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

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Dday63

Member since Sep 2014

2306 posts

Posted on 9/7/23 at 10:13 am to Robin Masters

quote:
The fact that there is zero precedent

There is a ton of precedent, just not much in the last 150 years. But Trump is not the first one challenged under the 14th Amendment since 2021.

quote:
the law clearly needs to be thinly stretched to achieve the desired outcome

I'm not sure what is being "thinly" stretched here. We have a Constitutional Amendment that says any public office holder who engaged in insurrection against the US is barred from holding future public office.

The only question is who is empowered to decide whether someone "engaged in insurrection". Ultimately it will be a court, but there is nothing in the Amendment that requires any sort of criminal proceeding before the person is disqualified from office.

It's a Constitutional Amendment. It supersedes any prior Constitutional provisions that may be inconsistent. So, any arguments about due process, free speech, etc. are not really applicable.

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board