The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading The Political Forum The Constitution bars Trump from holding public office ever againGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Moderator |
weird - 3 cases thrown out that call to the 14th 00 WOW - wonder why that is? opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
One of Us |
The corrections indicated in your post above are to either wait until he has the nomination or wins the general election. At either point, the argument is further eroded. It’s dead for all purposes. | |||
|
| One of Us |
In your dreams. Further edit of the above post: "Once the RNC has declared such candidate ready for the general election, then a case challenging his eligibility for inclusion on the various state's ballots may be brought forward as ripe. If somehow that also fails, then a suit can be brought to prevent him from assuming office, per the 14th. Sect 3. Failing that, he can be impeached pursuant the 14th Sect 3." That's the way I understand it. Either way, the constitutional provisions of the 14th, sect 3, are destined to be decided by SCOTUS. Furthermore, the reason that guy from AZ, previously convicted for his acts on 1/6, now running for office, may NOT be barred from office is because he didn't previously take the oath to honor the constitution. And MAGA Mike, Gym Jordon, and others are also vulnerable, if the issue is finally settled unfavorably for Trump. ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...b970d752086f3f&ei=13 ‘Unprecedented’ threat: Trump 14th Amendment trial in Colorado comes to a close Story by Chase Woodruff, Colorado Newsline • 8h Judge Sarah B. Wallace is expected to issue a ruling on the case by the end of this week. Similar challenges to Trump’s ballot eligibility have stalled in states including Minnesota and Michigan, but Colorado has been widely viewed as a more favorable venue for the plaintiffs due to the state’s election laws and existing court precedent. Regardless of the outcome, the Colorado case and other 14th Amendment challenges are likely to be appealed to higher courts, potentially as far as the U.S. Supreme Court, where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority. ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| Moderator |
and... colorado throws case out ... 4-0 so, when he LOSES the 2024 election, it's not rigged in this way perhaps there is something to the prior conviction argument .... if it is so provable, then the case should be open and shut - but, oddly, there isn't one pending opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
They didn't throw the case out. They made a decision and explained it. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...6cb660f3e8cf80&ei=61 Colorado court sides with Donald Trump in latest test of 'insurrection' claims Story by John Fritze, USA TODAY • 38m https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...ocid=socialshare&t=5 Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace wrote that the provision in the 14th Amendment that could disqualify certain officials involved with insurrection did not apply to a president. Courts in three other states − Minnesota, Michigan and New Hampshire − have shot down similar legal claims in recent weeks. Wallace wrote that she agreed with arguments that the drafters of the provision "did not intend to include the president" as being covered. Wallace did find that the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 "easily satisfy" the definition of insurrection. Minnesota's highest court ruled Nov. 8 that Trump should be allowed to appear on the state's presidential primary ballot , though courts there may revisit the issue for the general election. The Minnesota court, in a four-page order, said the state's primary election was an "internal party election" and that winning that contest doesn't necessarily place the nominee on the state's general election ballot. There is no state law that bars a political party from nominating a candidate who may be ineligible to hold office, the court wrote. A judge in Michigan, meanwhile, ruled that Trump would appear on the ballot and wrote that questions about how to define an "insurrection" would be be better left to Congress than to courts. "It takes the decision of whether there was a rebellion or insurrection and whether or not someone participated in it from the Congress, a body made up of elected representatives of the people of every state in the nation, and gives it to but one single judicial officer, a person who no matter how well intentioned, evenhanded, fair and learned, cannot in any manner or form possibly embody the represented qualities of every citizen of the nation-as does the House of Representatives and the Senate," Michigan Judge James Robert Redford wrote. ============================================== If I remember correctly, the 1/6 committee did conclude that an "insurrection" happened. Also, the House concluded that the events of 1/6 incited by Trump was an insurrection attempt. So, that threshold has already been met, civilly. It's now a matter of the proper case being "ripe". ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| Moderator |
is trump to be on the ballot or not? It's a simple question - let the VOTERS decide, in the absence of a conviction opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
Jeffeosso takes this one. The Judge rules the 14th Amendment “insurrection” clause does not apply to the President. Thus, the clause is not a bar to Presidential Trump appearing on the CO ballot. The Petitioners lose. The Judge, in dicta, opined storming the Capitol was to engage in insurrection according to the MSN news release. However, we must not lose sight that dispute all President Trump did, and more importantly did not do, he did not storm the Capitol. I do not believe the Judge is making a finding President Trump ordered the Capitol stormed. | |||
|
| One of Us |
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...40cd37085cdc6c&ei=11 Trump Defeats ‘Insurrection’ Ballot Ban Case in Colorado Story by Zoe Tillman • 4h This article points out a few things about the ruling that may not be upheld on appeal. The judge seems to be basing the ruling in part on a concept of original intent, as opposed to the exact words of the 14th, sec 3. The original intent is somewhat speculative and surmised. The actual wording is clear. And she's saying that the presidential oath of office is different than the oath for other govt "officials". Trump never had experience in a govt job before 2016 so he never did an oath of office other than the presidential one. ================================================== I think her ruling is BS. If Trump had been a member of congress, or perhaps a city council member, and taken an oath of office for such position, then the judge's ruling supposedly would have been different. Another way of looking at it is that she was smart and kicked the can down the road. The flaw is obvious. It hinges not on the operative word "insurrection" but on the supposed difference in oaths of office. She covered the question of insurrection. She knew the case would be appealed, so let the higher courts work it out - take the heat. So, her ruling means that, in Trump's case and in the future, some former presidents are NOT barred, per 14th/sec 3, from holding office again, a second term, and some are barred, even though in both cases the candidate engaged in insurrection. It depends on whether such candidate took an oath of office other than the oath associated with the office of POTUS for first term. Say a candidate for first term POTUS had been a member of congress, and had engaged in insurrection at any time after taking the oath for that office, according to the judge's ruling such candidate would be barred from the office of POTUS, or even congress, strictly because, according to her, the oath taken met the original intent criteria of the 14th/sec 3. =========================================== Also: (excerpt) The Colorado case is the first constitutional challenge to Trump’s 2024 run to go through a full trial. Lawyers for the voters who brought the lawsuit said they will appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. Whoever loses the next round could petition the US Supreme Court. “The court’s decision affirms what our clients alleged in this lawsuit: that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection based on his role in January 6th,” Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, an advocacy group involved in bringing the case, said in a statement. “Today was not the end of this effort, but another step along the way.” Although each state has its own election laws, the 14th Amendment challenges all feature the same overarching claim: That Trump’s role in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election leading up to the Capitol attack disqualifies him from being president again. Wallace found that the First Amendment’s free-speech protections didn’t shield Trump because he “acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification.” “Trump cultivated a culture that embraced political violence through his consistent endorsement of the same,” she wrote. But her decision turned on how Section 3 defined the government officials who could be ineligible to serve if they engaged in insurrection and what offices they could be barred from holding. The section names specific positions — such as a member of Congress or presidential elector — and has catch-all language referring to “any office, civil or military, under the United States” and “officer of the United States.” The judge wrote that the historical record and other parts of the Constitution supported Trump’s position that Section 3’s drafters couldn’t have meant for general references to a government office or US officer to apply to the presidency or a president. She also credited Trump’s argument that differences in the oaths that a president takes — to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution — compared to lower-level executive officers — to “support” the Constitution — was important. Section 3 incorporated the language of the latter, she noted. “Whether this omission was intentional, or an oversight is not for this court to decide,” Wallace wrote. “It may very well have been an oversight because to the court’s knowledge Trump is the first president of the United States who had not previously taken an oath of office.” ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
One of Us |
Doesn’t help all your crying for three years around here that DJT fomented an insurrection does it? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Personally, I believed the Judge rules the way she did reading the clause narrowly as a means of avoiding removing President Trump from the ballot. The Federal Courts are not going to get involved in this. Those pushing it are just creating bad case law. If the S.Ct., is going state we are not available to addresses procedure deficiencies in an impeachment, they are not going to start removing people who otherwise qualify from the ballot. It is a fool’s errand that setups more harm than good. I also do not see in any case President Trump is charged with insurrection or conspiring to an insurrection as a count of any indictment. Thus, I see the only tools to remove him from the Presidency, if convicted, are impeachment or the 25th Amendment. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Search results: What's the difference between being charged or indicted? If you have been charged, this means a state or federal prosecutor filed charges against you. If you have been indicted, this means a grand jury has filed charges against you. https://www.britannica.com/topic/indictment indictment, in the United States, a formal written accusation of crime affirmed by a grand jury and presented by it to a court for trial of the accused. https://www.findlaw.com/crimin...nd-a-civil-case.html The Differences Between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case Generally speaking, criminal cases are offenses against the state, even if immediate harm is done to an individual. Accordingly, they are prosecuted by the state in a criminal court. On the other hand, civil cases typically involve disputes between parties regarding the legal duties and responsibilities they owe to one another. In general, family law disputes and personal injury cases are civil cases. These cases are handled through civil lawsuits that are prosecuted in civil court. Although there is some overlap between civil and criminal cases, there are several ways in which you can tell the difference between a criminal case and a civil case. Criminal Case vs. Civil Case: Distinctions Here are some of the key differences between a criminal case and a civil case: Crimes are considered offenses against the state, or society as a whole Criminal offenses and civil offenses are generally different in terms of punishment The standard of proof is very different in a criminal case versus a civil case Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to a trial by jury Defendants in a criminal case are entitled to an attorney and will be assigned a public defender if they cannot afford one More protections are afforded to defendants in a criminal trial ================================================================= As I understand it, the charge of insurrection and adjudication of it, to satisfy the 14th/sec 3, is a civil matter, not criminal. Grand jury indictment not necessary. Also, I think the judge in Colorado adjudicated the civil charge of insurrection as it pertains to Trump for his acts on/before/after 1/6, and ruled that he did engage in, incite, insurrection. If I'm correct, then the case hinges on oath - which oath. Of course the insurrection adjudication could be further addressed on appeal. ============================ Further more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...f5218f3ce639a5&ei=10 Judge rules Trump 'engaged in an insurrection,' but is eligible for ballot Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold joins Jen Psaki to discuss a judge ruling Trump "engaged in an insurrection" while rejecting the 14th amendment challenge to his ballot eligibility. ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
In KY only the Grand Jury can indict a felony. An indictment is when the Grand Jury officially charged the felony against you in writing to the Circuit Court. The indictment that Jack Smith secured does not charge insurrection: one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States applies to Trump's repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment. one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote's certification in January 2021. one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators' alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress. one count of conspiracy against rights refers to Trump and his co-conspirators alleged attempts to "oppress, threaten and intimidate" people in their right to vote in an election. | |||
|
| One of Us |
So??? That has practically nothing to do with the cases relating to barring Trump from office per the 14th/sec 3. Here's some law explained, which I take as accurate: https://constitution.findlaw.c...14/annotation15.html Disqualification from Public Office Under the 14th Amendment ================================================================= The whole analysis is relevant, but- Here's an excerpt from the analysis - the last two paragraphs: Is disqualification different than impeachment? Yes. Someone who is impeached could be disqualified from holding public office in the future if they are convicted, and Congress applies such a punishment. But this is separate from disqualification under the 14th Amendment. Under Sections 3 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could bar someone from holding office. But unlike an impeachment conviction, that decision could be overturned by the courts. Most importantly, under the 14th Amendment, disqualification requires only a simple majority vote, not the two-thirds vote needed to convict during an impeachment trial. ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Here's another good article from a reliable source and thorough enough for our purposes: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18...-keeps-him-on-ballot A Colorado judge finds Trump 'engaged in insurrection,' but keeps him on the ballot NOVEMBER 17, 202311:59 PM ET By The Associated Press ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
You brought that up, so here's an article explaining how "insurrection" might play into it all, indirectly, from the Jack Smith cases. Supreme Court Could Play A Role In Trump Jan. 6 Case Opinion by Andrew Rodriguez • 17h https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...25a4d5c479b824&ei=19 ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
There is no such thing, except a lessor included offense jury instruction, as “indirectly” charging a crime. President Trump is not charged with insurrection, conspiracy thereof, or treason. That is the bottom of the lines, last sentence, last page. The immunity argument may be predicted in criminal misconduct. However, that crimp conduct shall be analyzed by what is charged. A Court is not going to SUMMARILY declare for you President Trump is an insurrectionist. You can believe he is, but the legal status of such will have to come from Congress passing a law defining, and setting a criminal sanction for insurrection. Then President Trump will need to be so convicted with full due process given. The Judge on CO said so, when she said Congress will have to address insurrection. In addition, Congress can seek a political remedy of impeachment. That assumes Congress believes President Trump is an insurrectionist. We done rode that horse, and President Trump won. Impeachment is not going over a second time. More, I bet President Trump is as guilty as Satan. That in no real world would he be a viable candidate. However, that is not the works we live in. I do not get to summarily make those two decisions. Jack Smith’s restraint in charging President Trump is a wide approach. | |||
|
| One of Us |
There are several aspects of this which are interesting: One - (I cut & paste the whole article because I kept getting popups wanting subscription. I didn't want the reader to be handicapped by that.) https://www.usatoday.com/story...lection/71575511007/ 'QAnon Shaman' wants to run for Congress? The Jan. 6 felon can't even vote in Arizona. Jacob Chansley or Jake Angeli or whatever he's calling himself these days has filed to run for Congress as a Libertarian in the 2024 election. He'll fit right in. Two carpet baggers, a fake elector, an ex-congressman who asked female staffers to carry his baby and Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma. Could the race to replace Democratic Rep. Debbie Lesko get any wackier? Yes, as it turns out. Why, yes, it could. Add now the painted, bare-chested, behorned face of the U.S. Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. That’s right, America’s QAnon Shaman – Arizona’s own Jacob Chansley or Jake Angeli or whatever he’s calling himself these days – is evidently preparing to toss his horns into the race for Congressional District 8. From shaman to politician for sale Although he previously called himself the QAnon Shaman, Chansley has since disavowed the QAnon movement. When we last left him in May, he was released from federal custody and hawking merch to cash in on his celebrity. The Viking look had been replaced with a flag-themed bandana and tie. His heavily tattooed bare chest was covered with a bright white sports coat as he waxed on about his prison experience, sounding suspiciously like a late-night infomercial. Or a politician. Now, he’s aiming for federal office. QAnon Shaman can't vote, but he can run Last week, Chansley/Angeli/The Shaman filed a statement of interest to run for Congress for Arizona's 8th District, as a Libertarian. He is one of a legion of hopefuls, headlined by defeated 2022 candidates Blake Masters and Abe Hamadeh (the carpetbaggers), state Rep. Anthony Kern (the fake elector), former U.S. Rep. Trent Franks (the creepy ex-congressman) and state House Speaker Ben Toma, (who really needs a moniker of his own). I don’t give Chansley much of a shot of winning, given that this northwest Valley district is heavily Republican and he can’t even vote for himself. Chansley pleaded guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding, a federal felony, and served a portion of a 41-month prison sentence before being released to a halfway house in March. As a felon, he’s ineligible to vote. But not to serve in Congress. Explains a lot, doesn’t it? ================================================================= One thing important is that if he's elected, he won't be barred from assuming office due disqualification per 14th/sec 3, because he has never taken the oath of office before, even though he participated in insurrection. Another aspect is that some members of Congress in office now are technically vulnerable to the 14th/sec 3 for their roles in the insurrection attempt and they have taken the oath previously. This could cascade. ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
In order to bring the cases before the district judge in Colorado, the plaintiff HAD to assert that insurrection, consistent with the meaning under 14th/sec 3 occurred, and thus the burden of proof was on the plaintiff. Without such assertion, there is no case from the get-go. The Judge ruled that the burden of proof was met, and that Trump did engage in insurrection. Those are facts, no matter how much you deny them. ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The Court said the question on insurrection is left to Congress in your press release. Just because you assert it in an initiating pleading does not mean it is legal so. Just because you survive a motion to dismiss on the pleadings does not make it so. That is what that language refers to. President Trump pled he won the election too. The Courts found he had not all edged sufficient facts to proceed with those claims. ME, I like you. However, you are not reading these excerpts in media correctly. Federal Court you have to allege facts sufficient on their face to proceed with a claim. Most states are mere notice pleading. All your quote means was the Petitioners alleged sufficient facts to proceed. It is not dispositive of the issue. Hence, a hearing, briefing, and ruling keeping President Trump on the ballot in CO. It is not about Denzil. It is about the state of the law of this case in CO. In addition, it is a kite the remedy and legal conclusion you seek being inappropriate in this form of judicial intervention. To this point in time, multiple courses have agreed Ed w me. Take it up w Congress. Like the Fed Judge in CO said. The legal world you say you want; you really do not want it. It is not the status of the law. I tell the folks right of you the same thing when they engage in this from the right. You are right that the burden was on the Petitioner in CO. A burden they did not carry, and lost. Bottom line, do not vote for President Trump. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Really, there is nothing to argue about here. The CO court held the insurrection clause does not apply to President Trumps to bar him from the CO ballot. There is nothing left to say or be done; except campaign against him at the ballot box. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I do not believe your assessment in the above post is correct. If it was, there would be nothing to appeal. I certainly don't want to be a hard head. Arguing with you makes me uneasy because you literally know so much for so long that I'm just now delving into. Maybe it is possible that we are both correct. You referred to the article I posted as a press release. That's what I'm going by. I haven't read the court ruling documents. The summary per a reliable press release is generally good enough for me. But there are some significant quotes in the article, from qualified attorneys. I'll sort them out: This is the article link: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18...-keeps-him-on-ballot In her decision, Wallace said she found that Trump did in fact "engage in insurrection" on Jan. 6 and rejected his attorneys' arguments that he was simply engaging in free speech. Normally, that would be enough to disqualify him under Section 3, but she said she couldn't do so for a presidential candidate. Section 3 does not specifically refer to the presidency, as it does members of the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives. Instead, the clause refers to "elector of President and Vice President," along with civil and military offices. "Part of the Court's decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section Three," the judge wrote in the 102-page ruling. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the group that filed the case, said they would appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. "The Court found that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection after a careful and thorough review of the evidence," said attorney Mario Nicolais, who was representing the voters who brought the lawsuit. "We are very pleased with the opinion and look forward to addressing the sole legal issue on appeal, namely whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to insurrectionist presidents." Whether it's the Colorado case or one filed in another state, the question ultimately is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never ruled on Section 3. The group suing in the Michigan case, Free Speech for People, filed an appeal Thursday in state court. Legal experts said it was significant that Wallace found Trump had engaged in insurrection. She wrote that she agreed with the petitioners' claim that he "incited" the attack. "It's a stunning holding for a court to conclude that a former president engaged in insurrection against the United States," said Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor who has followed the case closely. "And there's a good chance that, on appeal, a court bars him from the ballot." The petitioners argued that there is little ambiguity in Section 3, which was mainly used before Jan. 6 to prevent former Confederates from taking control of the government after the Civil War. It prohibits those who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same" from holding state or federal office, unless granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress. =============================================== Now here's the excerpt that ties into the link I posted above about "election interference" and how Trump's attorneys are trying to get that settled in civil court so it will be easier to deal with in criminal court later: Trump has called the attempt to remove "election interference" funded by "dark money" Democratic groups. His attorneys argued in court that Trump was simply engaging in his First Amendment rights on Jan. 6, that he did not incite an insurrection and that Section 3 was never meant to apply to presidential candidates. ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Let them appeal. It is not going to work, nor has it. | |||
|
| One of Us |
As long as there are appeals in play, it's not a done issue. It may yet go before SCOTUS. As to the question of whether Trump engaged in or incited an insurrection, a conspiracy of such, that question has been adjudicated in a lower court - in a civil case, in Colorado. It may not hold in appeal. Jack Smith will deal with the criminal conspiracy aspects, separately, but conviction there may be a disqualification. After all, the burden of proof there is high enough to settle it, if convicted. ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| Moderator |
look, if it's so obvious, then the trial should be little more than a formality - find someone, with standing, to charge trump with insurrection and remove him from ALL the ballots. Otherwise, let the voters decide - frankly, it's a little silly that people feel (pretty justified if you ask me) that he attempted to deny the voice of voters, would want to refuse to give those voters their voice though, really, we need to have an actual CHOICE of a GOOD candidate - opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
The issue the Colorado court decided may be binding on Trump in other civil actions, but would not bind him in the criminal cases, due to the higher standard of proof required for the latter. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The petitioners in the Colorado case had standing, or at least that was not in question in the ruling. Trump was charged with insurrection in the Colorado case, otherwise there was no case to petition. And he was found to have participated in and fomented insurrection. The judge could not remove Trump from all ballots. She had authority only in Colorado. She ruled to not remove Trump from the Colorado ballot because she assessed that she didn't have the authority to decipher the constitution on the matter larger than just within the state of Colorado. So it goes to a higher court. So, question - if Trump had previously been a congressman, taken that oath of office, then engaged in insurrection while serving first term POTUS, would he be disqualified from the office of POTUS second term per the 14th/sec 3?? ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
It will take a prosecutor to bring a charge. You are trying to get the courts to hold President Trump is an insurrection sr and disqualified from the ballot. They are not going to do that. | |||
|
| Moderator |
words have meaning, ME - the question wasn't was he involved in insurrection - the question was to remove him on the ballot because on an (unproven) 14as3 no - it wasn't, CO doesn't have standing to force trump to face federal charges - just like ya'll say texas can't enforce immigration laws. the judge opined that trump participated, BUT could not remove him from the ballot - heck, let's read your next quote on why she couldn't remove trump on 14z3s Oh, wait - you don't understand that "standing" and authority are somewhat related - the judge said she didn't have authority to rule on this, which means the prosecuriter didn't have standing to make the charges. I get it, the word "standing" might seem trivial to you - it's CRITICAL in a legal sense here you go - this might help you to understand it a bit better https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
You didn't answer my "nice" question, so I'll ask another: What other parts of the constitution do you choose to ignore? ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| Moderator |
Sir, lawyers, and 4 to 0 judges, have told you that you are wrong. You ignore both the 4th and 5th, in your rush to judgement. What EXACTLY do you need to allow you to go "opps, i was wrong" as all the courts have already TOLD YOU that you are WRONG. Without a CONVICTION, trump isn't "guilt" of 14a3s - i mean, seriously, 4 judges have said so ... you can twist their words however you like, it's STILL wrong. No, get over it, and be ready for the voice of the voter - you know, EXACTLY what you accuse trump of ignoring. Trump LOST the 2020 election, regardless of small details. Why don't you ready yourself of the 2024 election and stop trying to silence the vote of millions of voters. If it's so dang obvious, then it should be an open and shut case to convict him - and as of yet, no one of STANDING has bothered -- think on that - let it sink in as to WHY shesh, dude, he's a terrible candidate - and even worse president, and it SHOULD be easy to prove, but 4-0 it's been proven that he also has rights. sit down, shut up, and wait for the election, like a grown man opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| Moderator |
the flat answer is, i am not ignoring a single part of the constitution, but you, sirrah, are trying to rail road a judgement to ignore the body of the constitution. STOP IT, you look ignorant opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
Wikipedia: "Sirrah is an archaic term used to address inferiors, sometimes as an expression of contempt (but not as familiar). The term appears in several Shakespeare plays, such as Julius Caesar, Othello, Antony and Cleopatra, Twelfth Night and the Merchant of Venice and Titus Andronicus . It is related to "Sir", even though the social connotation of its use is opposed." I thought you said you refrain from personal attacks, especially when you are losing an argument. ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| Moderator |
i do feel that your question has been asked and answered, repeatedly, and sirrah is the correct appellation for your repeated attempts are being correct, even after FOUR judges have said "nah" sirrah is much nicer than the spanish terms I was thinking, in that you can't seem to learn that this is a closed item you have been asked an answered, repeatedly - it's time to get over it.. oh, and i KNOW the distinction in sir vs sirrah, and intended it - it's not a "personal" attack, it's a statement of contempt opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
Point by point: I am not rushing to judgment. I have no say, zero, in it. I'm just following the cases. Criminal "Conviction" is not necessary. How many times do I need to say it? I'm not trying to silence voters. That's way beyond my will and means. It's apparently not an open and shut case or it would have been slam dunked by now. 4 judges have not said I'm wrong. They said something different. Again, nothing I'm saying is inconsistent with the summary articles in the news. What you are saying is inconsistent with the findings and rulings reported in the summary articles. If you really want me to shut up, like a grown man, or good boy - I will, because you are a moderator, and I don't want to be banned. Read: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...30d02fba2b7358&ei=16 Colorado judge finds Trump engaged in 'insurrection' but allows him on ballot Story by By Andrew Goudsward • 10h "Good night, and good luck." https://youtu.be/kCaBCdJWOyM?si=31AlpLSYwYwgWBU5 So, you see, this is nothing new: https://youtu.be/HKWGoCqu57Y?si=w3t6sqdfuWP6s09p ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| Moderator |
who hurt you? opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
Good question. It's a long story, cumulative. If I could answer that, I would be someone else. Most likely, logically, I alone am responsible. ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| Moderator |
i, myself, has a couple "outstanding" monsters - and I wish you the best with yours opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
Maybe we understand each other after all. Best regards. ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading The Political Forum The Constitution bars Trump from holding public office ever again
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
Since January 8 1998 you are visitor #: