Is Trump qualified to run for the presidency?

Amendment 14 section 3 reads:

New Mexico has disqualified 3 candidates for office on the grounds of their activity on Jan 6.

Trump gave aid to that insurrection and clearly worked to help those working to overthrow our election. Federal judges, congressional Republicans, and even Trump's lawyers have referred to January 6 as an insurrection.

What should the process be in this case?

Should it be state by state, as Obama's legitimacy as a candidate was challenged?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...l-experts-are-in-favor-of-it/?sh=4cdcffc339fb

 

For me it would be more than just Trump. All the House Republicans didn't want to certify the election. Hawley even gave a fist raise to the insurrectionists.

 

As an American, I do not recognize 1/6/2020 as an 'insurrection'. Rather, I hold that the government cannot afford to hold it as an insurrection. If the government holds it as an insurrection, human history will have people asking 'Why was there an insurrection against the government?' Insurrections always follow up with political inner strife and inner turmoil.

That is why the government must be very careful. Furthermore, the elected government during 1/6/2020 was that of the Trump Administration. That means if there was an insurrection, it was an insurrection against the Trump Government(and indeed the Rhodes texts make that argument, as Rhodes wanted to kill then-President Trump.)

But the biggest reason that there wasn't an insurrection is that the rioters were not per se, acting against the United States. They were certainly acting against the law. But not the country itself. In their minds, what they were doing is patriotic(whether it actually was or not, and it wasn't) is besides the point. By labeling them insurrectionists(or terrorists, as the left tried to argue very early on in the media) will not only undermine the word itself, but again add to tensions.

To be blunt: As the article of law states: Those who stand up in rebellion to, or give comfort to America's enemies. I do not recognize the rioters as American enemies. I recognize them as lawbreakers.

 

Just because they thought the insurrection was good for America, doesn’t change what it was.

 

Is Trump qualified to run for the presidency?

No!

I predict we will see several States refuse to put his name on their ballots AND ignore any write-in's for him. Which of course WILL go to the Supreme Court, where their position Will be upheld; even by this highly biased Court, because it's part of the Constitution that no person involved in insurrection while holding office in the United States Government shall be eligible to run for office ever again.

TRAITOR tRump is ineligible to run for National Dog-Catcher, much less the Presidency.

 

Of course he's not qualified... he never was and he didn't become qualified over 4 years of shitshow...

Whether he's going to be DISqualified is an interesting academic exercise that we will likely never have tested as it should be...

 

I do not want to recognize it as an insurrection. It makes it look bad. It's already bad enough that it's a riot. The government does not need more shame brought upon it.

 

WE, These United States have been under constant strife and turmoil since TRAITOR tRump began his run in 2015.

The "government" has been careful bringing charges against TRAITOR tRump. Much to the chagrin of his MAGrate's; first it was to slow, now it's a rush to judgment. The insurrection was not limited to the attack on our Capitol it was an ongoing effort that began before the 2020 election even took place.

The insurrectionists AbsaByGodLutely acted against the proper functioning of our United States Government in an attempt to keep Congress from executing it's Constitutional duty. No matter what was in "their minds", they acted illegally to interfere with the proper function of our elected officials. They were there at the invitation and encouragement of TRAITOR tRump.

Recognize as YOU like; that doesn't change the law. They were in Washington, at TRAITOR tRumps bequest to interfere with the execution of a Constitutionally mandated Congressional Duty.

 

Using that logic, not recognizing dogShit on your shoe won't make it look better or stink less. The Government AND the People of the United States need the rule of law to be upheld IF we are to move past TRAITOR tRump's insurrection.

 

That version does...

 

What it was was a few torn up offices. Oh the horror

 

Even Trump's lawyers have referred to the event as insurrection.

And, Trump pushed this direction since the election until TODAY.

The Republican legal experts are the ones who brought this up as cited.

 

It wasn't just a riot.

They showed up for the PURPOSE of changing the election outcome, and assassinating the VP.

But, Trump's involvement isot limited to that one day.

 

Upholding it as an unlawful riot and jailing them for said riot, is IMHO upholding the law. The difference is, the US's prestige is maintained by not acknowledging an insurrection. My position is similar to Abraham Lincoln, who did NOT recognize the confederates as a legitimate government.

 

LOL!! I love your graphic!

But, I cited Republican legal experts who state that Trump must not be allowed to run. You can't blame ME for this.

Are you saying that THEY didn't get the point?

 

Gimme a quote or link where Trump's legal team referred to it as an insurrection. Because if anything slams whatever defense they'd have left, it'd be that public admission.

 

Don't be shocked, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: Not all Republicans like or support Trump. Clear enough?

 

Your HO is your business. TRAITOR tRump's organizing and participation in insurrection went far beyond and started way before the Capitol attack, January 6th 2021 was exclamatory not the real substance of TRAITOR tRump's insurrection; as the indictments indicate.

In any case, found guilty or not; he's NOT eligible to run for National Office ... ever again.

 

At issue here, is to define insurrection. Is an insurrection an armed or a militarized uprising against the government? We know that the arms across the Potomac were unable to reach the capital, and there was an increasing lack of desire to do so. Is an insurrection the effort to keep the losing person in power?

I think insurrection has a clear definition, as the only time an actual insurrection took place was the civil war. To me, the riot was not that of an effort against the government. Against the election results, obviously but not against the government.

It would have been, had Biden been seated in office, but that wasn't to be until 1/21, ie: the official inauguration date.

Had it happened then, I'd have no problem calling insurrection against the government.

 

It would be shameful to ignore because of your feelings

 

All you have to do is look it up.

insurrection
noun
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
-Mearrium-Webster

Arms found on and/or taken from the insurrectionists as they Attacked OUR Capitol.

I don't think that's true but, assuming it is, your first sentence needs to be appended with .... UNTIL DONALD TRUMP. For the upteenth time; "to you" matters ... well ... to you; and only you. There are laws and definitions to words and that is what the world runs on. Not what you dream up in your easy chair.

President Biden WAS inaugurated, even though most MAGrates deny it. But NOT for lack of trying by TRAITOR tRump to stop it.

Good for "YOU".

 

Biden wasn't inaugurated on 1/6, that's the whole point of the fake electors scheme. He was at that point legally, President-Elect. The one in charge of running the government at that time, was Donald Trump.

I find it funny that I'm being accused on here of not following the law, due to my interpretation. And yet, I am following the law. I just disagree with the conclusions by the prosecution, and those who want to bring the prosecution.

There wasn't an insurrection against the government(I do thank you for the list though. And i guess, it depends on if we consider the vast majority of flag poles, tomahawk axes and bear sprays as 'armed'.). To a degree, maybe but not so much so that it would be identified as an armed rebellion.

(And everyone with 'arms' was outside of the area, I don't even like including them and I feel the government is at fault for doing so.)

You know, if we're going to be literate. Like, why did they target those who particularly didn't even attend the actual riots themselves.

Oh and you'll say it for the thousandth time: My opinions don't matter. True, they'll go ahead as they do. But the use of force to create a narrative(and the use of the DOJ is force. It's just seen as righteous force) doesn't make it any more true. It makes it 'accepted', huge difference there.

To me, the capitol riots were a riot. They were not an insurrection against the government. Otherwise, they were an insurrection against the Trump government. You would have to allege that Trump led an insurrection against his own government.

OR, you'd have to argue that the Congress and WH were separate government entities during 1/6.

 

CHAZ was even more of an effort to defy both the federal and the state government. And yet, it wasn't called an insurrection.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-against-seattle-capitol-hill-police-precinct

This happened, yet spades aren't called spades.

 

Yay but they thought it was good for America, so it’s ok right?