- 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 1:06 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 9/5/23 at 1:06 pm to Indefatigable
quote:I can certainly see that, but court decisions don't seem to be adequate for the Trump faithful in any case.
Legal analysis aside, I worry that there would be violence if anything less than a state or federal court decision is used to try this.
The question is whether the lack would incite larger numbers of the less-devoted.
This post was edited on 9/5/23 at 1:15 pm
1
Posted on 9/5/23 at 1:24 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I can certainly see that, but court decisions don't seem to be adequate for the Trump faithful in any case. The question is whether the lack would incite larger numbers of the less-devoted.
Honestly, I wish SCOTUS could exercise original jurisdiction here. Get it over with.
That’s where any case on this is going anyway.
Eta: apparently I hadn’t read the 11th amendment in a while
This post was edited on 9/5/23 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 9/5/23 at 2:19 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
“But the dems want Trump to be the nominee” ~ Ron followers
They do...just they are not all on the same page right now.
I think the more that Biden proves to be a screw up that the Dems are starting to second guess this strategy...just as they did when the "media" did all they could to promote Trump against Hillary.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 6:16 pm to AggieHank86
Here's a link to a PDF link for the U Penn Law Review article Zi referenced above. These Con Law professors are strict constructuralists, but also Never Trumpers, so take it however you like.
They address all of the issues raised here:
LINK
They address all of the issues raised here:
LINK
Posted on 9/5/23 at 6:20 pm to Dday63
quote:As I thought.
Do these statutes (the 1872 statute addressed above) — can these statutes — grant amnesty to all insurrectionists, past, present and future?
No. While the argument is not entirely bonkers, it does not withstand more serious scrutiny. It is wrong on both statutory and constitutional grounds. Consider the statutes first. Neither one purports to rescind Section Three’s operative rule for all time. They do not pretend to explode the first sentence of the constitutional provision.
Good LR article. Thx.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 6:38 pm to RaoulDuke504
Doesn't the first section of the 14th Amendment ruin this argument?
Adam Shite for brains must not know how to read.
quote:LINK
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Adam Shite for brains must not know how to read.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 8:12 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Precisely where do you plan to get the votes even for articles of impeachment, much less a conviction?
quote:
"Conviction isn't needed to qualify"
Impeachment proceedings start in the House.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:18 pm to WeeWee
quote:
Doesn't the first section of the 14th Amendment ruin this argument?
No, it wouldn't be a State disqualifying Trump from being President. The argument is that section 3 of the 14A disqualifies him. The States would just be recognizing the terms of the Constitution.
In theory.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:26 pm to RaoulDuke504
When the tables turn will they like this if it happens to their candidate?
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:35 pm to johnnyrocket
OK so has it been established that there was an “insurrection”? Seriously?
This post was edited on 9/5/23 at 9:36 pm
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:40 pm to Dday63
quote:
The argument is that section 3 of the 14A disqualifies him.
How does a state know?
The 14th was written in direct response to the end of the civil war. There really is no mechanism by which the 14th becomes necessary except for someone who declares war on the US. It's why the clause is so vague and why the amnesty act is as well. There is no context in today's arena. Depending on how you answer the initial question, it could be the most dangerous precedent ever set.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:45 pm to shrevetigertom
quote:
OK so has it been established that there was an “insurrection”? Seriously?
Congress has already declared the actions culminating in the Jan. 6 demonstration to be an insurrection. I think a State SoS could rely on that in deciding Trump is ineligible for Office.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 9:48 pm to Dday63
They also acquitted Trump of inciting an insurrection in a court with no evidentiary standards.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:08 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
“But the dems want Trump to be the nominee” ~ Ron followers
Do you think they're surprised by Trump's surge in the polls after every indictment?
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:09 pm to David_DJS
quote:
David_DJS
^ dumb bot
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:13 pm to GRTiger
quote:
They also acquitted Trump of inciting an insurrection in a court with no evidentiary standards.
This. If he is going to rely on the sham J6 committee, you can’t overlook the acquittal.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:32 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
^ dumb bot
Rather than post silly BS, why not answer the question?
Do you believe Democrats are surprised by Trump surging in polls after the indictments?
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:35 pm to GRTiger
quote:
They also acquitted Trump of inciting an insurrection in a court with no evidentiary standards.
That's one argument. Another argument is that a majority of both Houses voted to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection.
There have been other Congressional actions describing the events as an insurrection, such as the Act to Award Four Congressional Gold Medals to Capitol Police.
Posted on 9/5/23 at 10:46 pm to Dday63
quote:
That's one argument. Another argument is that a majority of both Houses voted to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection.
I'm sure that has more relevance than the acquittal in Mytruthland.
quote:
There have been other Congressional actions describing the events as an insurrection, such as the Act to Award Four Congressional Gold Medals to Capitol Police.
This isn't serious right? Colorado is going to pull Trump off the ballot because "they gave those guys a medal?"
You're grasping at straws. Purely devils advocate or are you buying what you're selling?
Posted on 9/6/23 at 9:22 am to GRTiger
quote:No. They did not have a 2/3 vote to remove him from office. That is not remotely the same as a criminal acquittal.
They also acquitted Trump of inciting an insurrection in a court with no evidentiary standards.
And all THAT assumes that Section 3 is governed by a criminal law standard. On a MLTN civil standard, they DID vote (57:43) that he should be removed for "inciting insurrection."
Page 7 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News