Fourteenth Amendment | Section 3 - Disqualification from Holding Office

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Tommy Callahan]

 

Biden omics and Biden foreign policy is failing so bad this next election could be like Reagans sweep in 80.  one state (9 electoral won't make much of a difference)

 

here is the MSM saying its good for all of us that the SC make these decisions, for the good of democracy

Why the Colorado Supreme Court decision barring Trump from the ballot should be celebrated by every American — including Trump supporters (msn.com)

 

First was the action last week by federal special counsel Jack Smith asking the court to rule on whether or not Trump can be tried for his actions involving the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol given that a sitting president is given wide immunity.

 

But what Smith’s request did for all Americans is potentially spare us all a long and potentially divisive trial, the outcome of which could ultimately be ruled unconstitutional. So, it is better to know before the trial begins whether such charges are allowed, not after

 

On Tuesday the Colorado Supreme Court also did America a solid. In a 4-3 decision, it ruled that Trump would not be allowed on that state’s presidential primary ballot, reversing a lower court ruling and finding he was disqualified under a Civil War-era 14th Amendment clause that sought to prevent those who engaged in insurrection from holding elected office.

While the court’s majority were all appointed by Democrats, everyone should be happy with the ruling, including Trump supporters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Tommy Callahan

[daz28]

4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

As far as being convicted of "insurrection" - the only federal statute I see that makes "insurrection" a crime was created in 1946, after WWII. In other words, some three quarters of a century AFTER the 14th Amendment exclusion for participating in insurrection. So arguing that a conviction is necessary is clearly wrong.

It has already been held that a conviction isn't necessary.  Some of the claims Trump's lawyers were making is laughable.  Here's some:  

Justice Gabriel asked whether to "prevent the peaceful transfer of power of the United States government" would constitute an insurrection, prompting Gessler to reply: "To prevent the peaceful transfer? I don't think so and I'm not sure your honor. If you look historically in the context of how insurrection was used, it has to be for a substantial duration, not three hours, there has to be some geographical scope, there has to be a goal of nullifying all governmental authority in an area."

The judge challenged this, commenting; "Where's all that coming from? Webster's Third International Dictionary defines it as an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or against an established government. So you've added a whole lot of conditions here I'm not sure where they came from."  Gessler replied: "I think probably the best exposition of that was the attorney general's briefs and the authority they provided but I think also if you look at the historical record. Now you're going to tell me, 'Mr Gessler you're making it up.' And I'm going to say, 'Well so did the judge.' And I'll say, 'We're all sort of making it up at the end of the day.'"

[BillsFanNC]

 

[daz28]

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

While we're enjoying your content, you can stop flailing any time now.  It's a lot more embarrassing than you think it is. 

[Tiberius]

52 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

LMAO. 

 

MSNBC, NPR and the rest of the tools been talking up this suit for a long time. 

 

but always fail to mention the corporation that's doing it, and who funds it.

 

like you are

 

 

What a wingnut you are 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

What a wingnut you are 

 

thank you for the attempted ad hominem. you have a great day.

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

8 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Now you're going to tell me, 'Mr Gessler you're making it up.' And I'm going to say, 'Well so did the judge.' And I'll say, 'We're all sort of making it up at the end of the day.'"

Ouch. As someone who has practiced before appeal courts, this is just a cringe-worthy response.

[daz28]

1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Ouch. As someone who has practiced before appeal courts, this is just a cringe-worthy response.

Trump sends them into court with nothing, and they're probably not the best of the best, so....  The poor guy sounded like some posters here, when I told them the legal definition of insurrection is pretty much the dictionary definition.  Comically, the judge said the same thing to his high paid lawyer.  The very first thing a law student needs is a dictionary.  Wouldn't hurt for people on the internet to look up, and accept the meaning of words, either  

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

Trump sends them into court with nothing, and they're probably not the best of the best, so....  The poor guy sounded like some posters here, when I told them the legal definition of insurrection is pretty much the dictionary definition.  Comically, the judge said the same thing to his high paid lawyer.  The very first thing a law student needs is a dictionary.  Wouldn't hurt for people on the internet to look up, and accept the meaning of words, either  

It's really not hard to say something sensible if you're a halfway decent appellate lawyer.

"Justice Gabriel, this is a case of first impression. It makes sense to look to the historical context in which the insurrection clause was ratified - the open rebellion against US authority by the southern states that brought on a horrific Civil War. What happened on January 6 simply does not compare."

 

But that would be conceding that there was something wrong with what happened on January 6, which Trump will never admit.

1 hour ago, Tommy Callahan said:

The precedent likewise confirms that one can “engage” in insurrection without personally committing violent acts. Neither Kenneth Worthy nor Couy Griffin were accused of engaging in violence, yet both were ruled to be disqualified because they knowingly and voluntarily aided violent insurrections. These rulings are consistent with the views of Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who opined in 1867 that when a person has “incited others to engage in [insurrection or] rebellion, he must come under the disqualification.”

You do realize that this cuts the wrong way (from your perspective)?

[daz28]

7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

 

You do realize that this cuts the wrong way (from your perspective)?

The best part is I sent him looking for that information, and he returned with it thinking he was making a point for his argument.  😆

Edited December 20, 2023 by daz28

[BillsFanNC]

 

[The Frankish Reich]

Bad news for Trump = More Stupid Memes from NC.

[BillsFanNC]

 

[L Ron Burgundy]

46 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

As far as being convicted of "insurrection" - the only federal statute I see that makes "insurrection" a crime was created in 1946, after WWII. In other words, some three quarters of a century AFTER the 14th Amendment exclusion for participating in insurrection. So arguing that a conviction is necessary is clearly wrong.

Frank, not sure if you noticed, but this is mostly a fact free party.  Coming here and throwing around facts will upset our more conservative leaning posters.  

[BillsFanNC]

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

  Circling the drain 

[daz28]

6 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Bad news for Trump = More Stupid Memes from NC.

He doesn't seem to understand that it's revealing that even flailing in the face of facts is no longer an option for him.  It would be much easier, and better for his mental health to just skip off to Truth(lol) Social, where 72% of posters actually believe Trump does have a big blue ox.  

[Tommy Callahan]

 

 

Democracy. 

[daz28]

Just now, Tommy Callahan said:

  Circling the drain 

Yeah, because that fits the definition:  

 

insurrection

noun

in·sur·rec·tion ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən 

Synonyms of insurrection

: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government