Let's get this straight.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Lee Atwater, Dec 31, 2023.

  1. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    47,247
    Likes Received:
    27,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
    https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

    Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw out his espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groups and organizations have challenged the eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress, arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate. A New Mexico state court, however, has removed Otero County Commissioner County Griffin from office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for, the January 6 interruption of the election certification.
    https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

    Absent evidence in contradiction of CREW's assertion I suspect The Following will ineffectually attack CREW and or the CRS. It is the Trumpian way. When facts and evidence fail them they rely on what amounts to character assassination. Which is why Trump attacks the media, anyone who opposes him, and most especially those like Jack Smith who are working to hold Don accountable for his illegal actions.

    Furthermore, quite a bit has been made about the removal of a candidate's name from the ballot being anti-democratic. Yet the Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic. From the moment Trump began the anti-democratic act of conspiring to steal the election he violated his oath of office and forfeited his right to once again run to be the prez.
     
  2. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    28,438
    Likes Received:
    11,784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It still comes down to one basic fact. 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. Without that due process, it takes only a very few people to take away that right and that is more dangerous than Trump ever was or will be.
     
    gorfias, DentalFloss and Junkieturtle like this.
  3. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    23,181
    Likes Received:
    8,550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Except due process is being followed.
     
  4. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    16,463
    Likes Received:
    8,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No it isn't. Trump is being struck from the ballot based on being guilty of something he hasn't been found guilty of. It's beyond stupid.
     
    KalEl79 and Dayton3 like this.
  5. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    28,438
    Likes Received:
    11,784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A small group of people without any input from the opposing side is declaring him guilty of a crime. That is not due process.
     
    Reality and Darthcervantes like this.
  6. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The CO court REVIEWED the EVIDENCE and made a FINDING of FACT that the TRAITOR-in-CRAP did INCITE an Insurrection against the government of We the People.

    In a CRIMINAL court that is a GUILTY verdict.

    Hence the RULING by the CO Supreme Court which UPHELD that he HAS engaged in an INSURRECTION.

    Being CONVICTED of Insurrection is NOT a STIPULATED requirement of 14.3.

    Just giving Aid and Comfort to the Insurrectionists is SUFFICIENT to DISQUALIFY him and we have his TWEETS to PROVE that he did EXACTLY that on J6.
     
  7. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    23,181
    Likes Received:
    8,550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And to my knowledge its a judge that did it, due process.
     
    cd8ed and Derideo_Te like this.
  8. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    23,181
    Likes Received:
    8,550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Except they aren't.
     
    Imnotreallyhere and Derideo_Te like this.
  9. Hey Now

    Hey Now Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    20,529
    Likes Received:
    16,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My 2 cents on this, SCOTUS will NOT rule on whether Agent Orange ran the Jan 6th failed coup, their lying eyes will not be tested! They will rule strictly on the Colorado case and the merits of that one alone. They will not rule on the strict interpretation of the actual Constitution and section 3, they simply can't. They would become lifetime pariahs in conservative circles if they do, they will find "a way to punt" maybe through one of the Colorado dissenting judge's opine.
     
    Joe knows, Lucifer and Derideo_Te like this.
  10. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    28,438
    Likes Received:
    11,784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please provide something besides your two or three word declarative statements. They are meaningless.
     
    DentalFloss likes this.
  11. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    23,181
    Likes Received:
    8,550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They aren't declaring him guilty of a crime.
     
  12. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    28,438
    Likes Received:
    11,784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They declared him not eligible to run for president without him being able to provide any evidence to the contrary.
     
  13. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    23,181
    Likes Received:
    8,550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since its not a criminal trial they don't have to, but I believe that he can appeal the decision all the way to the SC which is the due process necessary.
     
  14. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    47,247
    Likes Received:
    27,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope.

    Before a lower court last month, lawyers made wide-ranging arguments during closing arguments, grappling over the ins and outs of specific language in the 14th Amendment and the extent to which Trump’s actions related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol amounted to insurrection.
    https://rollcall.com/2023/12/19/gop-in-uproar-after-colorado-court-bars-trump-from-state-ballot/

    The final day of a weeklong trial in a challenge to former President Donald Trump’s constitutional eligibility to seek office again began with a protracted dispute over how much expertise an expert witness called by Trump’s legal team really had.

    Robert Delahunty, a retired law professor and legal commentator who acknowledged he’d never before given expert testimony on any subject in court, took the stand Friday morning in a case brought by six Colorado voters who allege that Trump must be barred from the 2024 presidential ballot by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The Civil War-era clause prohibits anyone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” from holding office in the United States. Plaintiffs argue Trump “engaged” in insurrection as part of the Jan. 6 attack.

    https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/11/03/testimony-14th-amendment-colorado-trump-trial/
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2023
  15. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,523
    Likes Received:
    2,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My man Lee Atwater, coming up on the three year anniversary now of my question to you Sir,

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...w-of-government.582758/page-3#post-1072361197
     
  16. CornPop

    CornPop Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    6,325
    Likes Received:
    6,052
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do you prove Section 3 applies to the President? Early drafts of Section 3 included the President and they chose to remove that position in the final draft that was ratified. Hamilton wrote about it in the Federalist Papers. Additionally, recent a Supreme Court ruling from 2010 says the President is not an officer of the United States as it pertains to Section 3. How do you get past the authors of the amendment making the conscious choice to remove the President from Section 3 and Supreme Court precedent? This thread comes across as very insurrectiony to me. Trying to remove a presidential candidate based on false pretenses is a clear and present threat to our democracy.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2023
  17. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    47,247
    Likes Received:
    27,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Any ambiguity on the matter will no doubt be seized on by the Court's conservative majority to allow Trump to be on the ballot.

    To Whom Does Section 3 Apply?

    According to the text of Section 3, the bar against office-holding applies to Members of Congress, officers of the United States, members of state legislatures, and state executive or judicial officers, who previously swore an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and later break that oath by committing the acts mentioned. The offices to which such persons are then barred include seats in Congress, membership in the Electoral College, and any civil or military office under the United States or any state. Although not expressly referenced, the bar appears historically to have applied to judgeships. There is an argument that because the President is not covered explicitly by the provision, the presidency itself is exempt from the disqualification. In contrast, the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution explicitly applies to the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,” which suggests that the President might not be a “civil Officer of the United States” whose oath of office would subject him to possible disqualification. However, it may be more likely that the office of the President is included as an office under the United States (unlike Members of Congress and electors, which may be why they are expressly included), so that any person subject to the disqualification is ineligible to serve as President. One scholar notes that the drafting history of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that the office of the President is covered:

    During the debate on Section Three, one Senator asked why ex-Confederates “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you all omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation.” Another Senator replied that the lack of specific language on the Presidency and Vice Presidency was irrelevant: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”

    https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569
     
    ChiCowboy and Derideo_Te like this.
  18. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    28,438
    Likes Received:
    11,784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't believe removing someone from the ballot should be more difficult than just saying they are guilty?
     
  19. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    23,181
    Likes Received:
    8,550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why should it be? You don't have a right to run for office.
     
    Lucifer and Derideo_Te like this.
  20. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    28,438
    Likes Received:
    11,784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  21. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    23,181
    Likes Received:
    8,550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    14th says otherwise.
     
    cd8ed and Derideo_Te like this.
  22. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    28,438
    Likes Received:
    11,784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    After due process.
     
  23. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    23,181
    Likes Received:
    8,550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which has been followed.
     
    cd8ed and Derideo_Te like this.
  24. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is why we have a Supreme Court - and I'm very disappointed they did not immediately address this issue as it is a time sensitive Constitutional question - but that's what you get when the Court gets stacked with toadies instead of Justices with backbones.
     
    cd8ed, Lucifer and Derideo_Te like this.
  25. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    28,438
    Likes Received:
    11,784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did Trump get to plead his case? If he didn't, then it was not due process.
     

Share This Page