The 14th amendment thread
One of the most stand out tweets that proved his guilt in this scheme is at 2:24pm - “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to
certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!"
So - what exactly were the "corrected set of facts"? The bogus electors? I think we have quite a paper trail for this con.
Trump is probably in an irritable state of mind now, hoping for the SC to rule in his favor. You gotta give him credit for his gumption though, he’s the ultimate conman in the history of this country. Republicans claim it was never an insurrection, it was a peaceful protest against the rigged elections…they keep repeating it and now it’s their “truth”.
meanwhile, the R's are aching to get into the act
and let me just say what a whiny sh** Ashcroft is
BORIS SANCHEZ: What would be your justification for removing Joe Biden from the ballot in Missouri?
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 8, 2024
JAY ASHCROFT: There have been allegations that he's engaged in insurrection
SANCHEZ: How so?
ASHCROFT: Um, I've seen allegations from the lieutenant governor of Texas pic.twitter.com/687uqKyCUw
jamie said:
To avoid losing this critical issue in other threads - I thought it deserved one of it's own.
The key points are:
Is he guilty of an insurrection?
Is he an officer of the court?
Can he run for the office - but not be able serve?
If he's knocked off the ballot will it be blamed on Biden?
I guess for the most part - we'll have to wait until February 8.
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.
I'm gonna go with not guilty.
Guilt is a finding by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a criminal proceeding, or the result of a plea.
The question at hand is whether The President engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Tough question. I've been going around in circles since i first heard of the Colorado suit. I'm thinnin that the most overt act demonstrating insurrection would be The President's instructions to the President of the Senate, to ignore the electoral certifications of the Several States. Still changing my mind frequently.
In asking whether he is an officer of the court, I presume you meant to query whether he was an officer of the United States. If that's the case, I'm gonna do with yeah, he was an officer of the United States. I believe the people drafting Amendment 14, meant to refer to officers of the Union Army, but that's not what they presented for ratification; and ambiguities are construed against the drafter. So again, yeah.
And now we get really esoteric. Assuming I am correct that The President is an "officer" within the meaning of Amendment 14, Section 3; The President, unlike Congress Critters, does not take an oath to support the Constitution. The President takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend The Constitution. Yeah, it's thin; but I can't help but think of something one of the smart dead guys wrote. Something about for the lack of a nail, a shoe was lost - and how badly things devolved from there.
Would he be able to serve if elected, notwithstanding the foregoing? Been searching for a simple answer on this one; and the best I got so far is that - at law, I can't find a bar to service. I would hope that if convicted in D.C., or Georgia; The Congress would promptly impeach his butt. But we both know that ain't gonna happen without a major league realignment of seats in The Congress.
If he's knocked off the ballot in Colorado, I expect there will be a flurry of suits in many of the Several States. The judiciary in such States will be obligated to follow the holding of The Supreme Court; or we'll have yet more mayhem on our hands.
As for blame, it will first be assigned to those faithless jurists, who substituted their personal version of justice in place of their obligation to follow The Law (Ya know, dem activist jurists). Next, it will be President Biden and his blind acolytes, followed by anybody who didn't drink The President's flavor of "Kool-Aid". (I'm thinnin that would be you and me).
Another of the smart dead guys wrote: "May you live in interesting times". I frequently ponder whether it was a wish for fair or foul.
TomR
I think the chances of the Supreme Court allowing the Colorado ruling are zero.
Was there an insurrection on Jan. 6th in DC? Yes.
Did Trump help incite the insurrection? Yes.
Will it be enough for SCOTUS to agree with Colorado's ruling to remove Trump from the ballot? No.
yahooyahoo said:
I think the chances of the Supreme Court allowing the Colorado ruling are zero.
Was there an insurrection on Jan. 6th in DC? Yes.
Did Trump help incite the insurrection? Yes.
Will it be enough for SCOTUS to agree with Colorado's ruling to remove Trump from the ballot? No.
Amendment 14; Section 3, does not provide for disqualification from office due to incitement.
Please explain why you believe differently.
In the event i have misapprehended your position, I apologize.
TomR
Tom_R said:
yahooyahoo said:
I think the chances of the Supreme Court allowing the Colorado ruling are zero.
Was there an insurrection on Jan. 6th in DC? Yes.
Did Trump help incite the insurrection? Yes.
Will it be enough for SCOTUS to agree with Colorado's ruling to remove Trump from the ballot? No.
Amendment 14; Section 3, does not provide for disqualification from office due to incitement.
Please explain why you believe differently.
In the event i have misapprehended your position, I apologize.
TomR
yahooyahoo's comment notwithstanding, clearly the Colorado court considered Trump's involvement more than mere incitement.
Tom_R said:
yahooyahoo said:
I think the chances of the Supreme Court allowing the Colorado ruling are zero.
Was there an insurrection on Jan. 6th in DC? Yes.
Did Trump help incite the insurrection? Yes.
Will it be enough for SCOTUS to agree with Colorado's ruling to remove Trump from the ballot? No.
Amendment 14; Section 3, does not provide for disqualification from office due to incitement.
Please explain why you believe differently.
In the event i have misapprehended your position, I apologize.
TomR
I think "incitement" is covered by " engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
nohero said:
Tom_R said:
yahooyahoo said:
I think the chances of the Supreme Court allowing the Colorado ruling are zero.
Was there an insurrection on Jan. 6th in DC? Yes.
Did Trump help incite the insurrection? Yes.
Will it be enough for SCOTUS to agree with Colorado's ruling to remove Trump from the ballot? No.
Amendment 14; Section 3, does not provide for disqualification from office due to incitement.
Please explain why you believe differently.
In the event i have misapprehended your position, I apologize.
TomR
I think "incitement" is covered by " engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
in a sane political party, this wouldn't even be under discussion. He wouldn't be their presumptive standard bearer after the events of Nov 2020-Jan 2021. Even without a conviction for insurrection, it's clear what Donald Trump did on Jan 6. He doesn't even deny it. He justifies it, and calls the people in prison for insurrection "hostages."
if you could go back in time and tell people that The Apprentice guy was going to become president, then incite an insurrection to reinstall himself as president after he lost reelection AND THEN that GOP voters would renominate him for POTUS in a landslide, they'd assume you were mentally ill.
ml1 said:
nohero said:
Tom_R said:
yahooyahoo said:
I think the chances of the Supreme Court allowing the Colorado ruling are zero.
Was there an insurrection on Jan. 6th in DC? Yes.
Did Trump help incite the insurrection? Yes.
Will it be enough for SCOTUS to agree with Colorado's ruling to remove Trump from the ballot? No.
Amendment 14; Section 3, does not provide for disqualification from office due to incitement.
Please explain why you believe differently.
In the event i have misapprehended your position, I apologize.
TomR
I think "incitement" is covered by " engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
in a sane political party, this wouldn't even be under discussion. He wouldn't be their presumptive standard bearer after the events of Nov 2020-Jan 2021. Even without a conviction for insurrection, it's clear what Donald Trump did on Jan 6. He doesn't even deny it. He justifies it, and calls the people in prison for insurrection "hostages."
if you could go back in time and tell people that The Apprentice guy was going to become president, then incite an insurrection to reinstall himself as president after he lost reelection AND THEN that GOP voters would renominate him for POTUS in a landslide, they'd assume you were mentally ill.
Let me fix this for you.
in a sane political party, this wouldn't even be under discussion. He wouldn't be their presumptive standard bearer after the events of March 2020. Even without a conviction....
drummerboy said:
March 2020? Did I miss something?
Pandemic restrictions began.
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
March 2020? Did I miss something?
Pandemic restrictions began.
yeah, ok.
I don't get his point.
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
March 2020? Did I miss something?
Pandemic restrictions began.
yeah, ok.
I don't get his point.
I didn't figure you would. Its funny that people here are so afraid of Fascism and watch society get shut down. The government worked with companies to increase $$ and power and for the most part people around here asked for more. You demonized anyone that questioned the measures taken.
Of all the things that Trump was supposed to be. He was supposed to be a dictator. And he had his opportunities. He could have cracked down during the riots, and never really did. None of that ever materialized. The closest he ever came was March of 2020 even though he seemed to do that begrudgingly. If there is a reason for someone who values their freedom to oppose Trump, this is the reason and its not even close.
terp said:
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
March 2020? Did I miss something?
Pandemic restrictions began.
yeah, ok.
I don't get his point.
I didn't figure you would. Its funny that people here are so afraid of Fascism and watch society get shut down. The government worked with companies to increase $$ and power and for the most part people around here asked for more. You demonized anyone that questioned the measures taken.
Of all the things that Trump was supposed to be. He was supposed to be a dictator. And he had his opportunities. He could have cracked down during the riots, and never really did. None of that ever materialized. The closest he ever came was March of 2020 even though he seemed to do that begrudgingly. If there is a reason for someone who values their freedom to oppose Trump, this is the reason and its not even close.
What did Trump do in March of 2020 exactly? Lock downs were a function of local government.
drummerboy said:
terp said:
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
March 2020? Did I miss something?
Pandemic restrictions began.
yeah, ok.
I don't get his point.
I didn't figure you would. Its funny that people here are so afraid of Fascism and watch society get shut down. The government worked with companies to increase $$ and power and for the most part people around here asked for more. You demonized anyone that questioned the measures taken.
Of all the things that Trump was supposed to be. He was supposed to be a dictator. And he had his opportunities. He could have cracked down during the riots, and never really did. None of that ever materialized. The closest he ever came was March of 2020 even though he seemed to do that begrudgingly. If there is a reason for someone who values their freedom to oppose Trump, this is the reason and its not even close.
What did Trump do in March of 2020 exactly? Lock downs were a function of local government.
So, you're saying I should vote for him?
They made their Covid recommendations and the VAST majority of states and municipalities followed suit. There is hard power and their is soft power.
even with restrictions, in the U.S., 100,000 people died of COVID by May, 2020.
I suppose the government's public health response could have been just to tell people the virus was circulating, not required any shutdowns, and give people some social distancing guidelines and let them figure out themselves how much they wanted to go out in public near other people.
Tom_R said:
yahooyahoo said:
I think the chances of the Supreme Court allowing the Colorado ruling are zero.
Was there an insurrection on Jan. 6th in DC? Yes.
Did Trump help incite the insurrection? Yes.
Will it be enough for SCOTUS to agree with Colorado's ruling to remove Trump from the ballot? No.
Amendment 14; Section 3, does not provide for disqualification from office due to incitement.
Please explain why you believe differently.
In the event i have misapprehended your position, I apologize.
TomR
Fine.
Did Trump engage in an insurrection? Yes.
To avoid losing this critical issue in other threads - I thought it deserved one of it's own.
The key points are:
Is he guilty of an insurrection?
Is he an officer of the court?
Can he run for the office - but not be able serve?
If he's knocked off the ballot will it be blamed on Biden?
I guess for the most part - we'll have to wait until February 8.
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.