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

Except burning down a liquor store does not impede or prevent an official act.

 

Your argument is still silly.
My argument are the exact words of the 14th. You need to make up things to make your argument.

 

Just you.
The 14th covers 2 issues. Insurrection. Rebellion.

Planning, funding, leading a protest is perfectly fine. That is also considered engaging in said protest.
If protest gets out of hand and storms the Capitol. That is not fine.

 

18 USC 793(e)

Trump had the documents
Trump was not authorized to have the documents
Trump refused to return the documents.

 

Guilt is not needed. Just engaging.

 

Colorado didn't claim rebellion. They claimed insurrection.

 

Liberals have zero interest in Democratic elections.

Lie, cheat, and steal by any means to their desire ends.

I'm glad they are showing their true colors.

 

So now magically you know more about the constitution than 97 justices and the SCOTUS
Too funny

 

LOL. It is not.
Kids rebel against their parents all the time. Do all those kids get charged criminally?

 

Funny you make stuff up.

 

There was no staging of an insurrection. Just a protest.
The protest got out of hand and those involved were riled up to go and fight to take back their country.

Also, the 14th mentions a rebellion. Also, doesn't have to be a crime.

Being under 35 also makes one not eligible to run for POTUS. And it's not a crime to be under 35.
This issue is not criminal.
Only eligibility is involved.

 

Funny how all the people currently under indictment for an attempt to "lie, cheat and steal" in an election were working to get Trump elected.

 

No, your argument is that because the words "crime" or "criminal" do not appear then it doesn't require the 5th and 6th Amendments to be followed because it doesn't refer to crimes...even though they are crimes....but not really because it doesn't mention "crime" or "criminal".....

If my argument is made up, then so is yours because its using your exact same "logic".

 

She can't charge anyone with a crime. This issue is not criminal. She is an election board member. Not a judicial member.
She has no power to charge anyone with crimes.

 

You are the only 1 to say anything about the 5 and 6 ammendments. For some unknown reason. Maybe fox lies told you that?

Eligibility to run for POTUS doesn't require a crime to be committed.
Being under 35 is not a crime, but being under 35 makes on ineligible to run for POTUS.

No where does the 14th say, refer to the 5 and 6 ammendments.

 

About a handful already decided against going that route. So we shall see. It won't be many more, if any.
Perhaps that may change after the courts make their ruling.

 

You're using words not found in the 14th sec 3. The word is "engaged". Not "engaging". And for the millionth time...there is only one way our government can factually say someone engaged in a crime. Through the criminal court system. Otherwise they are in violation of the 5th 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,"

 

I knew you were going to make such an argument once you started to use the word "rebellion" in place of insurrection. Its a stupid argument and you know it. Stop insulting peoples intelligences.

 

For one to have engaged, during the act, they had to be engaging. Sheesh.

Root word, engage.
Engaged, is past tense.
Engaging, is the act.
Grammar school English.

The eligibility requirements are not a legal standing. Being under 35 is not illegal. But one is ineligible to run for POTUS under the age of 35.

 

No intelligences were insulted.
I didn't start to use it. It's part of the 14th.

Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

I appreciate your admission of limited knowledge on political information.
This is a first on PF.

 

14th Amendment
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Was that not what the second impeachment by Congress was all about.. "incitement of insurrection" "lawless action at the Capitol"

Looks like "double jeopardy" to most folks...

 

Ah yes "Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding." That does remind me that of the four charges against him, 3 were "conspiracy" and one was "obstruction." So at no point was he charged with the actual crimes the "conspiracy" was based on.

Anyway your claim was that you had the proof. Charges are not proof of guilt.

Well maybe in the Putinstan you are so anxious to turn our country into.

 

Says the poster who thinks Trump was removed from ballots for rebellion.
Too funny

 

You apparently didn't read the dissents in the Colorado case as they are most certainly referred to. And no, I'm not the only one. And you know that since many people in the threads about this subject have mentioned them, not just me. Including in this thread.

As for eligibility... You do know you have prove your eligibility right? This is normally done by presenting your birth certificate to not only prove citizenship, but age also. Its quite simple to prove that you haven't engaged in insurrection or rebellion by simply providing access to your criminal records. If there is no conviction of either then the government MUST assume that you have not engaged in those acts. Per the 5th and 6th Amendments. If they were to deny you despite that, yet still claim you engaged in those, then they would be in violation of those amendments.

There you go again. With the same stupid argument. So I'll make the same argument as before to show the stupidity of it. "Since the 1st Amendment doesn't refer to the Executive Branch then the Executive Branch can violate the 1st Amendment."