Fourteenth Amendment | Section 3 - Disqualification from Holding Office

[All_Pro_Bills]

6 minutes ago, BillStime said:

It's hilarious - the cult talks about the 25th amendment EVERY day here... yet we should dismiss the 14th.

 

Can't make this up.

 

 

Because idiots think just claiming it was an insurrection 100 times makes it one and fantasize that 14A will keep Trump from running. Why do the Dems have such an obsession to keep Trumpoff the ballot while at the same time they say he can't win?  They should be welcoming his participation if they believe their own story.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Its not how what specifically works?

 

Show me legal precedent where a President was tried and acquited by Congress and then indicted for participating in the same crime after leaving office. 

There is no legal precedent for what is happening now, not in this country anyway. 
 

The number of ‘public servants’ dedicating their career to finding creative ways of charging this one guy with crime is unprecedented. 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

There is no legal precedent for what is happening now, not in this country anyway. 
 

The number of ‘public servants’ dedicating their career to finding creative ways of charging this one guy with crime is unprecedented. 

Don't kid yourself. This is NOT about 'one guy'. This is a trial balloon for what's sure to follow.

[ChiGoose]

4 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Its not how what specifically works?

 

Show me legal precedent where a President was tried and acquited by Congress and then indicted for participating in the same crime after leaving office. 

 

It's generally accepted that double jeopardy does not attach in an impeachment. Here's an DoJ memo on it from 2000:

 

Whether a Former President May Be Indicted and Tried for the Same Offenses for Which He was Impeached by the House and Acquitted by the Senate

 

"The Constitution permits a former President to be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate.

 

Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General

 

We have been asked to consider whether a former President may be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate.1 In 1973, in a district court filing addressing a related question in the criminal tax evasion investigation of Vice President Agnew, the Department took the position that acquittal by the Senate creates no bar to criminal prosecution. A 1973 Office of Legal Counsel (“ OLC” ) memorandum discussing the same question adopted the same position. As far as we are aware, no court has ever ruled on this precise issue. During the impeachment of Judge Alcee Hastings in the late 1980s, though, a district court and both the House and Senate passed on the related question whether an acquittal in a criminal prosecution should bar an impeachment trial for the same offenses. Each of those bodies concluded that the Constitution permits an official to be tried by the Senate for offenses of which he has been acquitted in the courts. Although we recognize that there are reasonable arguments for the opposing view, on balance, and largely for some of the same structural reasons identified in the United States’s filing in the Agnew case and the 1973 OLC memorandum, we think the better view is that a former President may be prosecuted for crimes of which he was acquitted by the Senate. Our conclusion concerning the constitutional permissibility of indictment and trial following a Senate acquittal is of course distinct from the question whether an indictment should be brought in any particular case."

[The Frankish Reich]

29 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Smith's J6 charges are double jeopardy as defined in A5.  "Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be put in jeopardy of life or limb."

The January 6 impeachment did not put Trump in "jeopardy of life or limb." He wasn't going to executed or have his probing fingers lopped off. The only legal effect would have been to disqualify him from serving as president again.

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

It's generally accepted that double jeopardy does not attach in an impeachment. Here's an DoJ memo on it from 2000:

 

Whether a Former President May Be Indicted and Tried for the Same Offenses for Which He was Impeached by the House and Acquitted by the Senate

 

"The Constitution permits a former President to be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate.

 

Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General

 

We have been asked to consider whether a former President may be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate.1 In 1973, in a district court filing addressing a related question in the criminal tax evasion investigation of Vice President Agnew, the Department took the position that acquittal by the Senate creates no bar to criminal prosecution. A 1973 Office of Legal Counsel (“ OLC” ) memorandum discussing the same question adopted the same position. As far as we are aware, no court has ever ruled on this precise issue. During the impeachment of Judge Alcee Hastings in the late 1980s, though, a district court and both the House and Senate passed on the related question whether an acquittal in a criminal prosecution should bar an impeachment trial for the same offenses. Each of those bodies concluded that the Constitution permits an official to be tried by the Senate for offenses of which he has been acquitted in the courts. Although we recognize that there are reasonable arguments for the opposing view, on balance, and largely for some of the same structural reasons identified in the United States’s filing in the Agnew case and the 1973 OLC memorandum, we think the better view is that a former President may be prosecuted for crimes of which he was acquitted by the Senate. Our conclusion concerning the constitutional permissibility of indictment and trial following a Senate acquittal is of course distinct from the question whether an indictment should be brought in any particular case."

Exactly.

Which is why a sitting president can't be criminally charged UNTIL he is removed from office by impeachment.

This is Trump's primary "legal" defense now (the scare quotes because it is more practical than legal): if I am reelected/inaugurated, all criminal charges must be dropped immediately or at a minimum be held in abeyance unless/until I am removed from office, die, or complete my term.

He announced his candidacy just as it became obvious that criminal charges were coming.

[The Frankish Reich]

22 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

You can test it, have some body with standing move to disbar Trump. But that could have been done two years ago. Nothing relevant has changed in that time. So it feels a bit HashtagResistance-y and the latest in a line of "one weird tricks."

You know what it is?

It's a turnabout is fair play scheme.

Trump's "throw the election back to the states, nothing in the constitution expressly precludes the VP from rejecting a slate of electors" theory was the same type of thing. "That which is not expressly prohibited is therefore allowed."

So if a state with a Democratic Secretary of State and/or legislature and/or governor says "Trump supported an insurrection, hence he cannot be on our ballot and cannot receive our electoral votes" well, who is John Eastman to complain?

[T master]

Well that is for sure what all this BS is about isn't it ? They are pulling so much BS out of their A** to try to keep him from being able to run again & that just tells you exactly how scared they are of him getting in again & the people seeing what is actually better for them instead of what is now .

 

Question - Did he actually tell those Adults/jack asses that went down to the capital and did what they did to actually tell them - you need to go down there & break into the capital and physically take over the building & all who occupy it ?

 

Was there something to the accusation of Pelosi telling the police to stand down or to not stop them from coming in to make it look worse than what it was & to let some of those folks in ? Then was there ever anything brought up of the officer that shot & killed a unarmed person climbing in a window as part of this foolish bunch of BS ? She was a true physical threat that for sure .

 

This will continue as long as he is around, They will continue to find the people such as the DA Bragg, DA Fani Willis & who ever else they can dig up to bring anything no matter how big or small against him to keep him from running in true corrupt gov't form .

 

But it is like anything else in todays overly sensitive world there are those that consider bible verses HATE Speech, use to be sticks and stones will break my bones but NAMES will never hurt me yet today if anyone is to utter the word ***** you can in some states got to jail .

 

So this entire process to keep him from being able to be appointed as the GOP's person to lead them comes down to a lot of non common sense & a over sensitive US population that is drinking the Kool-aid and the more they try they just show us all how actual stupid is as stupid does .

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said:

You know what it is?

It's a turnabout is fair play scheme.

Trump's "throw the election back to the states, nothing in the constitution expressly precludes the VP from rejecting a slate of electors" theory was the same type of thing. "That which is not expressly prohibited is therefore allowed."

So if a state with a Democratic Secretary of State and/or legislature and/or governor says "Trump supported an insurrection, hence he cannot be on our ballot and cannot receive our electoral votes" well, who is John Eastman to complain?

 

This is probably right. Though I'll note that the 14th Amendment plan has some actual legal basis, even if it isn't overwhelmingly convincing. 

[Irv]

55 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

I'm not looking for anyone to save us from Trump. Democratic voters continue to do that over and over and over again since 2016 and that won't change in 2024 when pissed off women, young people and independents come out against Conald Trump.

 

But tell me - what is the purpose of the Constitution?

 

 

 

When not serving as the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is what Democrats wipe their asses with when they run out of toilet paper.  What a dumb thread.  What a mess.  

[T master]

Of course Enrique Tarrio is going to say what he is now saying because he doesn't want to except the blame for his own stupidity so he will do what every one else does to save his ass from spending 33 yrs in prison & that's blaming Trump .

 

Then Nasib Hasson could quite possibly be one of the squads recommendations to be Enrique's lawyer because of the hatred they have not only for the US but for them & their own personal agenda . Just a thought .

 

When a POS all of the sudden turns their statements & who they followed from what it was to a 180 to put the blame on someone else it is very apparent that they are trying to save their own ass & don't care what or who they have to bring down in order to do it kind of like when the fake dossier was created full of lies to move the agenda forward anything goes ...

[BillStime]

10 minutes ago, Irv said:

 

When not serving as the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is what Democrats wipe their asses with when they run out of toilet paper.  What a dumb thread.  What a mess.  

 

lmao, listen to the F your feelings crowd...

 

Donald Trump pissed ALL over the Constitution and the cult shittt all over the Capitol.

 

 

 

 

 

[Irv]

6 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

lmao, listen to the F your feelings crowd...

 

Donald Trump pissed ALL over the Constitution and the cult shittt all over the Capitol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's funny.  You tell me Republicans ignore the Constitution?   What does the Second Amendment say?  

 

 

[BillStime]

2 minutes ago, Irv said:

 

That's funny.  You tell me Republicans ignore the Constitution?   What does the Second Amendment say?  

 

 

 

Nothing about it being acceptable to overturn an election by any means... and piss n shitt all over the Constitution and Capitol.

 

 

 

 

59 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

hey should be welcoming his participation if they believe their own story.

 

Because it is about principle; not Trump over country like it is for you.

 

 

[Irv]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Nothing about it being acceptable to overturn an election by any means... and piss n shitt all over the Constitution and Capitol.

 

 

 

 

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Irv

[BillStime]

Just now, Irv said:

 

What does the Second Amendment say? 

 

What relevance does it have to this discussion?

 

 

[Irv]

Just now, BillStime said:

 

What relevance does it have to this discussion?

 

 

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[BillStime]

Just now, Irv said:

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

And?

 

lmao - jfc

[Irv]

5 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

And?

 

lmao - jfc

 

Nice.  Wipe your ass with the Constitution and then finish it off by taking the Lord's name in vain.  What a mess.  

[BillStime]

Just now, Irv said:

 

Nice.  Wipe your ass with the Constitution and then finish it off by taking the Lord's name in vain.  What a mess.  

 

You're a mess.

 

 

[49er Fan]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Because idiots think just claiming it was an insurrection 100 times makes it one and fantasize that 14A will keep Trump from running. Why do the Dems have such an obsession to keep Trumpoff the ballot while at the same time they say he can't win?  They should be welcoming his participation if they believe their own story.

The two most prominent advocates of the 14th Amendment clause barring Trunp from running again are conservative legal scholars affiliated with the Federalist Society — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas.

 

Trunp will never stop running - when he loses in 2024 he’ll try again in 2028 and raise plenty of money doing it.  People will vote for him when he’s dead because those same people won’t believe that he’s dead.