- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: So Trump is arguing that he had no duty to support the constitution?
Posted on 10/12/23 at 8:29 am to boosiebadazz
Posted on 10/12/23 at 8:29 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
I’d pay good money to hear Trump explain his understanding of the Constitution for a full two minutes.
I'd pay good money to hear you truthfully explain why you support pedophiles, racists and warmongers.....
Do you have a Cash App?
0
Posted on 10/12/23 at 8:29 am to boosiebadazz
quote:That Alzheimer's addled pedophile, China Joe, could say the word Constitution in two minutes.
I’d pay good money to hear Trump explain his understanding of the Constitution for a full two minutes.
Obama's sorry arse claimed to be a "Constitutional Law Scholar" while obviously having never read the document.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 8:35 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
The constitutions is obsolete. Just ask a Trumpanzee. They'll tell you.
Where the frick do people like you come from?
Tard.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 8:40 am to BBONDS25
quote:
It’s a smart distinction for Trump’s attorneys to make. The basis for not including him on the ballot is his failure to “support” the Constitution…Toss it judge, that isn’t a requirement and this suit has no basis in the law. It’s strictly a procedural argument, but the useful idiots get their talking point.
Interesting argument but I think it is doomed. The word "support" should be used in the suit because that is the verbiage that is contained in Section 3. There is no basis to toss the suit for that because that is literally the word used in the Constitution.
The more interesting argument that is actually debatable is to simply argue that Section 3 does not apply to Donald Trump individually. Since Trump was never in the military nor held any elected state or federal office he never actually took an oath to "support" the Constitution. IMO it is an example of a poorly drafted oath of office the oath for the President, as far as I know, is unique in not using the word "support". The oath I took in the military has it, the VP oath has it, and the oath members of Congress take has it.
I do not necessarily think this argument would prevail but Trump may be uniquely positioned as a president to make the argument that Section 3 can not be applied to him.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 8:43 am to LakeCharles
quote:
Where the frick do people like you come from?
There's been about 10 threads over the past two weeks with several Trumpanzees proudly claiming just that, moron.
So, this low IQ site is where I get it from.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 8:46 am to BBONDS25
quote:
I’m your Huckleberry. What, specifically, are you referring to?
I'm referring to the multiple "conservatism vs populism" threads that have been posted on this site over the past two weeks in which proponents of populism clearly and blatantly stated that the constitution "isn't a suicide pact" (direct quote) and that people who need foundational principles for their government like the constitution are "autistic" (another direct quote), that politics "isn't a math problem" (a third direct quote) and when the constitution gets in the way of their agenda they are fine ignoring it, tearing it up, etc. (That last one is a paraphrase, but no less true.)
This post was edited on 10/12/23 at 8:48 am
Posted on 10/12/23 at 8:52 am to BBONDS25
quote:
We get you can reel off the talking points flawlessly. You don’t like Trump.
No, you don't get it.
I like Trump a whole lot better than I like Biden.
Who I don't like are cult members. I don't like Trumpanzees.
I don't like those of you who make it impossible to have any better choices than Trump.
See Trump > Biden, but A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE > Trump.
I don't like stupidity, particularly when it affects me.
I don't like you. That's who I don't like.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 8:53 am to Tasty Thrill
quote:
Obama's sorry arse claimed to be a "Constitutional Law Scholar" while obviously having never read the document.
Obama was an Affirmative Action Lawyer and President.
He dindu nuthin' to EARN what he has.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 8:56 am to Tandemjay
quote:
Your side
Sounds like you don’t need that side’s votes then.
Good luck.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 8:59 am to wackatimesthree
quote:You pieces of shite are the ones that actually voted for the chimp.
Trumpanzees
Posted on 10/12/23 at 9:01 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Who I don't like are cult members. I don't like Trumpanzees.
"Trumpanzees", like Trump himself, are almost always "counter-punchers".
Trump didn't start the War with you Rinos, Leftists and Media-Nazis.
He was threatened with impeachment before he took the oath.
Don't start none, won't be none....
Posted on 10/12/23 at 9:13 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
I'm referring to the multiple "conservatism vs populism" threads that have been posted on this site over the past two weeks in which proponents of populism clearly and blatantly stated that the constitution "isn't a suicide pact" (direct quote) and that people who need foundational principles for their government like the constitution are "autistic" (another direct quote), that politics "isn't a math problem" (a third direct quote) and when the constitution gets in the way of their agenda they are fine ignoring it, tearing it up, etc. (That last one is a paraphrase, but no less true.)
Can you link these direct quotes? I’d like to know the full context and how you can determine the posters (if what you say they said was said) are, in fact, “trumpanzees” as you so eloquently (one originally) put it.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 9:15 am to Obtuse1
quote:
The word "support" should be used in the suit because that is the verbiage that is contained in Section 3
Understood. However, they are citing the oath to the office of President. Trump’s defense team deserves a well-drafted pleading. Fix it, make your specific allegations, then move on.
This post was edited on 10/12/23 at 9:15 am
Posted on 10/12/23 at 9:16 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
this low IQ site is where I get it from.
There are some pretty smart people here. Most don’t use the word “trumpanzee”
Posted on 10/12/23 at 9:18 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
I don't like you. That's who I don't like.
how will I ever move on? A lowly educated simpleton that uses trite cliches like “trumpanzee” and “cult members” doesn’t like me. I’m shattered. Posted on 10/12/23 at 9:20 am to GumboPot
quote:The argument is that Trump is disqualified from holding office by the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which provides as follows in simplified form:
Why would the plaintiff in this case use the word “support” that is not in the presidential oath to disqualify him for the ballot in Colorado? Why not use the words in the oath to for a solid argument?
quote:The Presidential oath DOES NOT require "support" of the Constitution, but rather provides as follows:
No person shall ... hold any office ... who, having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion ....
quote:His lawyers are making a clever argument legally, but politically I question the wisdom of arguing that the President has no legal duty to support the Constitution.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Posted on 10/12/23 at 9:20 am to Tandemjay
quote:
Your side is no longer selecting who we can vote for.
Letting the people of Walmart choose led us to Biden
Posted on 10/12/23 at 9:22 am to captdalton
quote:Why would they do that? It would not help whatsoever them with a disqualification under the Insurrection Clause.
The filers could have easily used the term preserving, or protecting, or defending the Constitution; which are in the oath.
Posted on 10/12/23 at 9:23 am to Antoninus
quote:
but politically I question the wisdom of
STFU, Hank...
Your terminal TDS excludes you from any serious discussions regarding Trump.
You would sell your own Mother to "get" Trump, you fake azz Libertarian...
Posted on 10/12/23 at 9:24 am to SquatchDawg
quote:If it was Trump's attorney who "said" it (in a pleading), that is a judicial admission by Trump.
Using what some defense attorney says representing his client as some “window” into the soul of DJT is weak sauce.
Again, legally-correct and legally-clever. Maybe not "politically astute."
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News