- 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: Dems float 14th amendment to bar Trump from running "Conviction isn't needed to qualify"
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:33 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:33 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Look at the 14th Amendments and quote us the language that requires a "conviction" for "insurrection."
So, I think that prosecuting a party's nominee, and then removing him from the ballot with no vote and no trial if the criminal cases don't work, is a coup by the other party. That is, an insurrection with the aim of seizing the government. Therefore, any candidates being put forward by that party should be removed from the ballot for insurrection. Let's go.
1
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:33 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Look at the 14th Amendments and quote us the language that requires a "conviction" for "insurrection."
Look at the video footage from Jan 6 and tell us how what transpired at the Capitol was an active, earnest attempt at overthrowing the United States government. What was their plan for succession/rule?
Beyond that, there were multiple tweets and videos posted by Trump that afternoon urging attendees to the protests to be respectful, peaceful and compliant with law enforcement.
This post was edited on 9/5/23 at 9:34 am
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:45 am to VoxDawg
quote:Try to stay on point.quote:Look at the video footage from Jan 6 and tell us how what transpired at the Capitol was an active, earnest attempt at overthrowing the United States government. What was their plan for succession/rule?
Look at the 14th Amendments and quote us the language that requires a "conviction" for "insurrection."
You don't think J6 was an "insurrection." Neither to I, for that matter. It was a LARP that got a bit out of hand.
BUT, the topic of this thread is whether a criminal conviction for "insurrection" is necessary in order to invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. A reasonable corollary question is "How would that work?"
I am an avid Textualist, and I just DO NOT see anything in the language of the 14th Amendment requiring such a conviction.
You seem to believe otherwise. Make a Textual case for your position.
This post was edited on 9/5/23 at 9:51 am
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:47 am to RaoulDuke504
But they want him to be the nominee cause Desantis!- ronbots
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:52 am to AggieHank86
I'm not trying to get you to understand my position. I'm trying to get you to understand yours.
The clause is meaningless without a mechanism for identifying prima facie insurrection or rebellion. At the time it was written and ratified, that looked like fighting a war against America after declaring a new country within its borders.
If it's a "you'll know it when you see it" threshold, then this is an absurd discussion and a hare-brained idea.
The clause is meaningless without a mechanism for identifying prima facie insurrection or rebellion. At the time it was written and ratified, that looked like fighting a war against America after declaring a new country within its borders.
If it's a "you'll know it when you see it" threshold, then this is an absurd discussion and a hare-brained idea.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:56 am to Giantkiller
Still, at the end of the day, it is hilarious how afraid the whole jackass Dem party is of one man..........just one. Do Dems as a whole all have the same painful allergic reaction to the truth? Is that why they're so scared of Trump? You'd think after these four years of Ukraine money laundering, they'd all have their bank accounts full and be ready to ride off into the sunset. Our country is completely turned upside down, and the only blame that can be laid belongs to the leftists.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:58 am to AggieHank86
Come on counselor. You can't take action like that against someone because they have been accused of something. That stands against the basic principle of assumption of innocence.
For that matter, you could disqualify anyone the Dems put up if you want to play that game. They were all in on the Russia scam and all you need is one cooperating GOP prosecutor somewhere willing to indict. Trying to remove a sitting President by participating in a scheme to defraud the People of the United States.
Impressive charge for a conspiracy. And its what they did.
For that matter, you could disqualify anyone the Dems put up if you want to play that game. They were all in on the Russia scam and all you need is one cooperating GOP prosecutor somewhere willing to indict. Trying to remove a sitting President by participating in a scheme to defraud the People of the United States.
Impressive charge for a conspiracy. And its what they did.
This post was edited on 9/5/23 at 10:00 am
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:59 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Why? It has happened before. Lincoln was excluded from the ballot in ten states in 1860.
Kinda my point Hank. We see how that turned out.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:03 am to Bandit1980
quote:
Still, at the end of the day, it is hilarious how afraid the whole jackass Dem party is of one man..........just one. Do Dems as a whole all have the same painful allergic reaction to the truth? Is that why they're so scared of Trump? You'd think after these four years of Ukraine money laundering, they'd all have their bank accounts full and be ready to ride off into the sunset. Our country is completely turned upside down, and the only blame that can be laid belongs to the leftists.
And the second they fear most is General Flynn. That was their first priority when Trump appointed him. It would be a great day if Trump pulls this off and appoints Flynn again! Looking on the hopeful side, maybe that's where this is headed, a true reckoning. Digging up the corruption and presenting facts in a court of law.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:03 am to AggieHank86
quote:
am an avid Textualist, and I just DO NOT see anything in the language of the 14th Amendment requiring such a conviction.
Legally, In order for an individual to be deemed to participate in an insurrection there would need to be some finding of fact that it occurred. Reductio ad absurdum.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:05 am to antibarner
quote:Burdens of proof from criminal proceedings do not govern political undertaking such as elections.
You can't take action like that against someone because they have been accused of something. That stands against the basic principle of assumption of innocence.
quote:Sure. How would that be done? THAT is the question that I tried to answer three pages ago.
For that matter, you could disqualify anyone the Dems put up if you want to play that game.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:06 am to AggieHank86
How can someone be removed from the ballot without a conviction ?
That’s a seriously slippery slope. They don’t care because they’ve adopted by any means necessary which will end up being a massive mistake.
That’s a seriously slippery slope. They don’t care because they’ve adopted by any means necessary which will end up being a massive mistake.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:07 am to BBONDS25
quote:YES.
Legally, In order for an individual to be deemed to participate in an insurrection there would need to be some finding of fact that it occurred.
Who? When? How?
I expressed my interpretation of the Constitution as applied to those questions. It is fascinating that no one else is willing to do the same.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:07 am to TigerIron
The lefts plan is to prevent Trump from running using any means possible.
Its authoritarian as frick.
Its authoritarian as frick.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:08 am to AggieHank86
Maduro, Castro and Ortega approve of this interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Anyone who opposes the Communist party line is guilty of insurrection. They don't even have to riot, commit arson, loot and murder.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:10 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Sure. How would that be done? THAT is the question that I tried to answer three pages ago.
I told you how. Indict them. It's the seriousness of the charge after all. The thing is, they are likely guilty.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:10 am to roadGator
quote:"Remove from ballot" is just one way to potentially apply Section 3, but let's look at it.
How can someone be removed from the ballot without a conviction ?
Most states have a statutory requirement that some state official (usually the Secretary of State, I think) must determine whether a candidate is qualified to be on the ballot. That official could theoretically make that determination under state law, under state procedures and state burdens of proof. Alternatively, a citizen might sue the SoS (or similar official) to exclude a given candidate, based upon Section 3.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:10 am to Auburn1968
quote:
Anyone who opposes the Communist party line is guilty of insurrection.
You racist.
Holding the poor man down.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:12 am to AggieHank86
Guilty with no trial. Not sure that’s gonna fly with the current Supreme Court.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:19 am to roadGator
The Amnesty Act of 1872 is going to be a tough one for textualist Hank to get past.
Not to mention the current precedent for use of clause 3 is limited to one guy who was in fact convicted of violating the Espionage Act.
quote:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.
Not to mention the current precedent for use of clause 3 is limited to one guy who was in fact convicted of violating the Espionage Act.
Page 3 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News