The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading The Political Forum Well well well, Trump is not a insurrectionist after all...Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| One of Us |
As Mike notes, "insurrection" does not require a probability of success. Quit making up your own definitions, Dr. Butler. Are you allowed to do that in medicine? The only court to hold a trial on the issue--the Colorado trial court--determined that Trump is an insurrectionist. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld that finding. The US Supreme Court overruled the Colorado decisions, but on other grounds (jurisdiction). The determination that Trump is an insurrectionist wasn't touched, as it was unnecessary to the SC decision. There's no reason to believe that another trial on the insurrection issue would turn out differently. | |||
|
Moderator |
You know what's weird? EVERY actual court case requires a court with jurisdiction .. all of them.. that's called.. you might try saying it out loud "the rule of law" ... somewhere back in the day, around 1776 or a bit earlier, the founders determined that monarchy (the rule of (a)Man) was a bit carious, and perhaps we should found a Country where the LAW was paramount, not the person ... So, to go back to your WEAK example of Colo -- even the judge in the case STATED that she didn't have jurisdiction -- Are you now stating, for the record, that you disagree with a unanimous SCOTUS decision? where peckerwood states, but won't back it up, that the Scotus INVITES Jack to file in a court with jurisdiction? You do get jurisdiction, right?? Let me help you out -- if you are speeding in town A, State A, and a cop from State B, Town B, tries to write you a ticket, it can't be ENFORCED due to JURISDICTION. the actual fact of the BB cop writing the ticket, and even stopping you, is illegal. Mike, Mike, Joshua, please correct me where I am wrong #dumptrump 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 |
XXX "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" FYI - if you ID as "conservative" nowadays, Trump owns you. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Let me help you out. The concluding line in my post argues the Colorado findings are important because they represent what a court of competent jurisdiction (if there is one, which there may not be) might do if presented with the issue of whether Trump is an insurrectionist. I was responding to Dr. Butler, in case you missed it. His post needs to be included for proper context of mine. And for the record, I do disagree with the unanimous SC decision to throw the matter to Congress, where the learned justices knew it would never get decided. Sec. 3 should be enforced through the courts, just like the rest of the 14th Amendment. There is nothing that distinguishes Sec. 3 from 1 and 2 in that respect. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Meanwhile the House GOPers are trying to spin it all, again. That's what they do with TP $. House GOP launches new probe of Jan. 6 and tries shifting blame for Capitol attack away from Trump House Republicans are launching a vast reinvestigation of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, seeking to push the blame away from Donald Trump By LISA MASCARO AP congressional correspondent March 13, 2024, 12:13 AM https://abcnews.go.com/US/wire...6-shifting-108070547 (excerpt) The panel's work comes as Trump and President Joe Biden are galloping toward a 2020 rematch this fall, and Republicans, some once skeptical of Trump's return to the White House, have quickly been falling in line to support the former president. The House GOP's high-profile impeachment inquiry into Biden has stalled without a clear path forward. Speaker Mike Johnson said House Republicans intend to release a final report on Jan. 6 “to correct the incomplete narrative” advanced by the previous work of the Select Committee on the Jan. 6 attack. With newly released testimony and an 80-plus page report of initial findings, the House Administration subcommittee has outlined a roadmap ahead for its probe — including revisiting key testimony from White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who delivered a bombshell account of Trump's actions that day. The panel's report draws on many of the conspiracy theories circulating about Jan. 6 — from the formation of the Select Committee by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to newer questions about the unidentified people who erected the hangman's scaffolding outside the Capitol. "Democrats wasted no time before pointing fingers at President Trump for the events of January 6, 2021," the initial findings of the report said. Five people died in the riot and its immediate aftermath, including a police officer, and other officers died later by suicide. More than 1,200 people have been charged in the riot, with hundreds convicted. Rep. Norma Torres of California, the panel’s ranking Democrat and a former 911 dispatcher, questioned the premise of the hearing, particularly as federal investigations are underway: “What exactly is it that we’re doing here?" “Maybe it is to peddle crazy right-wing conspiracy theories about the Jan. 6 pipe bombs spreading in the dark corners of the Internet?” she asked. “Or maybe we are here so this subcommittee can once again try to muddle our history, villainize law enforcement and undo the efforts of the bipartisan Jan. 6 Select Committee,” she said, “all to distract from the simple fact that the former president and Republican nominee for president orchestrated a corrupt scheme to overturn the results of a free and fair election.” XXX "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" FYI - if you ID as "conservative" nowadays, Trump owns you. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Getting back to the heart of the matter. The S. Ct., did not say President Trumps did not engage in insurrection. They declined to address the conduct. The majority is a procedural ruling being no state actor has the authority/jurisdiction to apply the Insurrection Clause. That power rest w Congress to vacate upon election. Now, one is most correct that in vacating the Colorado state Supreme Court, the entire holding including President Trump being adjudicated within that context as an insurrectionist was also vacated. That is bc the state court never had the authority to make that determination within the context of the IC. Now, that does not change the fact that individuals can and should view President Trump’s actions leading up to and including Jan 6. The individual able to declare for themselves what President Trump is and vote accordingly. Rolland can speak for himself. I believe his position is that no other Constitutional inquiry (except impeachment) do we leave to Congress sole jurisdiction. Especially, in terms of the 14th Amendment traditional, legal application has been the courts have jurisdiction to resolve disputes brought through the 14th Amendment. The IC should not and has no language present that mandates the Court’s holding that only Congress has jurisdiction to enforce. The holding is unanimous only to the extent that the state court did not have jurisdiction. The actual case is really 5-4 maybe 6- depending on how broadly one reads Barrett. The rational is not 9-0. The opinion and concurrences for a Supreme Court case is very brief if anyone wants to read it. My possession is that to allow states to bar candidates is assured destruction and chaos. I laid this out in another post. I also agree the IC was to restrain who could appear on state ballots. Thus, it must be read as restricting the states and not empowering the states. However, I disagree w the Supreme Courts majority that Congress alone had jurisdiction to apply the IC. I see no language nor reason that the Federal Courts should not have jurisdiction to address who is disqualified under the IC. Such holding would have required that President’s conduct be analyzed against the prongs of insurrection (aide there to), at least resolve the oath prong as each element as I read the IC is conjunctive. Assuming, oath and officer prongs are met, the Court would have to provide us factored as to what conduct meets insurrection. The majority by killing this thing on jurisdiction removes itself from addressing the real issues. That is some heavy, far reaching, ideas I just expressed in summation. It highlights why killing this thing on jurisdiction and doing so that forever removes the courts (federal) was so seductive). I might have went along w it myself in that possession. Turning back to the majority rational that Congress alone has jurisdiction does have a historical support. This happened once before after WWI. Congress after the guy was elected voted to vacate the seat after an espionage conviction through the IC. By Congress, the chamber was the House. He was re-elected, and they did it to him again. Finally, the S. Ct., overturned/vacated his conviction. The process of the IC Claude used to vacate his seat was not challenged. This, that was never addressed by the Supreme Court. Thus, we have what I call historical persuasive precedent for the majority’s jurisdiction holding. However, just because that is how the IC was applied one time I can find it being used, does not mean it was correctly applied. In summary, I concur in result and dissent. The rationale is given above. Two things: If I have spoken out of turn to Rolland, I apologize. I may be wrong about the conviction being espionage in the one historical case. I am going from memory. It was in that time period when the U.S. just lived to through socialist/socialist sympathizers in prison. Before, anyone gives me heat in that observation that late 1910-29 era saw folks convicted just for having pamphlets saying the U.S. is engaged in Capitalist foreign wars and such. | |||
|
| One of Us |
It would seem that the Mason & Dixon Line is still alive and well.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Maybe I was misreading what they wrote... I thought they said (only) congress has the authority to regulate the insurrection clause as it is written and applied historically. That means (to me) that they can either use their power to refuse to seat/impeach OR they can write a law as to what the criteria are (for both qualifying for the punishment and criteria to apply it) and have the courts apply that law as it states for punishment. Am I mistaken there?
| |||
|
| One of Us |
>>>>Retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig issued a searing rebuke of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that Colorado could not disqualify former President Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban, which preserved his ability to seek a second term. In a piece published Thursday in The Atlantic, Luttig, a longtime conservative jurist on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said all nine justices “dangerously betrayed” democracy in making their decision. Voters and advocacy groups had filed dozens of challenges to Trump’s ballot eligibility in states across the country, claiming his actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack triggered his disqualification. The high court sided with Trump by ruling Congress has exclusive authority to enforce the 14th Amendment to disqualify federal candidates. Luttig, who had been vocal in support of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to bar Trump from the ballot, described Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as the Constitution’s “safety net for America’s democracy, promising to automatically disqualify from public office all oath-breaking insurrectionists against the Constitution, deeming them too dangerous to entrust with power unless supermajorities of both houses of Congress formally remove their disability.” “Our highest court dramatically and dangerously betrayed its obligation to enforce what once was the Constitution’s safety net for America’s democracy. The Supreme Court has now rendered that safety net a dead letter, effectively rescinding it as if it had never been enacted,” Luttig wrote. Luttig pushed back on the argument that barring Trump from the ballot would be undemocratic, writing: “Disqualification is not what is antidemocratic; rather, it is the insurrection that is antidemocratic, as the Constitution emphatically tells us.” He continued, “That the disqualification clause has not previously been invoked to keep traitors against the Constitution from having a second opportunity to fracture the framework of our republic reflects not its declining relevance but its success at deterring the most dangerous assaults on our government until now.” Luttig, who previously submitted an amicus brief in the case, reiterated his core arguments in favor of upholding the Colorado decision. “What ought to have been, as a matter of the Constitution’s design and purpose, the climax of the struggle for the survival of America’s democracy and the rule of law instead turned out to be its nadir, delivered by a Court unwilling to perform its duty to interpret the Constitution as written,” Luttig wrote. “Desperate to assuage the growing sense that it is but a political instrument, the Court instead cemented that image into history. It did so at what could be the most perilous constitutional and political moment in our country’s history, when the nation and the Constitution needed the Court most—to adjudicate not the politics of law, but the law of the politics that is poisoning the lifeblood of America.” https://thehill.com/regulation...lification-decision/ -Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good. | |||
|
One of Us |
Mike M, Are you posting this because you agree with Luttig? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I agree with a lot of what he says. I disagree that trump should have been kept off the ballot. It's America. We vote. -Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good. | |||
|
| One of Us |
At least you saved yourself here. It was going to be hard living down, as a lawyer, disagreeing with a 9-0 SCOTUS decision that contains the vote of 3 of the most liberal judges the world has ever seen. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
One of Us |
But in a few cases we don't vote right? I stay out of these conversations mostly because they are way over my head. I may have an opinion, but frequently it's not an educated one and I gradually learn more and more to keep my mouth shut. We don't vote for candidates for president based on age, place of birth how many terms in office,.... right? So it's not, "we vote.". It's plain to me that Trump is not only incompetent and unfit to serve, trump is a traitor, a Seditionist. Trumps action and words meet the dictionary definition of Sedition. That trump hasn't been convicted of Sedition I understand, but he did it, he's guilty, I saw him with my eyes and heard him with my ears. If I see a man murder another, they are a murderer. That they haven't been convicted in court doesn't matter. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Spot on..... | |||
|
| One of Us |
Scott and Steve: I assume you are talking about Biden, correct? | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading The Political Forum Well well well, Trump is not a insurrectionist after all...
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
Since January 8 1998 you are visitor #: