- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
The Federalist Have Submitted Their Brief
Posted on 8/12/23 at 7:57 am
Posted on 8/12/23 at 7:57 am
8
Posted on 8/12/23 at 8:03 am to Grobins
quote:
Number of Posts: 153
Registered on: 1/13/2004
Dusting off a really old alter. Nice.
Eta: and posting a blind link with a misleading title. Trifecta of ban.
This post was edited on 8/12/23 at 10:15 am
Posted on 8/12/23 at 8:16 am to Grobins
They got him now.
No due process. Automatic and immediate disqualification.
It’s a Stalinists dream.
No due process. Automatic and immediate disqualification.
It’s a Stalinists dream.
Posted on 8/12/23 at 8:19 am to Grobins
That's some weak sauce.
quote:
William Baude
University of Chicago - Law School
quote:
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
quote:
First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
Posted on 8/12/23 at 8:20 am to Meauxjeaux
Vacuous.
Embarrassing they actually put their names on that garbage.
Basically, any House could make a finding of "insurrection" or "incitement" and this would bar anyone from running for or holding office.
If he had been convicted by the Senate, that would be a different argument.
Embarrassing they actually put their names on that garbage.
Basically, any House could make a finding of "insurrection" or "incitement" and this would bar anyone from running for or holding office.
If he had been convicted by the Senate, that would be a different argument.
This post was edited on 8/12/23 at 8:20 am
Posted on 8/12/23 at 8:21 am to Grobins
NT's trying anything, everything to keep DJT off the ballot because they know they cannot successfully duplicate 2020 election shenanigans. Too many eyes will be closely watching and know exactly where to look.
Posted on 8/12/23 at 8:21 am to Grobins
His numbers will continue to increase….”because that’s exactly what they want”.
Posted on 8/12/23 at 8:23 am to udtiger
I wonder if they considered how the same processes would be meted out if they were applied to the actions of Democrats and deep stators from 2017 through 2020?
Posted on 8/12/23 at 8:33 am to Grobins
What a load... 
Posted on 8/12/23 at 8:37 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:"attempted overthrow of the 2020 election"
No due process. Automatic and immediate disqualification.
It’s a Stalinists dream.
pfft. nonsense
The cheating usurpers need to be tried in a court of law, for THEY are the ones who already overthrew that election.
This post was edited on 8/12/23 at 8:40 am
Posted on 8/12/23 at 8:50 am to partsman103
quote:
cannot successfully duplicate 2020 election shenanigans
Eh, the courts have repeatedly proven that it's normal to block poll observers, and that Article 1 Section 4 of the US Constitution was merely a suggestion. It's over.
Posted on 8/12/23 at 10:27 am to JJJimmyJimJames
quote:
"attempted overthrow of the 2020 election" pfft. nonsense The cheating usurpers need to be tried in a court of law, for THEY are the ones who already overthrew that election.
Their narrative should be challenged every time they utter it. We let them get by with this BS far to much.
Posted on 8/12/23 at 5:06 pm to Grobins
I really don't understand why the authors are so proud of their work here. No matter how someone tries to apply this to Trump, they will wind up in court. I'm only about halfway through the article, but the only thing new I see is the idea that a SOS could just decide to leave Trump off the ballot, but even that would wind up in court.
The authors also spend a lot of time explaining why they believe Trump's actions satisfy the broad interpretation of "insurrection" in Article 3. Great, but the Courts will decide.
The only real question here is whether the GOP is willing to nominate a man who may ultimately be found ineligible for Office?
The authors also spend a lot of time explaining why they believe Trump's actions satisfy the broad interpretation of "insurrection" in Article 3. Great, but the Courts will decide.
The only real question here is whether the GOP is willing to nominate a man who may ultimately be found ineligible for Office?
Posted on 8/12/23 at 5:12 pm to Grobins
Dershowitz was on War Room yesterday saying that this is going to be the headlines for a while, but it has zero backing by any law in regards to Trump and what they are trying to charge him with.
This post was edited on 8/12/23 at 5:13 pm
Posted on 8/12/23 at 5:13 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:
No due process. Automatic and immediate disqualification. It’s a Stalinists dream.
I wonder how many “conservatives” are in support of this.
Jon Spam?
Joe Hachet man?
Adam Wanks?
IB Screamin?
Hail Hail to Missed again?
Their TDS is so extreme that I have no doubt that they are good with this gross abuse of power via political persecution.
Posted on 8/12/23 at 9:18 pm to loogaroo
quote:
loogaroo
Dershowitz was on War Room yesterday saying that this is going to be the headlines for a while, but it has zero backing by any law in regards to Trump and what they are trying to charge him with.
I am interested in Dershowitz opinion, but this article is not claiming Trump broke a law, or that this relates to any pending litigation. They are saying that"insurrection" in the 14th Amendment has an extremely broad meaning, and that Trump's actions fall within that meaning even if no one charges him with insurrection as a crime.
I don't know, but I do think the courts will ultimately decide.
A New Mexico county commissioner was removed from office just for attending the Jan 6 demonstration, even though he did not enter the Capitol building. He was convicted of misdemeanor trespass.
His appeals to the NM Supreme Court have been dismissed, and he is now trying to petition SCOTUS.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News