- 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 10:22 am to roadGator
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:22 am to roadGator
Let's say that our learned barrister is right and we get the following scenario.
Trump wins the GOP nomination which is not unlikely as it stands at present. The Communists( Be honest thats who they truly are) successfully get him removed from the ballot in enough states or the right states to make it impossible for him to win.
Ensuring Biden 2 and Deep State Rule. Worst case retaking both houses of Congress in a sham election.
What happens at that point? Anything?
Trump wins the GOP nomination which is not unlikely as it stands at present. The Communists( Be honest thats who they truly are) successfully get him removed from the ballot in enough states or the right states to make it impossible for him to win.
Ensuring Biden 2 and Deep State Rule. Worst case retaking both houses of Congress in a sham election.
What happens at that point? Anything?
This post was edited on 9/5/23 at 10:24 am
3
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:23 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
The lefts plan is to prevent Trump from running using any means possible.
Its authoritarian as frick.
To save democracy, we had to totally destroy it.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:25 am to TigerIron
quote:
"We [need] to pass the bill in order to find out what [is] in it."
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:32 am to GRTiger
quote:Interesting argument.
The Amnesty Act of 1872
Amnesty is normally associated with the forgiveness of PAST acts (in this context, that would be acts before 1872), and I don't know that it is possible for Congress to have granted amnesty for acts which had not yet been undertaken.
Again, it is an interesting argument.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:32 am to RaoulDuke504
quote:
Dems float 14th amendment to bar Trump from running "Conviction isn't needed to qualify"
Not only is a conviction needed but then a successful congressional vote is required to disqualify someone from holding office of president under the 14th.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:34 am to RaoulDuke504
I hope y'all understand they are not going to let Trump win.
If he gets write ins, they won't count it
If it is even fought by spineless Republicans, courts will hold it up beyond the election
2020 was the test to see how much they could get away with
If he gets write ins, they won't count it
If it is even fought by spineless Republicans, courts will hold it up beyond the election
2020 was the test to see how much they could get away with
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:38 am to antibarner
quote:Presumably in your hypo, someone in each of those states would have filed suit to enjoin excluding Trump from the ballots in each of those states, and all of those lawsuits would have failed. Correct?
Let's say that our learned barrister is right and we get the following scenario.
Trump wins the GOP nomination which is not unlikely as it stands at present. The Communists( Be honest thats who they truly are) successfully get him removed from the ballot in enough states or the right states to make it impossible for him to win.
In that case, there would already have been a judicial determination that exclusion was constitutional, and Congress would have to certify the election (unless the GOP could summon enough votes to decline certification. The only remaining option would seem to be a REAL "insurrection."
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:42 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Who? When? How?
Presumably by Congress or a court. Or both. If this is pushed the Supreme Court will be the ultimate decision maker. The alternatives are just too absurd.
This post was edited on 9/5/23 at 10:44 am
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:44 am to AggieHank86
This is a kill shot for a strict textualist like yourself. If we can agree that you can't sit on that perch for everything, the path of this discussion you've previously obstructed should be free and clear, yes? Meaning, it's appropriate to talk about a legal threshold.
For a specific refutation of Trump's actions being tantamount to insurrection or treason, read up on the Compromise of 1877. There are a lot of similarities between the 1876 election and the 2020 election, with the exception of the democrats corrupt and unprecedented actions in the time following 2020.
For a specific refutation of Trump's actions being tantamount to insurrection or treason, read up on the Compromise of 1877. There are a lot of similarities between the 1876 election and the 2020 election, with the exception of the democrats corrupt and unprecedented actions in the time following 2020.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:46 am to AggieHank86
It would only take a couple of key states and a couple of activist judges. I am sure the Lawfare people have planned this out.
Finding plaintiffs is no problem.
They don't care about the Constitutionality. When has that ever stopped anything?
It will be a jumbled up mess tied up in the courts at best, and at worst the country will burn.
Finding plaintiffs is no problem.
They don't care about the Constitutionality. When has that ever stopped anything?
It will be a jumbled up mess tied up in the courts at best, and at worst the country will burn.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:47 am to WWII Collector
The odds are that Trump never becomes president again, although I suppose there could be unforeseen events between now and the election that alter the probability. I’m not certain what that would be.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:48 am to AggieHank86
quote:
In that case, there would already have been a judicial determination that exclusion was constitutional, and Congress would have to certify the election (unless the GOP could summon enough votes to decline certification. The only remaining option would seem to be a REAL "insurrection."
After watching the lengths the Dems have gone the past 8 years to "get Trump" it is an easy conclusion that Dems will do anything and everything to keep Trump from running. If they succeed, what is left other than Americans forcefully taking back what the left has stolen?
They will not back down, we the people keep backing up. Soon our backs will be against a wall.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:50 am to antibarner
I imagine a lot of legal wrangling that takes years to navigate and they successfully got him out of the way with no consequences.
They are really good at this Lawfare shite and we just aren’t as good.
They are really good at this Lawfare shite and we just aren’t as good.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:52 am to RaoulDuke504
Too bad for the DemCommies that GEOTUS stacked the SCOTUS and barring him will never happen! 
This post was edited on 9/5/23 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:52 am to RaoulDuke504
This isn't just something being floated by the "Dems". Members of The Federalist Society (conservative Never Trumpers) wrote a Law Review article detailing their legal interpretations. They are strict constructionists, and they aren't just pulling this out of thin air.
The authors go into great detail as to why the term "insurrection" should be interpreted very broadly, and why they believe Trump's entire scheme to stay in office should be considered an insurrection. Not just the Jan. 6 demonstration, but the entire plan.
The 14th Amendment was invoked to keep Madison Cawthorn off the ballot in North Carolina. A Federal appeals Court allowed that case to move forward, but it was rendered moot when Cawthorn lost his Primary. New Mexico removed a County Commissioner from office based on his participation in Jan. 6.
And for those complaining about the lack of court intervention, there would obviously be a court battle over this.
If a candidate fails to meet the qualifications for holding office, they should not be on the ballot. If someone can prove Joe Biden was born in Kenya, for example, then a SOS would be irresponsible to allow his name to appear on a ballot. (He would also need to be removed from office,but that's a different point).
If a State refuses to put Trump on its ballot, then of course he would sue. And to be certain, this would make its way through the courts rapidly, just like the Gore v. Bush cases. No one is saying they can just keep Trump off the ballot and there is nothing he can do about it.
As I'm writing this, though, I realized that we don't really vote for Presidential candidates in the general election; we vote for electors. The electors are not accused of insurrection, but they would need to be blocked from voting for an insurrectionist. A minor detail, I'm sure, but something to be dealt with.
The authors go into great detail as to why the term "insurrection" should be interpreted very broadly, and why they believe Trump's entire scheme to stay in office should be considered an insurrection. Not just the Jan. 6 demonstration, but the entire plan.
The 14th Amendment was invoked to keep Madison Cawthorn off the ballot in North Carolina. A Federal appeals Court allowed that case to move forward, but it was rendered moot when Cawthorn lost his Primary. New Mexico removed a County Commissioner from office based on his participation in Jan. 6.
And for those complaining about the lack of court intervention, there would obviously be a court battle over this.
If a candidate fails to meet the qualifications for holding office, they should not be on the ballot. If someone can prove Joe Biden was born in Kenya, for example, then a SOS would be irresponsible to allow his name to appear on a ballot. (He would also need to be removed from office,but that's a different point).
If a State refuses to put Trump on its ballot, then of course he would sue. And to be certain, this would make its way through the courts rapidly, just like the Gore v. Bush cases. No one is saying they can just keep Trump off the ballot and there is nothing he can do about it.
As I'm writing this, though, I realized that we don't really vote for Presidential candidates in the general election; we vote for electors. The electors are not accused of insurrection, but they would need to be blocked from voting for an insurrectionist. A minor detail, I'm sure, but something to be dealt with.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:55 am to RaoulDuke504
quote:
Give me one instance where Dems floated an idea to take down Trump where they didn’t actually go through with it?
That's an overtly broad question. Who qualifies as a "Dem". is it those who are registered Democrats, or anyone who voted for Biden over Trump (e.g. Independents)? Anyone who isn't Pro Trump (e.g. DeSantis)?
There have been plenty of "implications made", I think at various points during his presidency there were calls to impeach him on multiple different issues, they settled on just 2 when all was said and done. Multiple Democratic personalities in a variety of states have called for indictment for the electors thing, I haven't seen that come to fruition. etc.. etc.. unless you lay down ground rules it's just an endless list of wannabes and wishful thinking from various partisan politicians. And let's not bullshite ourselves and think Republicans (specifically MAGA) ain't doing the same.
I notice you didn't have a response to the whole "Vice President" thing. Are you one of the folks who think that was totally legit that a vice president can just "overrule" an election?
This post was edited on 9/5/23 at 10:57 am
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:58 am to Dday63
quote:Solid analysis.
Dday63
As to your last paragraph:
quote:you may want to look a bit closer at Section 3:
I realized that we don't really vote for Presidential candidates in the general election; we vote for electors. The electors are not accused of insurrection, but they would need to be blocked from voting for an insurrectionist. A minor detail, I'm sure, but something to be dealt with.
quote:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,
Posted on 9/5/23 at 11:03 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Interesting argument. Amnesty is normally associated with the forgiveness of PAST acts (in this context, that would be acts before 1872), and I don't know that it is possible for Congress to have granted amnesty for acts which had not yet been undertaken. Again, it is an interesting argument.
How can a law override a segment of the constitution? That seems to go against all logic.
I assume we can't just pass a law and say, "Hey Women, sorry you can't vote anymore! Make me a sammich now.".
Posted on 9/5/23 at 11:08 am to tango029
quote:When the Constitution says Congress may do so.
How can a law override a segment of the constitution? That seems to go against all logic.
quote:Simple enough. The Amendment specifically gave Congress to the unilateral authority to decide when Southerners had spent enough time sitting in the corner.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
quote:the 19th does not include parallel language.
I assume we can't just pass a law and say, "Hey Women, sorry you can't vote anymore! Make me a sammich now.".
This post was edited on 9/5/23 at 11:13 am
Posted on 9/5/23 at 11:10 am to tango029
quote:
How can a law override a segment of the constitution? That seems to go against all logic.
The last sentence of clause 3 allows for Congress to remove the disability
quote:
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
And it's going to be hard to declare (by whatever means the strict textualists deem logical) Trump ineligible due to insurrection against the government he was in charge of when the Senate, who enjoys zero evidentiary standards, acquitted him of inciting insurrection. That hurts even the childish "you'll know it when you see it" standard that seems to be at play here.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News