Fourteenth Amendment | Section 3 - Disqualification from Holding Office

[Tommy Callahan]

2 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

Then why impeach Biden?  Let the voters decide. 

Why impeach the orange dude?  

 

Is the game called create a goal post?  

 

This is about our democratic process being taken over by unelected judges and billionaire funded companies. 

 

While the left deflects.

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Shouldn't due process take place first?

Good question. Yes, when he is imprisoned he will have been duly convicted. Not being eligible for office was adjudicated by the state court, so he did receive due process  

[daz28]

15 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Trump broke the law and is not above it. The law should punish him. Period 

That's not the issue here. though.  That's Jack Smith's case.  The issue at hand is if he violated the 14th Amendment.  The problem is that the Colorado justices decided that not only was it an insurrection, but Trump also incited and participated in it.  Was he afforded due process to defend himself against those claims?  I'd bet the Supreme Court says no.  They will just ignore the facts the Colorado court presented, and find a way to overturn on another basis.  This is an extremely complicated matter, but the case law from the post Civil War does actually support this ruling.  

 

 

[Pokebball]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Good question. Yes, when he is imprisoned he will have been duly convicted. Not being eligible for office was adjudicated by the state court, so he did receive due process  

It was an appellate court in CO, not any sort of fact finding being done. No due process done there.

[BillsFanNC]

⬆️

 

Not a commie with full blown TDS.

Edited December 20, 2023 by BillsFanNC

[Tiberius]

Just now, daz28 said:

That's not the issue here. though.  That's Jack Smith's case.  The issue at hand is if he violated the 14th Amendment.  The problem is that the Colorado justices decided that not only was it an insurrection, but Trump also incited and participated in it.  Was he afforded due process to defend himself against those claims?  I'd bet the Supreme Court says no.  They will just ignore the facts the Colorado court presented, and find a way to overturn on another basis.  This is an extremely complicated matter, but the case law from the post Civil War does actually support this ruling.  

 

 

Right, Jefferson Davis was never convicted, nor were any other Confederate Officers, aside from Henry Wirtz commander of Andersonville prison 

1 minute ago, Pokebball said:

It was an appellate court in CO, not any sort of fact finding being done. No due process done there.

They presented the cases and Trump's lawyers argued their side 

[Tommy Callahan]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Right, Jefferson Davis was never convicted, nor were any other Confederate Officers, aside from Henry Wirtz commander of Andersonville prison 

They presented the cases and Trump's lawyers argued their side 

It's like you don't actually understand due process.  

 

It doesn't exist in civil cases and he has not been convicted of a crime or insurrection 

[nedboy7]

7 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Why impeach the orange dude?  

 

Is the game called create a goal post?  

 

This is about our democratic process being taken over by unelected judges and billionaire funded companies. 

 

While the left deflects.

As long as someone helps me keep my blood pure I’ll be happy. And don’t forget the BLM riots!  

[Pokebball]

Just now, Tommy Callahan said:

It's like you don't actually understand due process.  

 

It doesn't exist in civil cases and he has not been convicted of a crime or insurrection 

Tibs doesn't understand the role of an appellate court. Due process wasn't met. Dems are further killing democracy with this move.

[Tommy Callahan]

1 minute ago, nedboy7 said:

As long as someone helps me keep my blood pure I’ll be happy. And don’t forget the BLM riots!  

I'm sorry about your issues finding a spouse . 

[K D]

22 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

You suggesting they are poisoning the pure American white blood?  

I'm not white. What does race have to do with the government taking away our freedom and democracy?

[daz28]

12 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Shouldn't due process take place first?

That's the crux of this debate.  RFK was all over the place trying to make this argument.  First he tweeted that he should have his day in court, then tweeted that the court(his day in court) should reverse itself, then finally says the court shouldn't have even happened.  I've never seen someone take 3 different positions in a couple hours, even on an internet forum.  Imo, this is following the proper legal course, because there doesn't have to be a criminal charge to disqualify, and there's very little and ancient "due process" precedent here.  This goes to the Supreme Court, and that's how this legal matter ends.  Being as it's so multi-faceted, I can't see any way they don't find a way to rule in Trump's favor on some aspect just so they don't have to face the litany of issues present.  They seem to love the kick the can down the road approach lately.  Unfortunately, that stance, combined with stout partisanship in Congress is really kicking democracy in the nads.  

[Tommy Callahan]

 

[K D]

1 minute ago, Tommy Callahan said:

 

They are setting the precedent. Will there ever be a fair election in the history of this country in the future as a result? Or will it just be endless litigation against your opponent? This is not Democracy 

[Tommy Callahan]

1 minute ago, KDIGGZ said:

They are setting the precedent. Will there ever be a fair election in the history of this country in the future as a result? Or will it just be endless litigation against your opponent? This is not Democracy 

Many voices warned that citizens united would destroy democracy.  I think we have been and are seeing that.  

[Pokebball]

9 minutes ago, daz28 said:

That's the crux of this debate.  RFK was all over the place trying to make this argument.  First he tweeted that he should have his day in court, then tweeted that the court(his day in court) should reverse itself, then finally says the court shouldn't have even happened.  I've never seen someone take 3 different positions in a couple hours, even on an internet forum.  Imo, this is following the proper legal course, because there doesn't have to be a criminal charge to disqualify, and there's very little and ancient "due process" precedent here.  This goes to the Supreme Court, and that's how this legal matter ends.  Being as it's so multi-faceted, I can't see any way they don't find a way to rule in Trump's favor on some aspect just so they don't have to face the litany of issues present.  They seem to love the kick the can down the road approach lately.  Unfortunately, that stance, combined with stout partisanship in Congress is really kicking democracy in the nads.  

Kick the can down the road? Due process also assures a timely trial. You tell me why the Dems are kicking the can down the road?

 

Look, I'm not a Trump supporter either. Never have and never will vote for the guy. But damn guys, we gotta do this right. Right isn't working well so Dems want to do some funky kind of end round? This really isn't right!

[daz28]

6 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

They are setting the precedent. Will there ever be a fair election in the history of this country in the future as a result? Or will it just be endless litigation against your opponent? This is not Democracy 

I think we can all agree that the powers that be really aren't interested in our democracy, but rather what's expedient to achieve their ends.  There's just too many loopholes, exemptions, and legal nonsense present to be exploited, with little to no will to curb it.  It's amazing that we had courts and politicians that have had an urge to defend democracy this long.  Nixon should have been our warning, and been heeded.  Instead, we just didn't like the way that poop stain looked on us, so we took the easy way out, and hoped it never came up again.  

[Tiberius]

29 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Tibs doesn't understand the role of an appellate court. Due process wasn't met. Dems are further killing democracy with this move.

The Colorado judges thought so. 

14 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

They are setting the precedent. Will there ever be a fair election in the history of this country in the future as a result? Or will it just be endless litigation against your opponent? This is not Democracy 

Sure there will. You are overreacting, just like Trump did on Jan 6 

[daz28]

5 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Kick the can down the road? Due process also assures a timely trial. You tell me why the Dems are kicking the can down the road?

 

Look, I'm not a Trump supporter either. Never have and never will vote for the guy. But damn guys, we gotta do this right. Right isn't working well so Dems want to do some funky kind of end round? This really isn't right!

No, I'm saying the SC and Congress both kick the can down the road on WAY too many issues.  I'm not sure I'm following your due process thing, though.  They literally heard his case, and now he can appeal.  This isn't considered, and isn't required to be a criminal case.  The Supreme Court will have to rule on this.  I'd bet my last dollar that they don't attempt to define insurrection, or even if there was incitement.  They won't elaborate on the meaning and definition of the 3rd clause. They'll just find some miniscule reason to reverse it on, and kick the can.  

[Pokebball]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

The Colorado judges thought so. 

Doesn't matter what they thought. It isn't the role of appellate court judges. Why Dems are celebrating this is beyond me. Scary