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

Not rebellion. Insurrection.

 

Not as funny as stupid projections you do whenever you lose a debate.

 

This is all spot-on.

 

Your silly argument was rejected before as it is now.

 

And the 14th refers to past tense. Again, how is that determined by our government? Through the criminal court system.

As for eligibility...refer to post# 700.

 

Now we've gone from rebellion to projections?
When you can't argue the facts, it just starts getting silly

 

Yup, you're right.

 

What a pathetic, decaying, miserable BANANA REPUBLIC this country has turned into!

... "...and they're too stupid now even to realize it!"

 

Notice that you couldn't argue against anything else in that post. You just ignore it.

 

MAGA: STAYYYTS RAAAAAHTS, STAYYYTS RAAAAAHTS!

Traitor-Tot Trump gets booted in two states.

MAGA: NO STAYYYTS RAAAHTS!

Lol

Pass the popcorn

 

The desperation of Democrats is more than obvious. They know Trump will win just based on their last 4 years of a garbage administration. But its good voters get to see how willing the left is to just disregard the constitution and the law to get what they want.

 

Indeed. Thus 14th amendment, sec 3

 

@dairyair was trying to use the word "rebellion" in his arguments in order to show that "rebellion" doesn't always refer to a "crime". "because kids rebel against parents". Mainly because he can't use the same argument with the word "insurrection", which is what is claimed against Trump.

 

Your partisan bias is showing. We're talking about the 14th Amendment, 5th Amendment, and 6th Amendment. IE: The US Constitution. Which the States have to follow. Which means "States Rights" do not apply.

 

Hmm how about a courthouse or police station?

 

If you want to go down that road. Trump was acquitted of insurrection in his 2nd impeachment.
Now what

 

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.

 

Isn't it funny how they ignore those and try to minimize it.

 

Yep, I ignored them. I didn't want to insult anyone's intelligence. As you claim.

All you're doing is beating a dead horse.

The courts, likely the USSC, will likely make a ruling.
As this is a 1st in USA history.

 

You forgot to highlight a part of that amendment. Once again, how does the government determine someone "shall have engaged" in insurrection or rebellion? There is only one way allowed by the 5th and 6th Amendments.

 

Try again. No one believes what you just said here.

I'll give you a second chance. Taking out the part that you call silly (even though its based on your own logic)

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.

I dare you to argue against it.

 

And just like the average left, they take information out of context to make claims against the constitution.
Which is why the left has a history of taking amendments out of context that get slapped down by the SCOTUS over and over and over.

The left has no credibility to make any claims about what the constitution says or how it works as evidenced by their most recent losses in the SCOTUS

Like their 2nd amendment claims
Like their gun regulation claims
Like their abortion rights claims
Like their Emoluments clause claims
Like their mandated mask claims
Like their mandated vaccine claims
Like their tuition to tax payer claims
Like their Jack Smith leap over appellant court claims
Like their forced baking cakes for LGTBQ wedding claims
Like their their bathroom claims

 

Don't insult your intelligence.

Rebellion is in the 14th section 3.

I didn't write it.

The courts will make a ruling. Some lower courts already have.

In the Maine case, the suspension is not determined until the courts make a ruling.

 

Says who? 3 of the 7 CO supreme court members?

 

It's based on your logic. I disagreed with your logic.

Criminal records are not part of the 14th Sec 3.
Certainly criminal records would be used if available. But it's not a requirement.

The courts have yet to decide. Well, CO supreme court has decided. It will either stand as they ruled or the USSC will make a ruling. To confirm, over rule, or not take the case and leave it up to the States.

Those are the 3 options.