Michigan Supreme Court rejects ‘insurrectionist ban’ case and keeps Trump on 2024 primary ballot

Great, you're almost there.
Now show us where in the constitution it says you have to be convicted of crimes before you can be impeached.

 

Right next to where it says you have to be convicted to be kept off a ballot.

 

Nope, Not deflecting so you can hide behind it.
Were you going to provide any part of the Constitution that claims you need a conviction before you can impeach, or just admit you have no clue what your talking about.

 

EVERY portion of the constitution falls directly under and is compliant with the bill of rights with 0 exceptions.…except impeachment?

 

DEFLECTION #2
Provide any part of the Constitution that YOU claim a conviction is needed before you can impeach,
Or just admit you have no clue what your talking about.

 

You’re the one who said the bill of rights applies to all of it. Are you saying this is the only exception?

 

I did say the Bill of Rights applies to the entire constitution.
Then you posted this

Which means you have no clue of how impeachment works, its processes, or anything the constitution says about impeachment.
But its not like anyone here is surprised.
Its just a normal post for you

 

“your”…??

 

Condor, do you agree that it is a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process that permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office?

 

It is their right.
And I don't even like Trump and could care less if he's indicted, jailed, or quits. Doesn't means squat to me.
As a matter of fact, I hope he does drop out.

But to be constitutionally prohibited, you need a conviction, not an assumption or some judges decision.
If thats where this is all going, Obama would have been taken off ballots for his provision of millions in cash provided to ISIS and flown by plane obverting every federal banking law. Providing aid to the enemy.

Hillary was involved in the uranium deal with Russia. Providing aid to the enemy. She also illegally had her secret server in her basement with top secret information on it.

Now before you start claiming, b-b-but they didn't do that, they did and if you have your way, then Republican judges can claim they are constitutionally prohibited from being on ballots.

Which is why this is unprecedented and if no conviction is necessary, then it will be used in EVERY election moving forward.
More likely, House Republicans (being in the majority) will claim electors from states who take candidates off of ballots without convictions will have their electors removed from the vote.

But for some odd reason, all the left can see is getting Trump without the fallout of what they are trying to do.

 

Exercised, how??????

 

By executing the 14th amendment with a conviction of shall have engaged in an insurrection.

Legislative acts and contracts use "shall" and "shall not" to express mandatory action and prohibition.
They are legal terms used in the Constitution for a reason. If you're really a lawyer, then you would know this.

The 14th doesn't say, may have engaged, or appeared to have engaged, it says shall have engaged.
The creators of the constitution made absolutely sure no rouge judge could take ANY amendment out of context by providing the Bill of Rights which EVERY amendment MUST abide by. You don't get to isolate any amendment to reinterpret its meaning.
This has been tried thousands of times and it has failed over and over again.

If you even attempted to argue this in front of the SCOTUS, they will ask you, on what grounds do you isolate the 14th amendment from the Bill of Rights and the 6th amendment.

And the only answer you could come up with is, because it doesn't say in the 14th that a conviction is needed.

To which they would most likely remind you that NONE of the amendments restate anything in the Bill of Rights. Are we to assume now that the Bill of Rights, because they are not quoted over and over in every amendment, now don't apply to any of them?

If they don't apply to any of the amendments, then when do they apply? Just when its convenient? Why do you think the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the constitution? Because they govern EVERYTHING in the constitution.

While you delight in ignoring 13 states with 94 justices all coming to the same conclusion, you revel in 4 Democrats ruling while still ignoring the 3 Democrats that all gave the same reasons why you need a conviction.

Now you have a Secretary of State claiming she can determine anyones innocence or guilt to keep those she doesn't like off the ballot.

 

You'd be right if it read........"shall have been convicted of insurrection or rebellion against the same,".........but it doesn't.

 

It says shall have engaged in insurrection.
Insurrection is a crime
No judge has the capacity to convict anyone of crimes without due process
And no judge can ignore the Bill of Rights to take any amendment out of context.
Which is EXACTLY how the SCOTUS will come down on this.
Which is also why the Colorado Justices reversed their own decision allowing Trump back on their ballots until after they hear from the SCOTUS.

So I tell you what. You feel strong enough to put your money where your mouth is?
Lets find out.
If the SCOTUS shoots this Colorado ruling down, you leave the forums for a month.
If they rule in your favor, I will leave for a month.
Deal?

 

I have already said SCOTUS will rule in favour of Humpty and I've said why. We will see judicial cowardice at play.

 

So your excuse for being wrong is now their cowardice?
Isn't that the same excuse every time the left loses in the SCOTUS
Is that going to be the same claim when its 8-1 or 9-0?

 

Let them both submit to a public cognitive test.Better yet, let's see Biden take Trump behind the gym like he was always blowing about! I'd love to see that.

 

It is my explanation as to why they will not give words their simple meaning. To do so would result in an outcome the majority will be too cowardly to allow.

 

Bill of rights applies to entire constitution, but not impeachment. Got it!

 

Notice that you like to repeat the “8-1” prediction…

Is the “1” Neil Gorsuch’s vote..? If not, why not…?

 

Nope, its the one for the idiot who can't explain what a woman is

 

I'm sure you do.

 

I’m hoping you’re going to explain the difference. I think you're probably right, at least Scotus will say so. I just think you’re reasoning is flawed

 

Dude, just stop. You obviously have no idea of the difference between convicting someone of a crime and the impeachment process.
Impeachment is a noncriminal process based on allocations of misconduct. You need a house vote to impeach, and if you get enough votes you hold a trial in the Senate before any conviction is possible. So if you knew what the constitution says, how is it you could possibility think you need a conviction before being accused of misconduct or the 6th amendment would apply?
Can't wait to hear this

 

They will take this head on and state for clarity that you need a conviction before any state has authority to remove a candidate from the ballot.
Which is what the other 97 justices claimed as well.
And exactly how the constitution works.
And when they do state that information, you going to claim thats cowardly because you got it wrong.