Of the arguments brought up in the Colorado case, there is one I like...

That's not news dude.

 

Oh so the liberal justices that also hammered the state of Colorado's nonsensical claims as well are bought and paid for too? Your excuse making is absurd.

 

Feel free to look up the meaning of the word "acknowledge". After that... read my sig! I do not choose words lightly....

 

Ah. So now we have established that, not only it's YOU who didn't understand what's at stake here, but that you don't read the posts you respond to
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-is-one-i-like.616539/page-2#post-1074651769

So why bother responding to you if you don't read? I usually don't. But I guess it's a slow Friday....

 

This is the only good argument. The argument that the 14th Amendment somehow just doesn't apply to the President is pure garbage and there's no way the SC will decide in Trump's favor on those grounds.

But here's the thing: who DOES decide when the 14th Amendment applies?

Hopefully the SC can help answer that. One thing I don't hear talked about enough is that there WAS no criminal statute for rebellion or insurrection when the 14th Amendment was penned. It wasn't a misdemeanor. It wasn't a felony. There was no means for criminally charging someone for insurrection at the time. So the writers never intended the 14th Amendment to require any kind of conviction.

And I don't think the writers of the 14th intended for Congress to decide. No mention of any kind of Congressional method is provided. At all. And, no, it definitely couldn't have been about impeachment. Impeachment already included disqualification. The 14th had to be about something new.

Anyway, my prediction at this point is that the SC will rule that conviction is now required for the 14th to apply and completely ignore original intent, but mostly for practical reasons.

 

Why doesn't the 14th Amendment or any other portion of the Constitution provide any explanation for how Congress does that when it comes to the 14th Amendment? You should read my previous post before answering.

 

My guy, you don't have a law license. I do. I'm very much aware of court precedent surrounding so key an issue.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were expressly for the purpose of altering the powers of the states. Incorporation, for example, in the 14th clearly limits the powers of the states.
This isn't news.

 

If they argue that, it's going to be a decision split among partisan lines with the MAGA justices on one side and the independent justices on the other. It would basically mean SCOTUS justices once again legislate from the bench by overturning the 14th A. But I don't remember that even being mentioned in the arguments.

If the argument is the one I explain in the OP, it will be either 8-1 or 9-0.

 

Oh I understood exact and Have said the state AG from colorado got slapped around by almost every one. On the court different justices did it in different ways but none of them spoke with any sort of approval of the actions of either The AG of colorado or the findings of the state supreme it appears on the matter at hand that the state of colorado is going down either 8-1 or 9-0 that is all that matters here. And while I expect most of the consevatives will write concurring opinions that the Majority will be given to whichever of the liberal justices who has served on the court the longest and voted against the state of Colorado's egregiously stupid and partisan attempt at election interference.

By the way the one that brought up the fact that the President wasn't listed in the officers in the fourteenth amendment was Justice Jackson.

 

No problem. You don't need a law license to check a dictionary.

Maybe soon, if you live in Florida. But for now I believe it's allowed.

BTW, just so you know, law licenses do not impress me one bit. You can ask other attorneys in this forum who have tested my sig.

It is for those who have argued that it didn't.

 

It says exactly how Congress does that...

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

 

Again: Its pretty elementary that the 14th restricts the states. This isn't new.

<Mod Edit>

 

We don't have a national election. We have 50+ State elections.
There should be federal guidelines on ballot eligibility for ALL 50+ States that ALL must abide by.

And as long as each candidate meets the requirements shall be eligible.
In CO's case, I don't know if the level was there at this point to disqualify anyone.

 

It doesn't take away power, as I pointed out and the text of the constitution clearly states: The States never had that power to begin with. This had been decided in Texas V US after the civil war, SCOTUS decided it on the side of Biden with the border and yes, they will decide in favor in this case as well.

Federal> State. Not a loss of power,a confirmation of hierarchy. And I'd love it if SCOTUS put into force a statement like "All matters concerning State VS Federalism is decided", so that no one is confused again.

 

Hmmm. I wonder if the word "acknowledge" might include something that "isn't new". If only some device existed where we could consult the meaning of words....

Of course it's nothing new! There are MANY powers that right wingers claim the Constitution gives to the states that it was never intended to give.

<Mod Edit>

 

We may have state elections, but it is clearly for federal offices.

And there are federal guidelines, the eligibility requirements for office(though the 34, turning 35 on election day is an interesting one.). I lean on the side of this candidate would be eligible, since at the time of the vote he/she would be 35 years of age and would occupy office at age 35.

 

I agree. And it is unfortunate that we don't have national elections. Elections should not be handled by the states at all. They should be handled by an independent federal agency. A fourth branch of government, if you will... With clear rules and that applies all of them equally to all candidates.

 

I was talking specifically about Gorsuch's position. It would give States more power, if he were to rule on that basis now that he's in the Supreme Court. This would remove that possibility.

 

We only have 1 national election. It happens 1X every 4 yrs.

It would be massive undertaking to make 50+ States have to comply to a National election.
Every State elects their own representatives to their state. Not to the Nation. IMO as it should be.

It is harder to fraud 50+ elections than it is 1 national election. Same goes for corruption of elections.

 

Based on one single conversation which can be interpreted in a number of ways, you conclude Roberts is a nitwit. This is just another example of your binary thinking. If someone does not think the same as you, then they are a nitwit.

 

Its nothing new and its been acknowledged before. To acknowledge something is not to say that whatever you're acknowledging isn't old hat by the point you say something. Nor does it necessitate that it is old hat.
It simply is old hat in the particular context we're discussing, IE the idea that the 14th amendment placed additional restrictions on the states.

 

It says that whatever you're acknowledging IS old.

This is probably the pettiest debate I've ever had in this forum.

If somebody were to write a summary it might look something like this:
I say: This argument would acknowledge that the states don't have this power
You say: It's nothing new!
I clarify: The word "acknowledge" MEANS "it's nothing new"
You retort: No! It's nothing new. And I should know, I'm an attorney!
I respond: That's what I said, it's nothing new.
You snap back: Wrong! It's nothing new!

So... there you have it, boys and girls: it's nothing new... Study well. It will be on the test!

 

The issue is that Trump has never been legally proven of participating in an insurrection, therefore the intire 14th amendment argument isn't applicable. Just because Democrats and their propaganda ministry (formally the Mainstream Media) use the word doesn't make it so. Nor apparently does the J6 Kangaroo Court "findings". The only HARD evidence I've seen is the vid of Trump saying "go protest peacefully and patriotically".

 

You understand you can acknowledge something for the first time, or you can acknowledge something known since Moses..... right? As in you can acknowledge something that just happened? Old is not the dictionary definition of the word acknowledge o wise and learned one

 

Your first sentence destroys any illusion of honest debate. As usual all you care about is partisan poppycock. Interesting you call it a "partisan" court when several of the left wing justices seem stronger on the issue.