- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS oral arguments on Trump vs Colorado
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:27 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:27 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:"Convict" is the word you are searching for. The POTUS was found not guilty.
Both the House and the Senate voted to impeach Trump for inciting an insurrection. They just didn't have the two-thirds required to censure him.
Come on. You can say it....
Repeat after me:
"Congress found President Trump not guilty of insurrection."
1
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:29 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
"Congress found President Trump not guilty of insurrection."
This is not technically true.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:35 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:Tell it to the US Senate. They seem to be misinformed.
This is not technically true.
quote:
Johnson's Senate trial began on March 5, 1868, operating under newly revised rules and procedures. On May 16, after weeks of tense and dramatic proceedings, the Senate took a test vote on Article XI, a catch-all charge thought by the House managers most likely to achieve a conviction. The drama of the vote has become legendary. With 36 votes for “guilty” needed to constitute a two-thirds majority for conviction, the roll call produced 35 votes for “guilty” and 19 votes for “not guilty.”
Senate.gov
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:37 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
The word President was there originally and was intentionally removed. The President has a separate Oath of Office and is the Executive head ....not a lowly officer.
The writers of the Amendment saw to it that the President would never be considered ....
The problem with the assessment some law school clerk made for you? SCOTUS has dozens working for them and their task is to discover everything from the Amendment to the writings of the authors and what was intended. They don't do this in the dark.
The writers of the Amendment saw to it that the President would never be considered ....
The problem with the assessment some law school clerk made for you? SCOTUS has dozens working for them and their task is to discover everything from the Amendment to the writings of the authors and what was intended. They don't do this in the dark.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:37 pm to NC_Tigah
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. They didn't "find him not guilty"
They voted 57-43 to Convict, falling 10 votes shy of what is needed, so he is technically acquitted. Therefore they did not "find him not guilty"
Its a distinction without much of a difference, however.
Within the Context of the CO case, he was not found guilty.
Therefore their case is patently absurd on its face.
They voted 57-43 to Convict, falling 10 votes shy of what is needed, so he is technically acquitted. Therefore they did not "find him not guilty"
Its a distinction without much of a difference, however.
Within the Context of the CO case, he was not found guilty.
Therefore their case is patently absurd on its face.
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:41 pm to MikeBRLA
quote:
That is one of the many reasons that the whole second impeachment was a sham. Even if he was found guilty, it would be impossible to punish him since the punishment is removal from office.
No, upon conviction the Senate also could have disqualified Trump from holding any office under the United States.
Oh, but wait, Trump says the Presidency is not an "office under the United States" so I guess that wouldn't have stopped him either.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:43 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
I forgot to add...eat a bag of dicks.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:44 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Yes. In other words he was acquitted of Muh Insurrection, and has not otherwise been charged with it. In my mind this is the biggest reason that 14th amendment sham doesn’t work.
So your position is Trump did not "engage in insurrection"? That's a fair position, but as far as I could tell it didn't even come up in oral arguments today.
However the Court decides to put an end to this, I think Thomas will write a concurrence trying to reverse the CO court finding of an insurrection.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:46 pm to Bourre
After crying like a bitch boy for almost 4 years trump finally got a win today 
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:47 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:No. Words have meaning. Sorry.
Its a distinction without much of a difference, however.
The purpose of the Senate trial was to find the POTUS either guilty or not guilty. As much as that seems to pain you, a finding of "not guilty" is the consequence of rabid anti-Trump Congressional mouth-foamers bringing the bullshite charge in the first place. In our system of innocent until proven guilty acquittal equates to innocence. Innocence equates to not guilty.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:48 pm to bluedragon
quote:
The word President was there originally and was intentionally removed. The President has a separate Oath of Office and is the Executive head ....not a lowly officer.
Do you have a reference supporting this? I have not read the entire legislative history of Section 3, but I did read where some Senators asked why POTUS and VEEP had been left out, and they were assured those positions were included in "offices"
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:48 pm to joe68
quote:
After crying like a bitch boy for almost 4 years trump finally got a win today
Melt, Pedo-Joe fanboy, melt....
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:50 pm to Dday63
quote:Kavanaugh questioned why Trump should be removed from the ballot when he has not been convicted of inciting an insurrection. Kav cited the federal statute for insurrection as a means to that end, and noted Trump had not been charged IAW it.
So your position is Trump did not "engage in insurrection"? That's a fair position, but as far as I could tell it didn't even come up in oral arguments today.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:50 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
In our system of innocent until proven guilty acquittal equates to innocence. Innocence equates to not guilty.
Except that an impeachment trial is political, and not criminal. Trump has not been charged criminally with insurrection, but the impeachment acquittal does not prevent such a charge being brought against him.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:51 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
They voted 57-43 to Convict,
Youre an ambulance chaser, amirite?
Otherwise you would know that people cannot be convicted by a 9-3 vote of a jury. In fact, theres a fairly well known Supremes case where the common man is treated better than a president. They have to have a unanimous decision in order to be convicted. Not just a 2/3rds majority
quote:
U.S. Supreme Court abolishes split jury verdicts; dozens of convictions voided
Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:54 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Kav cited the federal statute for insurrection as a means to that end, and noted Trump had not been charged IAW it.
But that doesn't address whether Trump could be found to have "engaged in insurrection" for purposes of the 14th Amendment. The whole point of Section 3 is to disqualify oath breaking insurrectionists even if they have not, or cannot, be convicted.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 2:00 pm to SCwTiger
I think SCOTUS is leaning towards saying Congress has not passed any new enforcement provisions for Section 3, and so it cannot be applied in the absence of a conviction.
So, then, what if the Dems win a majority of the House and Senate in November....could they object to all electoral ballots naming Trump on the grounds he is disqualified from office? Would that be considered enforcement of the clause by Congress?
So, then, what if the Dems win a majority of the House and Senate in November....could they object to all electoral ballots naming Trump on the grounds he is disqualified from office? Would that be considered enforcement of the clause by Congress?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 2:02 pm to Dday63
quote:
Do you have a reference supporting this? I have not read the entire legislative history of Section 3, but I did read where some Senators asked why POTUS and VEEP had been left out, and they were assured those positions were included in "offices"
quote:
An early draft of Section 3 expressly listed President and Vice President as offices that would be off-limits to anyone found to have engaged in an insurrection:
"No person shall be qualified or shall hold the office of President or vice president of the United States, Senator or Representative in the national congress, or any office now held under appointment from the President of the United States, and requiring the confirmation of the Senate, who has been or shall hereafter be engaged in any armed conspiracy or rebellion against the government of the United States[.]"
But the words “President or vice president” were deliberately edited out of the final version of Section 3. This, together with the disqualification of presidential electors and vice-presidential electors who have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion,” makes clear that the Framers of Section 3 did not intend for it to apply to those running for President or Vice President, even if they engaged in insurrection.
LINK
Posted on 2/8/24 at 2:04 pm to Dday63
quote:18 U.S. Code § 2383 was written in 1948
Congress has not passed any new enforcement provisions for Section 3, and so it cannot be applied in the absence of a conviction.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 2:05 pm to Dday63
quote:The language the Senate uses is "guilty" and "not guilty"
Except that an impeachment trial is political, and not criminal.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News