New Hampshire may be first state to violate the Constitution

Where does it say disqualification requires a conviction? The question of Trump's eligibility will no doubt be decided in the courts, probably by the SC. Please stop making fatuous claims about a lack of due process.

 

I have no interest in participating in the semantic games you wish to play. Sorry, try someone else.

 

Really? In Section 1...lol

 

It's irrelevant because insurrection and rebellion are both covered by 18 USC 2383.

 

He may be a dick, but he didn't take up arms against the government. Just so we all recognize that.

 

But, State AG's are, in most States, in charge of elections and it's up to them who can legally run for election in their State ... according to State Law and OUR Constitution.

The 14th Amendment could prove to be a two edged sword.

Be careful what you wish for because it's very likely something like your scenario WILL happen, and undoubtedly will end up in the Supreme Court. Where they could, easily as not, decide that, "Why yes! January 6th was a TRAITOR tRump led insurrection and according to the 14th Amendment is ineligible to run for National Dog Catcher, much less President.

 

Sec. 3 of the 14th A was written a century and a half before that statute was included in the penal code. It is irrelevant to the application of the constitutional prohibition of insurrectionists being on the ballot which requires no conviction.

 

Immaterial to the application of the constitutional prohibition against insurrectionists being on the ballot.

 

“The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=138267

Mic drop.

 

No, better legal minds than you or me disagree. But, there are also respected legal minds that support your stance. That's why it's only a matter of time until a State AG bars him from their ballot and, only a matter of time until it goes to the Supemes.

 

Show us the text of the Constitution that says that.

 

Those legal minds are either stupid, or lying.

One of them, Laurence Tribe, was involved in the faithless electors scandal of 2016. Not sure I would trust his opinion...lol

 

No AG in no state can bar someone from a Federal election without due process. They don't get to decide who runs and who doesn't...lol. The law decides and the AGs follow the law.

 

You may be right.

Actually Tribe was citing Hamilton, Federalist 68. I hate to break it to you but he probably wouldn't trust your opinion either.

 

Wuuuuut? Your saying ALL AG's in ALL States ... ??? Really?

Yes, yes they do. (It's their job to interpret the law) Their decisions, however, can be challenged. I'm sure I mentioned there is a high degree of likely hood TRAITOR tRump will be barred from running by some State and, it will, then, end up in front of the Supremes.

BTW, there are those ... on your side ... that contend there is NO such thing as a "Federal Election". ALL, elections are State or Local ... hence the need of the Electoral College.

 

So ignore the Rule of Law and opine instead. Did you go to the Turley class? If so, ask for a full refund as well as damages.

 

Or to quote Bill ... "lol!"

 

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.

If you have a problem with the two constitutional scholar's, from both sides of the political spectrum, read of that clause take it up with them. I'm sure they'd be fascinated with your acumen.

 

If the Republicans in purple states with Republican AGs don't start pulling Biden off the ballots, we are losing. I am tired to the puke point of weak-kneed Republicans who aren't willing to meet AND EXCEED the measures that the Democrats have engaged in. If this is a war of annihilation, the weak will be annihilated. The Democrats are shifting to hard power and the Republicans MUST follow suit where they have power. If Democrats want to fix elections, Republicans must respond in kind by fixing elections. No more bitching about the Democrats breaking the rules.... that ain't cutting it.

 

Turley has prostituted himself in order to get notoriety and face time on conservative media.

 

I'd ask on what grounds but I've grown tired of reading baseless conspiracy theories.

 

AKA a shill masquerading as a legal mind.

 

That would be AG. Attorney General's are in charge of elections, not Inspector Generals. But, red State AG's could pull President Biden off their ballots, and like inTRAITOR tRump's case it would end up in front of the Supremes. Then those red State AG's would have to prove how President Biden violated thje 14th.

As to the rest, this is NOT war, we are all AmeriCANs, the sooner we become U.S. and start working together, the sooner we can get on with being THE GREAT NATION WE ARE!!!

 

Perhaps you can put them clearly in context for us.

Who is disregarding the Constitution the AG or the letter writers?
You did say the State of New Hampshire may violate the Constitution didn't you?
You did say the violation was taking place didn't you?

If I am wrong in my analysis of your words, please accept my apology in advance.

 

However, professors Baude and Paulson point out that the language of the 14th Amendment may be read more broadly than a statute, since its purpose was to disqualify someone from office who has violated his previous oath to support the Constitution.

The case for disqualification is strong. There is abundant evidence that Trump deliberately set out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election result, calling it ‘stolen’ and ‘rigged’; that Trump (with the assistance of others) pursued numerous schemes to effectuate this objective; that among these were efforts to alter the vote counts of several states by force, by fraud or by intended intimidation of state election officials, to pressure or persuade state legislatures and /or courts unlawfully to overturn state election results, to assemble and induce others to submit bogus slates of competing state electors, to persuade or pressure Congress to refuse to count electors’ votes submitted by several states, and finally, to pressure the Vice President to overturn state election results in his role of presiding over the counting of electors’ votes. . . The bottom line is that Donald Trump both “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid and comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
https://www.aei.org/legal-and-constitutional-3/a-summary-of-the-baude-paulsen-paper-on-donald-trumps-ineligibility-to-run-for-president/#:~:text=However, professors Baude and Paulson,case for disqualification is strong.