- 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
0
Posted on 2/8/24 at 3:26 pm to NC_Tigah
Thank you for that link. I'm not sure their claim is historically accurate though.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 3:29 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
That this statement:
is absurd.
Hence my quote that "it seems arbitrary and capricious." I don't really know how that is in conflict with ACB quote that you think I disagree with.
Either one of us is confused or the initial post I responded to meant to say "shouldn't" be able to keep whomever they want off their ballot.
quote:
Colorado, as a sovereign state, should be able to keep whomever they want off their ballot.
is absurd.
Hence my quote that "it seems arbitrary and capricious." I don't really know how that is in conflict with ACB quote that you think I disagree with.
Either one of us is confused or the initial post I responded to meant to say "shouldn't" be able to keep whomever they want off their ballot.
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 3:35 pm
Posted on 2/8/24 at 3:42 pm to Dday63
quote:Uhmmm, okay. That is the same body which acquitted Trump? Right?
Congress passed public law 117-32
Posted on 2/8/24 at 3:51 pm to Dday63
quote:Really?
Thank you for that link. I'm not sure their claim is historically accurate though.
That's interesting.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 4:31 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Either one of us is confused or the initial post I responded to meant to say "shouldn't" be able to keep whomever they want off their ballot.
Holy frick.
You're absolutely right, it should've been "shouldn't" indeed. I agree with ACB in this case.
When looking at the whole quote:
quote:
ACB made a good point that one state should not be able to determine the eligibility for a candidate to run for national office. The problem seems to that Colorado, as a sovereign state, should be able to keep whomever they want off their ballot. Maybe it's time for actual, national elections that are regulated by the federal government when federal offices are concerned.
I think it's clear that I agree with her, and that maybe we need more federal regulation to keep things like what's happening in Colorado, and also things like what happened in Pennsylvania in 2020 where they changed the voting laws in the state without going through the proper process, from happening again.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 4:32 pm to MrLSU
quote:
Split decision with Roberts being the swing vote.
This will be unanimous
Posted on 2/8/24 at 4:33 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Holy frick. You're absolutely right, it should've been "shouldn't" indeed. I agree with ACB in this case.
Got it
I thought I was taking crazy pills.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 4:47 pm to TDTOM
quote:
You are one fricked up individual.
He’s a retarded leftist. Being a mentally damaged fricked up individual, is a feature not a bug
Posted on 2/8/24 at 4:48 pm to NC_Tigah
Clearer copy of the 1866 Congressional record
Posted on 2/8/24 at 4:52 pm to Dday63
An insurrection is what happened in Afghanistan after your retarded hero, Biden, pulled out and got innocent troops and civilians killed the process
January 6th was just some people doing some things
January 6th was just some people doing some things
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 5:24 pm
Posted on 2/8/24 at 5:01 pm to Dday63
quote:
So your position is Trump did not "engage in insurrection"? That's a fair position, but as far as I could tell it didn't even come up in oral arguments today. However the Court decides to put an end to this, I think Thomas will write a concurrence trying to reverse the CO court finding of an insurrection.
Here is the problem- just because it was not argued does not mean it is not important
And... for any of this to even get from A to B there had to be a finding of insurrection
So, how did they get that? Under what authority, etc
I think the court tries to write the shortest simplest opinion that puts this to rest maybe even saying something as simple as it is a federal question
Posted on 2/8/24 at 5:04 pm to NC_Tigah
Thanks again.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 5:04 pm to Dday63
quote:
But that doesn't address whether Trump could be found to have "engaged in insurrection" for purposes of the 14th Amendment. The whole point of Section 3 is to disqualify oath breaking insurrectionists even if they have not, or cannot, be convicted.
God, you are too stupid to be in this thread
Posted on 2/8/24 at 5:08 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Uhmmm, okay. That is the same body which acquitted Trump? Right?
Yes. 6 months after Trump was acquitted of impeachment for inciting an insurrection, Congress nearly unanimously affirmed a factual finding that the Jan. 6 rioters were a "mob of insurrectionists."
Posted on 2/8/24 at 5:13 pm to Bourre
quote:
after your retarded hero, Biden,
I have never, ever said anything positive about any member of the Biden family, and certainly never considered him a hero.
I'm really just interested in this 14th Amendment stuff as an academic exercise.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 5:36 pm to Dday63
Apparently it interested enough to understand it.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 5:49 pm to Dday63
"mob of insurrectionists."
They’re so committed.
Oh well, at least it sounds scary.
They’re so committed.
Oh well, at least it sounds scary.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 7:22 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
There is no way to conclusively prove your statement.
They entered the Capitol when it was closed to the public with the stated intention to “stop the steal”.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 7:24 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
That was the feds and antifa duh
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News