New Hampshire may be first state to violate the Constitution

WRONG!

The 14th Amendment ONLY requires that the Traitor-in-Chief aided and abetted the insurrection...which he did!

 

The key issue before the Court will be whether Mr. Trump has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States, or gave “aid and comfort” to its “enemies.” On this issue, professors Baude and Paulsen write:

Did President Trump’s “willful, deliberate refusal to accept the outcome of the lawful constitutional election resulting in his defeat for re-election and, instead, his (and others’) attempt to overthrow constitutional election results and install or maintain himself in office, by force, by fraud or by attempted de facto political coup d’etat against the regime of lawful constitutional government, constitute engaging in ‘insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States’”? “We think the answer is yes.” [emphasis in the original]

 

Sideshow Blob's supporters did and he INCITED them to do so ergo the 14A applies!

 

Just when it seemed that the Republican Party’s problems with Donald Trump were insoluble, a deus ex machina appeared to save the Grand Old Party from itself. According to two distinguished conservative law professors, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution makes Donald J. Trump ineligible to be elected president. The following is a summary of this important analysis.
https://www.aei.org/legal-and-const...d Paulson,case for disqualification is strong.

 

Not if the election is stolen by insiders....

 

But you haven't actually shown any insurrection.

 

Exactly.... they have more questionable documented actions against Biden than they ever could create and manufacture against Trump....

Just one difference...

honest thorough DOJ investigations...

Brings back the old memories of fake impeachments and fake Mueller and Huber stuff.... they are just taking a truck load of garbage and throwing it against the wall to see what sticks....

 

The beautiful thing about the application of the 14th A should the SC rule it applies is the conservative majority, with 3 Trump appointments, gives cover to Trump's inevitable cries of unfair treatment by Dems or the fictitious deep state.

 

See post #77.

 

1. There is no "crime" taking place. The NH SoS merely said he is getting legal advice from various sources. Something a responsible official would do (unlike an unnamed ex President who refused to listen to various government lawyers who said that the plan to have his unnamed VP throw out some of the electoral votes was unconstitutional)

2. IF it gets to the point where the NH SoS decides to bar Trump from the primary ballot I would question the idea that such a move would be "unconstitutional" based on the fact that a PRIMARY is nothing more than how a private political organization decides who their candidate for general election will be. I would question the SoS authority to prevent ANYONE from appearing on the ballot. IMHO that would be a decision solely up to the leadership of that state's political party. But this also goes along with my opinion that the state should not be involved in a primary election in any way. No state funds should be expended on it. Any state owned election equipment or election sites should be rented, from the state, by the political party and the political party ALONE is responsible for any costs.

3. Finally I would question any attempt to invoke the 14th Amendment against someone who has not been convicted of a crime.

 

Read thru the thread. A criminal conviction for insurrection, or even an indictment, is not a pre-requisite for application of the 14th A.

 

I am convinced that the greatest threat to our freedoms and our right to elect the officials we want to lead us is the Biden Administration. If you pose any sort of political threat them, their Justice Department will come after you. The latest, ridiculous lawsuit again Elon Musk is the most recent example. Musk took away the Biden administration's strangle hold on Twitter, and they are sending him a message.

In the wake of Watergate, some liberal pundits wrote about how we almost lost our democracy because of the actions of Richard Nixon. In reality, it wasn't even close. Nixon had the press and the Democrat Party keeping tabs on him. The press had been out to get him for years. Yes, Nixon broke the law and deserved to be run out of office. But, no, Nixon did not have a movement that was going to "end democracy."

Joe Biden and the current crop of progressive Democrats do have the means to end democracy. They have the corporate press 98% on their side. The spare 2% is the scant mention that the corporate press gives to reporting the Biden scandals. Joe has 98% of the Democrat Party on his side. The 2% might be Joe Mansion if he decided to form a third party. Joe has probably 80% college professors on his side. These guys might not care for Joe that much, but they are "yellow dog Democrats" who will support anything the party nominates.

The college professors also love the student loan system which pads the bloated receipts of their institutions. Joe is helping that along with his illegal effort to forgive at least $500 billion in student loan debt. Joe wants to keep the cash train running for the colleges and universities.

Merrick Garland and Christopher Wray are using the DOJ and the FBI to punish and silence Joe Biden's political opponents. They are enlisting the help of George Soros local government DA's to add to the piling on. They will ruin anyone of significance who stands in their way, and the system is allowing them to do it.

Nixon and Trump ending democracy? You're kidding. The real threats are the Biden Administration and the leaders of the Democrat Party who are hell bent on creating one party rule in America.

 

You seem too upset for a reasonable exchange of ideas.

Well, this is interesting, a very recent poll shows Trump with a 3 point lead!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2023/NY_Post_GOP_National_Aug_25_2023.pdf

 

Do the words of the President of the United States not carry the full force and authority of the office?

 

That's weird. The President's never mentioned in the section. Members of Congress are, and since both Obama and Biden both engaged in a seditious conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2016 election, they are both excluded from future office.

THE SYSTEM GOES AFTER ANYONE IT SEES AS A THREAT: “Scrolling through TikTok recently I saw many videos of young black men reacting positively to the Trump mugshot (and it certainly wasn’t because they perceived fear in that glowering face).”

'Even in 2016, people were comparing Trump to a rapper. Now he’s got legit mugshots. “‘In an unjust society the only place for a just man is prison.’ — Henry David Thoreau.”'

 

I would still think that some sort of conviction for aiding and abetting the insurrection would be required.

Under our system of jurisprudence a person is assumed to be innocent until proven in court of law.

I think the idea that someone can be barred from office on a mere accusation is a bad idea.

 

Oh JFC,

Obama and Biden did no such thing in 2016. This is just another MAGA head trying to claim that others are guilty of what Trump is being accused of. A case of "Whataboutism" run amok.

 

Not always.

 

A factually indefensible assertion.

 

When then do they not?

 

When the president is a crook and a possible traitor.

 

Fake News. How can you be unaware of this?

https://news.yahoo.com › dni-releases-cia-documents-hillary-204337457.html
DNI Releases CIA Documents on Clinton's 'Plan' to Tie Trump Campaign to ...
'Former CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on Hillary Clinton's "plan" to tie the Trump campaign to Russia as a means of distracting the public from her private email...'

Biden was at that briefing. They engaged in a seditious conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2016 election, AND they are BOTH former members of Congress, which 14a SPECIFICALLY covers. You are aware that The Trumpster never served in Congress?

It's a well known tell, too many Democrats accuse Republicans of being guilty of what Democrats are actually guilty of.

 

Clinton's "plan" was political. No different than Trump's "Lock Her Up" plan.
It was not a plan to overturn the 2016 election since the election had not even happened yet.

 

Fake News. On January 12, 2017 Bribed Joe dated the briefing as the previous week:

'Vice President Joe Biden confirmed Thursday that he and President Barack Obama were briefed last week by intelligence officials on unsubstantiated claims that Russia may have compromising information on President-elect Donald Trump.'

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/politics/joe-biden-donald-trump-intelligence-report/index.html

The CIA repeatedly informed them that these were claims by Lying Hillary to distract from her Email Scandal, not information form Russian Intelligence. Yet, they repeatedly submitted portions of the Dossier to the FISA court so that they could trick the Court into authorizing illegal spying on Trump in the hopes that they could drive him from office and overturn the results of the election.

Both are former Congressmen, both engaged in a seditious conspiracy, members of Congress are specifically included in 14a Section 3, both are barred from future office.

 

The crime is the conspiracy to steal an election.