- 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 11:11 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 9/5/23 at 11:11 am to AggieHank86
Thx, missed that verbiage
0
Posted on 9/5/23 at 11:14 am to AggieHank86
quote:
If he were to be selected by the Electoral College, we might well see Congress decline to certify that election
Yeah...if they want to see what a real insurrection looks like they would go that route
Posted on 9/5/23 at 11:18 am to Dday63
quote:
but they would need to be blocked from voting for an insurrectionist.
Is questioning election results now considered insurrection? Because there will be a ton of Congress being ineligible to ever run again, if so.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 11:23 am to BBONDS25
quote:
.if they want to see what a real insurrection
The last batch of Trump patriots are not done being sentenced. In better news Trump won is 20th Club senior championship (he cheats at golf too). I'm sure it was worth it for the "Proud Boys"
Posted on 9/5/23 at 11:25 am to Tmcgin
There would definitely be some blowback if he won the election and congress refused to certify it
And it would likely dwarf J6
And it would likely dwarf J6
Posted on 9/5/23 at 11:28 am to Powerman
quote:I tend to agree, and I think that the Dems are bright-enough to see this. Hence, I think they take the state-by-state approach and try to keep him off the ballot in battleground states.
If he were to be selected by the Electoral College, we might well see Congress decline to certify that electionquote:
Yeah...if they want to see what a real insurrection looks like they would go that route
Their problem THERE is "time." If they try to start the process before the GOP convention, they face potential "ripeness" difficulties, and I have to wonder whether they would have enough time to accomplish their goal in the short period between the GOP convention and the general election.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 11:31 am to Powerman
About 300 of the 500,000 Trump supporters in DC that day went rogue and acted like assholes. An insurrection would be a lot more than .06% force incursion and they'd have a lot more than selfie sticks in their possession.
Flippant use of coup and insurrection to describe the events make the user look foolish and petulant. But we're way past that now.
Flippant use of coup and insurrection to describe the events make the user look foolish and petulant. But we're way past that now.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 12:01 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
If you are a Textualist, you must agree. Amendment 14, Section 3 DOES NOT specifically require a "conviction." Of course, it is ALSO silent as to how participation in an "insurrection" might be determined or adjudicated.
This is not an honest argument, IMO. I would argue that its entirely inherent that a determination by a finder of fact is required to establish that someone participated in "insurrection."
Its only the core tenet of Due Process. The idea that state officials can arbitrarily decide that is and isn't "insurrection" without any type of judicial or legislative determination that an "insurrection" in fact took place is enormously problematic.
Would be a horrible precedent to set.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 12:05 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Look at the 14th Amendments and quote us the language that requires a "conviction" for "insurrection."
The word conviction is not present in that sentence, correct.
Can you point to any other instances where a US citizen's rights or privileges can be taken away arbitrarily without some type of adverse legal (be it judicial or legislative) determination?
Posted on 9/5/23 at 12:06 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Is questioning election results now considered insurrection?
No.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 12:06 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Of course. I simply said that such "finder of fact" need not be a criminal conviction. It could be the Secretaries of State in the individual states or whatever courts in which those SoS get sued civilly.
This is not an honest argument, IMO. I would argue that its entirely inherent that a determination by a finder of fact is required to establish that someone participated in "insurrection."
Posted on 9/5/23 at 12:08 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Not offhand, no. My point is that the alternatives to criminal conviction carry a MUCH lower BoP.
Can you point to any other instances where a US citizen's rights or privileges can be taken away arbitrarily without some type of adverse legal (be it judicial or legislative) determination?
The idea that Section 3 can be invoke ONLY in the case of a criminal conviction strikes me as ... lacking authority.
This post was edited on 9/5/23 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 9/5/23 at 12:11 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
My point is that the alternatives to criminal conviction carry a MUCH lower BoP.
Absolutely a lower bar, but due process still applies.
US citizens can't really be deprived of anything without some sort of adversarial proceeding, even if the BOP is lower than a criminal standard.
I don't see how a unilateral determination by some state SOS is going to pass muster there. I guess that will have to get into state separation of powers and their unique setups in that regard.
Not to mention the enormous practical complications with allowing this particular interpretation to go forward (and I get that that is the discussion you are having...I'm just now catching up to the thread) Only thing I know for sure is that some of these states are going to try this. There has been too much smoke for no fire.
This post was edited on 9/5/23 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 9/5/23 at 12:11 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
you may want to look a bit closer at Section 3:
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,
Not sure if your point. I'm liking forward to 2024. I'm assuming the electors in the ballots would not be people who had participated in an insurrection previously. A broad assumption, sure, but if the 14A is being tossed around one would hope the local GOP would be cautious.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 12:13 pm to Indefatigable
quote:As I said above, any such inquiry (and determination) regarding ballot qualification would presumably be governed by pre-existing state procedures and/or regulations.
I don't see how a unilateral determination by some state SOS is going to pass muster there.
In your mind, would those procedures not satisfy requirements of "due process?"
Posted on 9/5/23 at 12:15 pm to Dday63
quote:As I read it, the boldface language would include POTUS.quote:Not sure if your point. I'm liking forward to 2024. I'm assuming the electors in the ballots would not be people who had participated in an insurrection previously. A broad assumption, sure, but if the 14A is being tossed around one would hope the local GOP would be cautious.
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 12:16 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
In your mind, would those procedures not satisfy requirements of "due process?"
Don't think we can answer that in the general sense, presuming that all 50 states + DC are different in that regard.
At a minimum though, I would think that such procedures would have to include some aspect of Team Trump being afforded an opportunity to present a defense---which in most states is going to involve some type of judicial or quasi-judicial entity, either directly or through appeals.
So while perhaps a criminal conviction of "insurrection" may not be completely necessary, I think there has to be some sort of legal determination that an "insurrection" occurred and that the person involved participated in it. DP, criminal or otherwise, generally does not allow for such determinations without an adversarial proceeding in front of a legal fact-finder.
This post was edited on 9/5/23 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 9/5/23 at 12:20 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Can you point to any other instances where a US citizen's rights or privileges can be taken away arbitrarily without some type of adverse legal (be it judicial or legislative) determination?
Civil asset forfeiture would probably be the closest example. The ability to deprive someone of their personal property w/o due process or an adverse legal opinion. In fact it actually places the onus on the person deprived to prove the money was obtained through legal means.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 12:21 pm to AggieHank86
Horseshite, welcome to Harare and Libreville
Posted on 9/5/23 at 12:21 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Agreed.
So while perhaps a criminal conviction of "insurrection" may not be completely necessary, I think there has to be some sort of legal determination that an "insurrection" occurred
quote:I see what you are saying, but not sure I agree.
and that the person involved participated in it.
Let's say that the requirement to run for a given office is the age of 25 years. Can the SoS not pull a certified copy of the birth certificate of a 23yo "candidate" and disqualify him, without a full adversary proceeding?
Interesting questions, but all FAR beyond the scope of the OP.
This post was edited on 9/5/23 at 12:28 pm
Page 5 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News