TSOL Posted August 30, 2023 Posted August 30, 2023 3 hours ago, BillStime said: I don’t agree with how the right bastardized the second amendment but it’s in the constitution. @BillStime Third post in the thread 1 1
BillStime Posted August 30, 2023 Author Posted August 30, 2023 5 minutes ago, B-Man said: LOL Amendment says nothing about being charged. SHUCKS, Bonnie!
49er Fan Posted August 30, 2023 Posted August 30, 2023 11 minutes ago, B-Man said: LOL Actually it’s not. The 14A disqualification clause operates independently of criminal proceedings, impeachment proceedings, and of congressional legislation. 1
Tommy Callahan Posted August 30, 2023 Posted August 30, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: The Constitution is an imperfect document. It was written over 200 years ago in a very different world. It didn't anticipate the modern world and it certainly didn't anticipate Donald Trump (though the Founders were quite worried about someone like him arising). So things like the 14th Amendment's disbarment clause are not super clear and lead to differing opinions. Is it self-executing? Does it require a finding of insurrection? If so, by whom and how? 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." Organize. Donate (especially monthly recurring donations). Volunteer. Vote. GOTV. That's the only way. Felony disentrancement. you should read the rest of the fourteenth, it talks about due process. it was used on west Hughes Humprey, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Hughes_Humphreys Humphreys served as a Judge of the Confederate District Court for the District of Tennessee from 1861 to 1865.[1] On May 19, 1862, the United States House of Representatives voted to impeach Humphreys on the following charges: publicly calling for secession; giving aid to an armed rebellion; conspiring with Jefferson Davis; serving as a Confederate judge; confiscating the property of Military Governor Andrew Johnson and United States Supreme Court Justice John Catron; and imprisoning a Union sympathizer with "intent to injure him. Between Reconstruction and 2021, Section 3 was invoked only once: it was used to block Socialist Party of America member Victor L. Berger of Wisconsin—convicted of violating the Espionage Act for opposing US entry into World War I—from assuming his seat in the House of Representatives in 1919 and 1920.[192][197][203] Berger's conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court in Berger v. United States (1921), after which he was elected to three successive terms in the 1920s; he was seated for all three terms. But that wont stop shady funded pacs from filing suits in states to keep him off the ballot. 9 minutes ago, 49er Fan said: The 14A disqualification clause operates independently of criminal proceedings, impeachment proceedings, and of congressional legislation. See above Edited August 30, 2023 by Chris farley 1
49er Fan Posted August 30, 2023 Posted August 30, 2023 “…the history behind the 14th Amendment proves its general applicability. Conspiring, whether by violence or coercion, to overturn the outcome of an election is precisely what Confederate officers and officeholders did. They didn’t like the outcome of the 1860 election, so they tried to dismantle the United States, first by walking away, then by force.” “That was what Section 3 called ‘insurrection or rebellion’ against the United States government. It’s hard to argue that the same thing didn’t happen in the aftermath of the 2020 election. For symbolic measure, insurrectionists carried the Confederate battle flag into the Capitol on Jan. 6, marching in lock step with an earlier generation of Americans who aspired to end our system of government. That it was a bungled attempt, and that it didn’t work, doesn’t make it different.” Politico 2 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted August 30, 2023 Posted August 30, 2023 1 hour ago, T master said: 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 . Fake electors is pulling stuff out their asses? Showing classified documents to just any random person is alright now? And what happens if Pence doesn't do the right thing? If dems did any of this you'd be calling for heads to roll and you know it. Instead you defend the indefensible. Overly sensitive has nothing to do with anything. 2
The Frankish Reich Posted August 30, 2023 Posted August 30, 2023 1 hour ago, 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. Except that some of the states that ratified the 2nd Amendment prohibited slaves (or sometimes even free blacks) from bearing arms. Was that because slaves couldn't be part of the state militias? Because they weren't "the people?" Because the right to bear arms was completely connected to the states' right to raise up a militia of free men? I can't recall what the Supreme Court did in Heller and the other 2nd Amendment cases to explain all of this away. 2
All_Pro_Bills Posted August 30, 2023 Posted August 30, 2023 2 hours ago, 49er Fan said: 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. By the look of his wasteline Trump isn't doing much running lately. I don't have a lot of confidence in conservative scholars and that sect. They prefer to run a nice regular guy like Mitt Romney, supporting forever wars, interference in the affairs of other countries, big spending government (while claiming fiscal responsibility when in the minority) and big corporate globalization efforts to offshore Ametican jobs and businesses, while graciously losing by 35 or so electoral votes
Irv Posted August 30, 2023 Posted August 30, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Except that some of the states that ratified the 2nd Amendment prohibited slaves (or sometimes even free blacks) from bearing arms. Was that because slaves couldn't be part of the state militias? Because they weren't "the people?" Because the right to bear arms was completely connected to the states' right to raise up a militia of free men? I can't recall what the Supreme Court did in Heller and the other 2nd Amendment cases to explain all of this away. Hoax. But if it were true, those states would have been wrong. NY Dems wipe their ass with 2A daily. What a mess. 4 hours ago, BillStime said: You're a mess. Good come back. You should go on tour with material like that. What a mess. Edited August 30, 2023 by Irv 3
BillStime Posted August 30, 2023 Author Posted August 30, 2023 4 hours ago, TSOL said: @BillStime Third post in the thread Yea, it's called context. My comment about the Second Amendment made sense in my response to Frank... Irv deflecting and accusing Democrats of using the Constitution as TP while Trump pissed all over it and the cult literally pissed and shittt all over the Capitol - he had no choice but to deflect to - define the second amendment. lmao 1
T master Posted August 30, 2023 Posted August 30, 2023 3 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Fake electors is pulling stuff out their asses? Showing classified documents to just any random person is alright now? And what happens if Pence doesn't do the right thing? If dems did any of this you'd be calling for heads to roll and you know it. Instead you defend the indefensible. Overly sensitive has nothing to do with anything. And the difference from what Trump said is ??? 1 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted August 31, 2023 Posted August 31, 2023 2 hours ago, T master said: And the difference from what Trump said is ??? Who cares about what he said? What about his actions? He's on tape blatantly admitting he's showing classified docs that he shouldn't be. I haven't heard anything tying him to the fake electors but if he had ANYTHING to do with that he should get jail time. 1
BillStime Posted August 31, 2023 Author Posted August 31, 2023 7 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Who cares about what he said? What about his actions? He's on tape blatantly admitting he's showing classified docs that he shouldn't be. I haven't heard anything tying him to the fake electors but if he had ANYTHING to do with that he should get jail time. Who did Stephen Miller work for? 1 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted August 31, 2023 Posted August 31, 2023 1 hour ago, BillStime said: Who did Stephen Miller work for? Good. That rat should go down with the ship. 1
T master Posted August 31, 2023 Posted August 31, 2023 19 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Who cares about what he said? What about his actions? He's on tape blatantly admitting he's showing classified docs that he shouldn't be. I haven't heard anything tying him to the fake electors but if he had ANYTHING to do with that he should get jail time. Has it yet been truly determined that the now POTUS hasn't allowed the same thing to happen possibly unbeknownst to him with the documents found in the numerous places he had them stashed with a proud to show others on video drug addict, porn producing son that might use such things to further his checking account ?? And if it be true will it be allowed to be known by all because it may compromise the agenda to discredit such things further as the fake dossier that produced a false FISA warrant & 4 years of committees to prove little bit of nothing . Only to allow all involved to still walk free . Just asking ... What all of this has shown me over the last 6 yrs is that even though there is proof of wrong doing justice will in no way be served in the political realm today because we the people are judged by a different standard of the law because we don't have the money or connections in high places to keep us free !! 1 1 1
T master Posted August 31, 2023 Posted August 31, 2023 19 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Who cares about what he said? What about his actions? He's on tape blatantly admitting he's showing classified docs that he shouldn't be. I haven't heard anything tying him to the fake electors but if he had ANYTHING to do with that he should get jail time. You should care especially if they are saying the exact same freakin thing i believe that's called hypocrisy . Then you add the fake documents and all into the conversation what's the difference not a dam thing except it fits what you want it to . If laws have been broken and lies have been told or fake documents presented to defame someone then ALL need to be brought to the fore front for their actions & to pay the consequences for them . Not just those that the agenda decides should be brought out . 1 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted September 1, 2023 Posted September 1, 2023 5 hours ago, T master said: Has it yet been truly determined that the now POTUS hasn't allowed the same thing to happen possibly unbeknownst to him with the documents found in the numerous places he had them stashed with a proud to show others on video drug addict, porn producing son that might use such things to further his checking account ?? And if it be true will it be allowed to be known by all because it may compromise the agenda to discredit such things further as the fake dossier that produced a false FISA warrant & 4 years of committees to prove little bit of nothing . Only to allow all involved to still walk free . Just asking ... What all of this has shown me over the last 6 yrs is that even though there is proof of wrong doing justice will in no way be served in the political realm today because we the people are judged by a different standard of the law because we don't have the money or connections in high places to keep us free !! Being careless with documents and purposely showing them to people not authorized to see them is not the same thing. Intent matters when it comes to the law. Not that you won't keep whining and rambling. Justice will hopefully be served. Otherwise we see just another rich guy get away with breaking the law. And if Biden is guilty of anything, still zero proof at this time, he should suffer too. The left will not defend him like you swine defend the fat orange f. 1 1 1
John from Riverside Posted September 1, 2023 Posted September 1, 2023 I’m not a big fan of using the 14th amendment Trump has been indicted four times, and there might possibly be a fifth if he has found guilty of any of those crimes you should be charged and sentence like any other normal American But I think the 14th amendment is a Bridge too far. I know that we’re dealing with a lot of firsts with the January 6th thing 1
Tommy Callahan Posted September 1, 2023 Posted September 1, 2023 4 hours ago, John from Riverside said: I’m not a big fan of using the 14th amendment Trump has been indicted four times, and there might possibly be a fifth if he has found guilty of any of those crimes you should be charged and sentence like any other normal American But I think the 14th amendment is a Bridge too far. I know that we’re dealing with a lot of firsts with the January 6th thing True. Never seen such open use of the laws to attack people and create a false narrative for political reasons /gain 1
Recommended Posts