- 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 11:19 am to Indefatigable
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:19 am to Indefatigable
quote:
The drafters of the 14th forgot to define insurrection for some reason and Congress never got around to clearing it up either.
They didn't have to. It was plain as day that it meant people who declared and/or fought war against the Union.
2
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:20 am to GumboPot
quote:
I understand this is not a criminal proceeding but this non-criminal proceeding is appealing to a criminal act.
This is where Hank and dday's analysis still gives me pause on this. I am struggling to wrap my mind around a court punishing a US citizen for engaging in a specifically codified federal crime, without a criminal adjudication.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:22 am to GRTiger
quote:
They didn't have to. It was plain as day that it meant people who declared and/or fought war against the Union.
I don't necessarily disagree with you in theory.
I've just written off the whole "14th Section 3 doesn't apply anymore or to POTUS" off as not viable. The Amendment itself does not plainly limit its application to the Civil War vets, so I don't see SCOTUS holding that it no longer applies. Like it or not its still in there.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:25 am to Indefatigable
quote:
This is where Hank and dday's analysis still gives me pause on this. I am struggling to wrap my mind around a court punishing a US citizen for engaging in a specifically codified federal crime, without a criminal adjudication.
Which ironically is behavior which is much more dangerous to democracy than anything Trump or J6 people ever reamed of doing.
Yeah, removing someone from the ballot because you think they are an insurrectionist wouldn't be abused at all, ever.
These lawyers are so drunk on their own delusions of intellectual grandeur. Great line on JRE the other day, "would you rather train a dumb dog or a smart dog. Smart dogs are reliably obedient"
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:25 am to Indefatigable
I'm not suggesting it be ignored. I'm suggesting it be applied as it was intended.
The day Trump declares war on America or declares allegiance to an enemy with whom we are at war, we should knock the dust off the 14th immediately.
The day Trump declares war on America or declares allegiance to an enemy with whom we are at war, we should knock the dust off the 14th immediately.
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 11:26 am
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:26 am to Robin Masters
quote:Let's try this from a different tack.
Its no wonder why people hate lawyers.
Did the 14th Amendment (Section 3) prevent former Confederate soldiers from holding elective office, after the War and prior to Congress granting amnesty in 1872 under the authority of the final sentence of Section 3? Yes or no.
I am fairly-certain that you have enough education to answer that question with a simple "yes."
So, had those men been tried and convicted of the federal crime of "insurrection?"
Again, I am fairly-certain that you have enough education to be aware of Lincoln's general criminal amnesty and to answer that question with a simple "no."
So, Section 3 precluded almost a million men from holding office, with no criminal conviction ... yes or no?
Your response will probably be something to the effect that those men CLEARLY fought in an insurrection, right? Well, the very REASON for this civil lawsuit is to get a judicial determination of whether Trump too engaged in an "insurrection."
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:28 am to GRTiger
quote:Obviously not, since I have posted ITT that that the BoP in this lawsuit rests with the plaintiffs.
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.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:30 am to Indefatigable
quote:See, I don't think that they "forgot" anything. I think that they were writing IN THE CONTEXT of Lincoln's criminal pardon of Confederate soldiers, with FULL KNOWLEDGE that NONE of those men COULD ever face criminal charges of "insurrection" after taking Lincoln's oath.
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.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:32 am to AggieHank86
Then how do they prove Trump became an enemy combatant of the country he was running at the time? That second bullshite impeachment would have been very helpful if they weren't so good at failing.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:33 am to GRTiger
quote:It IS a lot like this one. A LOT of people think that Chester Arthur was born in Canada. If a challenge to his candidacy had been filed, SOMEONE (presumably a federal court) would have had to make a determination as to his birthplace and thus his Constitutional qualification for the office.
Hank wants you to see clause 3 as the same as the natural born citizen requirement
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:34 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Other than it's a specific crime?
Have you ever read the insurrection statutes? It's not at all a "specific" crime. It is extraordinarily vague and broad, ad it must be to apply to unforeseeable actions. The statutes don't even define it.
Then you have The Insurrection Act, which gives the President the power to unilaterally determine that an act of violence or defiance amounts to an "insurrection" so he can call out the National Guard.
Would it be fair in that instance to declare someone an "insurrectionist" because the President said so?
What if a majority of both Houses voted to declare an act an "insurrection" and it's participants "insurrectionists". Would that be enough of a proclamation?
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:34 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Let's try this from a different tack.
Did the 14th Amendment (Section 3) prevent former Confederate soldiers from holding elective office, after the War and prior to Congress granting amnesty in 1872 under the authority of the final sentence of Section 3? Yes or no.
I am fairly-certain that you have enough education to answer that question with a simple "yes."
So, had those men been tried and convicted of the federal crime of "insurrection?"
Again, I am fairly-certain that you have enough education to be aware of Lincoln's general criminal amnesty and to answer that question with a simple "no."
So, Section 3 precluded almost a million men from holding office, with no criminal conviction ... yes or no?
Your response will probably be something to the effect that those men CLEARLY fought in an insurrection, right? Well, the very REASON for this civil lawsuit is to get a judicial determination of whether Trump too engaged in an "insurrection."
Pretty sure they declared allegiance to the CSA and then surrendered as rebels. Did any assert their innocence?
Also, by definition amnesty is a pardon for people COVICTED of a crime.
This post was edited on 9/7/23 at 11:35 am
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:34 am to AggieHank86
quote:
See, I don't think that they "forgot" anything
I suppose I meant more "overestimated the staying power of the context" instead of merely "forgot."
quote:
I think that they were writing IN THE CONTEXT of Lincoln's criminal pardon of Confederate soldiers, with FULL KNOWLEDGE that NONE of those men COULD ever face criminal charges of "insurrection" after taking Lincoln's oath.
If it is going to be interpreted to be this narrowly addressed towards the former Confederate soldiers, how would you respond to those who say the entire Section is inoperative outside of that context? Other that "its still in there" of course. I've got that one covered.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:35 am to GRTiger
quote:
Then how do they prove Trump became an enemy combatant of the country he was running at the time?
Where is this coming from? I don't think being an enemy combatant is required to participate in insurrection, regardless of what definition we want to use for the act.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:36 am to GRTiger
quote:And if Jim Bob Smith (born in East Podunck, Mississippi) had moved to West Bumphuk, Texas and run for dogcatcher in 1870, how would his opponent have taken steps to keep Jimmy off the ballot?
It was plain as day that it (Section 3) meant people who declared and/or fought war against the Union
Probably a lawsuit under Section 3, right?
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:36 am to GRTiger
quote:
hat second bullshite impeachment would have been very helpful if they weren't so good at failing.
Bingo. If they had anything with teeth, they would've used it during Impeachment Hoax #2, not waiting 2.5 years after the horse is out of the barn and Trump's crushing all-comers in the GOP primary.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:37 am to Dday63
quote:
What if a majority of both Houses voted to declare an act an "insurrection" and it's participants "insurrectionists". Would that be enough of a proclamation?
Probably. But I don't think you can extrapolate the second impeachment votes to be that proclamation.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:37 am to Indefatigable
It was the purpose of 14.3 and has only ever been successfully used in that context.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:38 am to Indefatigable
quote:Ideologically, I understand this completely, which is probably why so many of our non-lawyers are struggling, too.quote:This is where Hank and dday's analysis still gives me pause on this. I am struggling to wrap my mind around a court punishing a US citizen for engaging in a specifically codified federal crime, without a criminal adjudication.
I understand this is not a criminal proceeding but this non-criminal proceeding is appealing to a criminal act.
But you have to look at the TEXT.
Posted on 9/7/23 at 11:39 am to Dday63
quote:
Would it be fair in that instance to declare someone an "insurrectionist" because the President said so?
What if a majority of both Houses voted to declare an act an "insurrection" and it's participants "insurrectionists". Would that be enough of a proclamation?
You can call someone whatever you want. We aren't in a dis battle though. The state is trying to restrict rights based without due process. This should frighten everyone dispite you personal feelings about Trump.
Page 7 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News