- 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
1
Posted on 9/9/23 at 3:59 pm to TrueTiger
Insurrection is a legally defined federal crime. Hard to get around that
Posted on 9/9/23 at 4:38 pm to dafif
quote:
Insurrection is a legally defined federal crime.
that hasn't happened in decades
Posted on 9/9/23 at 5:14 pm to TrueTiger
The point is that people keep saying the constitution does not state it requires a criminal conviction but it is a federal defined crime so... absent a federal conviction, trump cannot be disqualified
This post was edited on 9/9/23 at 5:15 pm
Posted on 9/9/23 at 5:18 pm to dafif
If the New Mexico governor isn't removed without due process under the 14th amendment for her proud and brazen rebellion against our constitution, then the idea to use it for Trump is dead as Dillinger.
Posted on 9/9/23 at 5:21 pm to dafif
quote:
absent a federal conviction, trump cannot be disqualified
The 14th Amendment was intended to address Civil War participants. It doesn't apply.
Posted on 9/9/23 at 5:32 pm to TrueTiger
Whatever it's original reason, it is in the constitution but it can only be used as a result of a federal conviction
Posted on 9/9/23 at 6:19 pm to WPBTiger
Wait, I thought they wanted Trump to run because he was so easy to beat.
Dims are such liars.
Dims are such liars.
Posted on 9/9/23 at 6:20 pm to WPBTiger
Similar suit was bounced in FL with a quickness.
Posted on 9/9/23 at 9:36 pm to dafif
quote:
absent a federal conviction, trump cannot be disqualified
As I stated above, so far no court has held a criminal conviction is necessary to trigger the disqualification. A county commissioner was removed from office in New Mexico just for being on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6.
Posted on 9/9/23 at 9:58 pm to GRTiger
quote:
I'm already seeing the surprisingly weak rebuttals to the "officer" language out there.
You think the "officer" language is problematic? Trump's attorneys already tried that nonsense in the controversy over the immoluments clause.
The Office of the President is repeatedly referred to as an "office" in Article II of the Constitution. It doesn't take a law degree to know that someone who holds an office is an "officer". And, clearly, the Republicans weren't intending to disqualify traitors from holding any government position except for President.
Then there is the impeachment clause in Article I, which says any person impeached and convicted may be barred from holding any "Office of Honor". Are we to assume that people who have been impeached and convicted are free to be President, although they cannot hold any other office?
This stuff is not going to fizzle out until multiple courts rule. But I do think it will ultimately be unsuccessful.
Posted on 9/9/23 at 10:02 pm to Dday63
quote:
And, clearly, the Republicans weren't intending to disqualify traitors from holding any government position except for President.
I don't think there is anything clear about that. It's clear they didn't want them to be Congressmen.
Posted on 9/10/23 at 9:37 am to Dday63
quote:
As I stated above, so far no court has held a criminal conviction is necessary to trigger the disqualification. A county commissioner was removed from office in New Mexico just for being on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6.
I do not know anything about the county commissioner but if you are telling me there was a Trial or insurrections and a court found the person guilty then I will read about it. If you're telling me the commission voted to boot the person off and nothing further happen that does not say anything.
Insurrection is only related to federal. It is in the constitution, it is a specific word and it is a specific act defined by law as a crime under the federal penal code. Nothing can get around that you need a finding of a violation of the federal penal code.
A state civil court does not have the authority to determine a federal statutory violation
This post was edited on 9/10/23 at 9:38 am
Posted on 9/10/23 at 10:42 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Pretty simply. I am a textualist (and strict constructionist to a lesser extent).
Their "original intent" was pretty-clearly to address Confederate soldiers, but the words they wrote were MUCH broader than that.
Yeah, "it's still in there" pretty much covers it.
i tend to generally agree with your stance/interpretation on this issue not needing criminal proceedings. Although the same application of the section would disqualify joe biden and kamala harris.
they gave comfort/aid by supporting/donating bail for BLM rioters, as one may consider BLM riots to be insurrection/rebellion... no criminal charges of insurrection/rebellion are needed, a nebulous determination that it occurred is sufficient.
its pretty clear the intent of the section was related to civil war level insurrection/rebellion despite broad language I dont think a reasonable person would apply it to trump nor biden/harris.
This post was edited on 9/10/23 at 10:47 am
Posted on 9/10/23 at 11:05 am to OysterPoBoy
quote:The message board posts would get super angry if they pulled it off!!!
Try it assholes.
It's an absurd attempt in Colorado to remove him from the ballot, but let's not pretend those who keep talking about rising up are going to actually do something at this point.
This post was edited on 9/10/23 at 11:05 am
Page 14 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News