- 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 9/6/23 at 9:26 am to GRTiger
Posted on 9/6/23 at 9:26 am to GRTiger
quote:He is conducting an objective analysis of the bases on which those who wish to exclude Trump from the ballot ... might rely.quote:This isn't serious right? Colorado is going to pull Trump off the ballot because "they gave those guys a medal?"
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.
You're grasping at straws. Purely devils advocate or are you buying what you're selling?
You are so busy chanting "no no no no" with your hands over your ears that you cannot recognize non-hysterical objectivity when it stares you in the face.
2
Posted on 9/6/23 at 9:30 am to AggieHank86
wrong again
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:54 am to GRTiger
As Hank said, I'm providing an objective analysis. And the only question I'm answering right now is whether anyone has decided there was an insurrection.
Of course you are right that Trump was acquitted in his Impeachment Trial, and that is absolutely an argument Trump will use to defend his candidacy.
A counter argument is that this is not an impeachment trial now. The Senate voted 57-43 to impeach Trump of, among other things, "inciting an insurrection".
In addition, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnel said the reason Republicans were voting against it was because he did not think impeachment was legally sound after a President has left office. Not because they disagreed with the charges.
Congress voted to award a medal for defending "against insurrectionists". So, that is a declaration from a majority of both houses that there was an insurrection.
There have been other Congressional actions referencing insurrection or insurrectionists. There have been people found guilty of seditious conspiracy for the acts of Jan. 6.
Sure, there is plenty of room for debate, but I think there is enough evidence for one to say it has already been decided this was an insurrection.
And insurrections do not have to be violent, although they usually lead to violence. There were more casualties on Jan. 6 than there were in the attack on Fort Sumter.
quote:
I'm sure that has more relevance than the acquittal in Mytruthland.
Of course you are right that Trump was acquitted in his Impeachment Trial, and that is absolutely an argument Trump will use to defend his candidacy.
A counter argument is that this is not an impeachment trial now. The Senate voted 57-43 to impeach Trump of, among other things, "inciting an insurrection".
In addition, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnel said the reason Republicans were voting against it was because he did not think impeachment was legally sound after a President has left office. Not because they disagreed with the charges.
quote:
This isn't serious right? Colorado is going to pull Trump off the ballot because "they gave those guys a medal?"
Congress voted to award a medal for defending "against insurrectionists". So, that is a declaration from a majority of both houses that there was an insurrection.
There have been other Congressional actions referencing insurrection or insurrectionists. There have been people found guilty of seditious conspiracy for the acts of Jan. 6.
Sure, there is plenty of room for debate, but I think there is enough evidence for one to say it has already been decided this was an insurrection.
And insurrections do not have to be violent, although they usually lead to violence. There were more casualties on Jan. 6 than there were in the attack on Fort Sumter.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 10:59 am to AggieHank86
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.
Correct, the standard for a criminal conviction is much higher than the standard for a conviction in an impeachment trial.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 11:00 am to Dday63
quote:You've not posted much on this forum until recently. If you stick around (and I hope you do), you will find that many of our posters REALLY like objective analysis that supports their preconceptions.
As Hank said, I'm providing an objective analysis.
Objective analysis that doesn't? Not so much.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 11:06 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You are so busy chanting "no no no no" with your hands over your ears that you cannot recognize non-hysterical objectivity when it stares you in the face.
I'm looking for sound legal analysis. You are busy ignoring all the massive and likely insurmountable hurdles to a legitimate legal basis and golf clapping random darts being thrown that have nothing to do with the legality of usurping due process for the purposes of denying someone rights.
Despite the awards being a ridiculous argument, the connection between the "insurrectionists" who lead to the award and Trump is not only incredibly thin, but it was adjudicated in a political court which requires that only 60% of jurors agree with the claim.
I assume it's clear to any clear mind that the impeachment was supposed to be the thing they leaned on when this 14th amendment debate was planned to bubble up. They are trying to push it through the court of public opinion despite that massive failure of their plan.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 11:12 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You've not posted much on this forum until recently. If you stick around (and I hope you do), you will find that many of our posters REALLY like objective analysis that supports their preconceptions.
Objective analysis that doesn't? Not so much.
I've got no issues with the other poster, but you're a fraud. Plenty of people who appreciate reasonable discussion can't stand you because you think the veil of reason you put over most of your posts deceives people. It doesn't. Your posts are easily transparent enough to put them in the correct bucket without much thought.
Notice I wasn't even talking to you and you jumped in to scold me on my lack of rational discussion. It's likely the other guy can handle himself just fine, so maybe you should go white knight somewhere else.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 11:17 am to Dday63
quote:
Sure, there is plenty of room for debate, but I think there is enough evidence for one to say it has already been decided this was an insurrection.
If we are going to go off of non-adversarial legislative actions or Congressional intent.... my counter would be that Congress had the perfect opportunity to ban Trump from holding office again (during the second impeachment trial), and chose not to do so.
Hank and I explored this yesterday/earlier in the thread but I don't know if you chimed in on it. How is it possible that someone can be deprived of a privilege or of the ability to hold office without any sort of due process? Engaging in insurrection is a specific, codified federal crime. Unless or until an adversarial proceeding is held that determines an insurrection occurred as a matter of law, and that Trump engaged in it as a matter of fact, I don't see how this would pass DP muster.
If non-operative language in political legislation is sufficient to form the basis for invoking the 14th Amendment, we are opening an enormously dangerous can of worms.
This post was edited on 9/6/23 at 11:29 am
Posted on 9/6/23 at 11:24 am to Indefatigable
That and I can't imagine Secretaries of State will engage in a legal battle that will certainly become a constitutional crisis simply because Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney gave them the wink and nod, or because some capitol police got the same award given to musicians, artists, and philanthropists. The courts don't adjudicate or attest to the justifications of Congressional medals. Without clear legislation, conviction of relevant crimes, or relevant case law, a decision to apply clause 3 to Trump would be purely political and unconstitutional.
Clause 3 was a response to war. The left ensures us there is no war going on right now, and as far as I know there have been no declarations to that effect by America or the alleged "rebel", so the connection is essentially all emotion.
Clause 3 was a response to war. The left ensures us there is no war going on right now, and as far as I know there have been no declarations to that effect by America or the alleged "rebel", so the connection is essentially all emotion.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 12:02 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
we are going to go off of non-adversarial legislative actions or Congressional intent.... my counter would be that Congress had the perfect opportunity to ban Trump from holding office again (during the second impeachment trial), and chose not to do so.
I agree, and thats why I really wanted the impeachment to go through, just so Trump would be barred from holding office again. But McConnell decided impeachment was not appropriate after a President leaves office.
As far as due process - and I am very much a proponent of that - we are discussing a Constitutional Amendment. As such, it supersedes any prior restrictions of due process, ex post facto laws, or bills of attainder. It is not even subject to any Free Speech arguments.
Now, the SCOTUS could decide that due process is inherent in interpreting section 3, but that would require them to stray from being strict constructionists. Of course, I always say strict constructionists are fine until they have to deal with language they don't agree with.
I also think there will ultimately be due process. I don't think a SoS will unilaterally decide to leave Trump off the ballot and that's the end of the story.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 12:14 pm to Dday63
quote:
Now, the SCOTUS could decide that due process is inherent in interpreting section 3, but that would require them to stray from being strict constructionists. Of course, I always say strict constructionists are fine until they have to deal with language they don't agree with.
Lay out a strict constructionist view that leads to Trump being disallowed from office. The disagreement here isn't on strict text lines. The text is plainly vague. The few examples of legislation relating to the clause is also plainly vague. Case law on the topic contradicts itself, and the only successful use beyond the non-exempt confederates was with a guy who was convicted of treason and barred from serving office in Wisconsin in 1919 and 1920. And even he was later elected and allowed to hold office once his conviction was overturned. So in the one true example, the courts made it clear that conviction for treason was the only leg the government had to stand on in its use of article 14 clause 3.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 12:17 pm to Dday63
quote:
As such, it supersedes any prior restrictions of due process, ex post facto laws, or bills of attainder. It is not even subject to any Free Speech arguments.
Is it not inherent that actual determination an insurrection occurred as a matter of law, or that the person involved actually engaged is required?
No one should be comfortable with or support that line of thinking.
quote:
Now, the SCOTUS could decide that due process is inherent in interpreting section 3, but that would require them to stray from being strict constructionists.
No, it really would not. The line of thinking you are going down here is absurdly dangerous precedent.
You're presumably an attorney. No matter how much you loathe Donald Trump, you should not be comfortable with any US person being deprived of constitutional privileges by legislative or executive fiat.
quote:
we are discussing a Constitutional Amendment. As such, it supersedes any prior restrictions of due process, ex post facto laws, or bills of attainder. It is not even subject to any Free Speech arguments
Surely Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is subject to, at the very least, the rest of the 14th Amendment?
This post was edited on 9/6/23 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 9/6/23 at 1:46 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Is it not inherent that actual determination an insurrection occurred as a matter of law, or that the person involved actually engaged is required?
Sure, but who is to make that determination? A SoS has taken an oath to uphold the US Constitution. The Constitution says no one who engaged in insurrection while an officer of the United States shall hold any national or state office. Does the SoS not have his own power - even the responsibility - to enforce this clause?
The clause is intentionally broad and vague, just like the criminal insurrection act.
Eventually, any action under the clause will work it's way to the Supreme Court. I don't see why this initiating with a unilateral SoS decision is so appalling.
quote:
No matter how much you loathe Donald Trump, you should not be comfortable with any US person being deprived of constitutional privileges by legislative or executive fiat.
Okay, I don't "loathe" Trump, although I'm still mad at him for destroying the USFL.
I do, however, believe he proved himself unfit for office based on everything he did after the 2020 election. Folks here disagree with me, and no need to debate that in this thread.
But I AM comfortable with any elected official enforcing the US Constitution, whether that disadvantages one person or not.
This post was edited on 9/6/23 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 9/6/23 at 2:19 pm to RaoulDuke504
quote:
they aren't even going to care if he actually broke a law.
wrong.
they really do not accept the attempted insurrection and his continuous lies about everything as appropriate.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 2:20 pm to RaoulDuke504
Yep. As usual, trying to change the language.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 2:25 pm to CelticDog
quote:
they really do not accept the attempted insurrection
Since it wasn't a legitimate attempt to overthrow the United States government, it doesn't meet any definition of "insurrection," but by all means, keep chanting your lines. Rachel Maddow would be so proud of you.
What happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 was a protest which turned violent when outside agitators were inserted into the group. Some were Ukrainian military operatives. It has been proven.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 2:28 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
It has been proven.
Vox, you know by now that all the evidence in the world doesn’t mean jack shite to these idiots. They rely on the media to tell them what to say and think.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 2:32 pm to shoelessjoe
Indeed. I couldn't care less if they ever make a public acknowledgment that they were carrying the propaganda water. I want them faced with the reality that they gleefully parroted the complicit MSM talking points, even when we've been telling them the entire time that they've been lied to. Once their eyes are open, I hope it eats at their existence at night, like an ulcer.
No Told You Sos needed.
No Told You Sos needed.
Posted on 9/6/23 at 2:41 pm to VoxDawg
quote:by Laura frickin' Loomer!
It has been proven.
Page 8 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News