- 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 10:59 am to Robin Masters
Posted on 9/7/23 at 10:59 am to Robin Masters
quote:No, it is NOT a perfect parallel. I am TRYING to use an analogy to help you understand a concept that seems to be giving you difficulty.
Wrongful death is not murder.
1
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:01 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Insurrection is a crime. People are innocent until proven guilty. Please tell me you aren't confounded by these details?
Insurrection is an act of forcible resistance to a government's authority to execute its laws (or whatever working definition you may prefer). It can be a crime, but one can certainly be considered an "insurrectionist" without being criminally charged.
The legal implications here are very interesting. I'm excited to see this getting off the ground regardless of the outcome.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:01 am to AggieHank86
quote:
No, it is NOT a perfect parallel. I am TRYING to use an analogy to help you understand a concept that seems to be giving you difficulty.
I do have difficulty with treating someone as a criminal who hasn't been convicted of a crime. I'm silly that way.
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 11:02 am
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:03 am to Robin Masters
quote:This Colorado civil lawsuit is NOT trying to put Trump behind bars.
I do have difficulty with treating someone as a criminal who hasn't been convicted of a crime.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:04 am to Robin Masters
quote:
I do have difficulty with treating someone as a criminal who hasn't been convicted of a crime. I'm silly that way.
Same here. These left wing nuts are trying their best to put the cart before the horse.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:04 am to WWII Collector
quote:
Just curious... If they keep Trump off the ballot, what are your plans?
and by that I mean... What is anybody going to be able to do? I sure don;t see us rioting blm style.
This board is filled with people throwing out empty threats. A dozen revolutions would have already happened had people here stood by their convictions.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:06 am to AggieHank86
quote:
This Colorado civil lawsuit is NOT trying to put Trump behind bars.
By using an assertion which isn't true, that he is an insurrectionist. Please sue someone in court and call them a pedophile when they haven't been convicted of such. I'd be genuinely curious how that works out for you.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:06 am to NCIS_76
quote:You would be 100% correct, if Section 3 required a criminal conviction.
These left wing nuts are trying their best to put the cart before the horse.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:07 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You would be 100% correct, if Section 3 required a criminal conviction.
It requires you to be a certain type of criminal which you cannot be unless you've been found guilty in a court of law.
Am I taking crazy pills???
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:08 am to Robin Masters
quote:It happens every day in a family court somewhere. Statements in pleadings are generally immune from defamation claims.
Please sue someone in court and call them a pedophile when they haven't been convicted of such. I'd be genuinely curious how that works out for you.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:09 am to Adajax
quote:
That's the goal of the indictments, to invoke the 14th Amendment and keep Trump from being able to run again.
Yep. That’s the end game. “He’s guilty!!!” Even tho he’s not been charged with insurrection.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:10 am to Robin Masters
quote:Only you can say, but look at (for one example) what DDay has posted, too.
Am I taking crazy pills???
"Insurrection" certainly CAN have a specific meaning in criminal law, just as it has a meaning in vernacular. There is nothing in Section 3 to indicate that it was used in a criminal sense in the 14th Amendment.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:11 am to AggieHank86
quote:
It happens every day in a family court somewhere. Statements in pleadings are generally immune from defamation claims.
Frantic ramblings of a scored woman are not the same as an officer of the court but nice to see the low bar you've set for the state of CO with this case.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:12 am to Robin Masters
quote:
By using an assertion which isn't true, that he is an insurrectionist.
What the petitioners are ultimately doing is asking the court to determine that Trump is an insurrectionist for purposes of the 14th using a civil burden of proof.
If they just had the SOS do it unilaterally they'd have a due process problem, and its clear to me that no prosecutor wants to run the risk of actually trying Trump for engaging in insurrection.
I will be interested to see how the federal courts handle this one.
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 11:15 am
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:13 am to AggieHank86
quote:
There is nothing in Section 3 to indicate that it was used in a criminal sense in the 14th Amendmen
Other than it's a specific crime?
Its no wonder why people hate lawyers. JFC
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.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:14 am to Robin Masters
quote:YOU don't THINK so. Hell, neither do I. I have said here a couple of thousand times that I don't think J6 was an "insurrection."
This Colorado civil lawsuit is NOT trying to put Trump behind bars.quote:
By using an assertion which isn't true, that he is an insurrectionist.
And a court in Colorado will be addressing that question as well. A determination of that issue is the very CRUX of the lawsuit ... an issue which you (incidentally) seem to be prejudging.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:15 am to AggieHank86
quote:quote:
No one is lowering any bars. Section 3 is not a criminal matter, so the burdens of proof for a criminal proceeding need not apply.
quote:
No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who ... shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion
The problem for the CO case is the underlined part has not been proven yet in a court of law under the presumption of innocence standard. I understand this is not a criminal proceeding but this non-criminal proceeding is appealing to a criminal act.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:18 am to GRTiger
quote:
Insurrection and rebellion are words with meanings.
Unfortunately they are words with several meanings.
Madison made this easy with treason being specifically defined. The drafters of the 14th forgot to define insurrection for some reason and Congress never got around to clearing it up either.
So now we are left with a state judge and a dictionary to determine the eligibility of a POTUS candidate.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:18 am to GumboPot
Something will break as soon as the plaintiff is required to legally define insurrection or rebellion.
Hank wants you to see clause 3 as the same as the natural born citizen requirement or age requirement for president. Perhaps he thinks it's on Trump to prove he isn't an insurrectionist. Like pulling out his patriot ID as he would show his birth certificate.
Hank wants you to see clause 3 as the same as the natural born citizen requirement or age requirement for president. Perhaps he thinks it's on Trump to prove he isn't an insurrectionist. Like pulling out his patriot ID as he would show his birth certificate.
Page 6 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News