. Surely they know he could never win an election....lolz!

 

A. IMHO, if the Supreme’s decline to rule then it would revert back to the States. Where the Secretary of State could deny him a place on their State’s ballot.

Assuming that he had already been denied a place on the ballot and it was adjudicated at the State level and appealed, which is how it got to the Supreme’s in the first place.

I don’t see the Supreme’s not ruling on this though. And, considering the makeup of the court …

 

I've never been in Russia. And that pretty much sets the standard for the rest of that garbage.

But have a nice day anyways.

 

I'm objecting to you thinking you know what you're talking about with the Constitution.

 

Except, he’s backed up by several Constitutional scholars.

So, there’s that.

 

I love how Trump gets people lose their grip on civility and show who they really are when they have been emotionally stripped of all dignity and humanity.

 

I hope you’re being facetious. Otherwise … well … that’s just pathetic. I feel sorry for you.

 

Third, there's no official mechanism to accomplish that ridiculous goal.... just a MAJOR case of butthurt (I understand there are creams for that now)

 

We know that... we are just trying to prevent another coup attempt after another loss...

An ounce of prevention is worth 300 lbs of cure

 

Oh come on; 215.

(he must have thought they were asking how much his ass weighs)

 

Again, we can play the stupid game of "who's got the most Constitutional scholars on their side" all night.

But according to the CRS report you presented, it's never really been answered.

You really ought to try reading the stuff you're using as proof.