- 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: Colorado is trying to disqualify Trump from the ballot
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:46 am to dafif
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:46 am to dafif
quote:There was a long thread on this issue a day or two ago, involving 4-5 of the brighter lawyers on the PT. Worth reading.
Because nothing in Section 3 requires a criminal conviction. AT MOST an adjudication with due process would be needed, which is why they filed suit.quote:
What do you think the actual process would look like?
In short, the consensus was the criminal proceedings are not required by Section 3, but that some proceedings consistent with "due process" would be required ... e.g. not just a unilateral decision by a state AG.
quote:I assume you are dictating and not proofreading, so I don't understand the "Harvey" reference (or "lawnmower"), but he IS a named defendant. Check the Complaint, which I linked on p.2.
Trump is not a named Harvey so he would not present evidence
quote:Personally, I think it would be a civil (MLTN) standard, precisely because Section 3 does not include any "criminal" references.
Would it be civil standard of proof or criminal?
2
Posted on 9/7/23 at 9:56 am to AggieHank86
quote:
There was a long thread on this issue a day or two ago, involving 4-5 of the brighter lawyers on the PT. Worth reading.
In short, the consensus was the criminal proceedings are not required by Section 3, but that some proceedings consistent with "due process" would be required ... e.g. not just a unilateral decision by a state AG.
The fact that there is zero precedent and the law clearly needs to be thinly stretched to achieve the desired outcome, not of justice, but of obvious political advantage should disqualify this entire legal remedy. If you have to debate about whether or not you "can" charge your political enemy then the answer about whether or not you should is pretty self evident... for any decent freedom loving person that is.
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 9:59 am
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:13 am to AggieHank86
quote:
because Section 3 does not include any "criminal" references.
Insurrection and rebellion are words with meanings.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News