• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

Callisto

Callisto

Hellenismos, BTW
SkepticThinker said:
Thanks for the clarification.

Wasn't this originally written so confederate traitors could be barred from from running for public office?

Just curious.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was established to bar insurrectionists regardless of what they call themselves from holding office or from holding office again. The only other former president it's been used for was the Confederate President Jefferson Davis. The 14th Amendment is the only thing that kept him and other rebels from being executed. While many rebels were pardoned, Davis remained disqualified from ever holding office again until his death. May the same be said here. The view, applicable today, was "cut off the head" which caused the rebellion to fall apart, allowing those states' citizens to move on and rejoin the Union.
 
Tinkerpeach

Tinkerpeach

Active Member
Well I doubt they will even take the case but more importantly the 14th doesn’t apply until Trump has been found guilty of participating in an insurrection.

You can’t keep him off the ballot just based on an accusation
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Tinkerpeach said:
Well I doubt they will even take the case but more importantly the 14th doesn’t apply until Trump has been found guilty of participating in an insurrection.

You can’t keep him off the ballot just based on an accusation
Click to expand...
That is not true. The 14th amendment does not rely upon being found guilty. Now a judge would need to take into consideration the evidence for his guilt before deciding whether the amendment applies or not, but there is nothing written or implied in it that one has to be found guilty first.

And that is why Trump is worried. Justice can be undone by one dishonest juror.. But judges tend to be more honest. They will more often follow the rule of law.

And the Supreme Court will likely be forced into hearing the case since some states will decide to keep Trump off the ballot based upon that amendment.
 
Tinkerpeach

Tinkerpeach

Active Member
Subduction Zone said:
That is not true. The 14th amendment does not rely upon being found guilty. Now a judge would need to take into consideration the evidence for his guilt before deciding whether the amendment applies or not, but there is nothing written or implied in it that one has to be found guilty first.

And that is why Trump is worried. Justice can be undone by one dishonest juror.. But judges tend to be more honest. They will more often follow the rule of law.

And the Supreme Court will likely be forced into hearing the case since some states will decide to keep Trump off the ballot based upon that amendment.
Click to expand...
Completely wrong. Read the amendment, a person must have participated in an insurrection and it hasn’t been shown that Trump did, that is why he is going to trial.

Now suppose states keep him off the ballot and a jury decides he had no part in the insurrection, are you going to hold the vote again or just say oh well?
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Tinkerpeach said:
Completely wrong. Read the amendment, a person must have participated in an insurrection and it hasn’t been shown that Trump did, that is why he is going to trial.
Click to expand...
If the judge rules he is not eligible due to his participation on Jan 6, then it will be shown.

Even more interesting is how it will effect the trial in Georgia...
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Tinkerpeach said:
Of course you would but thankfully the law doesn’t
Click to expand...
Actually, you are flat out wrong about that.
If the determination is not made in time for him to make the ballot, then he loses his chance to be on the ballot.

So yeah, saying "oh well" is pretty much the long and short of it then...
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Tinkerpeach said:
Completely wrong. Read the amendment, a person must have participated in an insurrection and it hasn’t been shown that Trump did, that is why he is going to trial.
Click to expand...
This is a little bit complicated most people don't understand.

Yes, it will have to be determined that he was participated in an insurrection, but that does not mean it has to be a criminal trial. Just like impeachment is not a criminal trial, the determination of eligibility is also not a criminal matter. The question will be determined in the matter specified by the individual State Constitutions.

Forget the idea of a criminal conviction, that is not relevant in this situation.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Tinkerpeach said:
Completely wrong. Read the amendment, a person must have participated in an insurrection and it hasn’t been shown that Trump did, that is why he is going to trial.

Now suppose states keep him off the ballot and a jury decides he had no part in the insurrection, are you going to hold the vote again or just say oh well?
Click to expand...
How does that make me wrong? Do you think that a judge needs a trial to know whether someone participated in an insurrection or not? Judges are not idiots, and they have quite a bit of power. Here is the entirety of section 3, where does it say or even imply that a person has to have been convicted?

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, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

And you forgot what juries do. They can only decide if they think that enough evidence was presented to find someone guilty. Their verdicts are never "Guilty or innocent". They are "Guilty or not guilty" and "not guilty" only means that the government did not make its case in their opinion.

So even if the most unlikely event possible happened. That a jury voted 12-0 not guilty that is still not finding the person innocent. That is not the standard that the defense has to meet. All they can ever say at the most, if they do not agree with the guilty verdict, is that not enough evidence has been presented to find the person guilty. In reality a judge would probably heed such a sentence. But there is no legal requirement that he do so. Also in reality there is no way that a jury would find that against Trump. He might get a hung jury where it was 11-1 or 10-2 for conviction. No sane jury in the world would find him not guilty 0-12.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
metis said:
He left on because the Secret Service refused to take him to the Capitol.
Click to expand...
Correct. He actually lied in his speech of course. Big surprise. He told his followers that he would march with them to the Capitol building. Instead he tried to get a ride. I guess the old bone splints were acting up again:rolleyes:

You have no idea of the pain that I just went through. I scanned Trump's entire January 6 rant. He had to have the worlds record of lies in that rant. But as I said the told his followers that he would be with them in their attempted insurrection:

"
So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.

The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Tinkerpeach said:
See I he didn’t participate meaning you can’t keep him off the ballot.

This **** is so obvious it boggles the mind why democrats would waste the courts time
Click to expand...
I am not keeping anyone off the ballot, I don't even live in your country.

But I do know that in the U.S. the States run the election, and they will make that decision based on the laws of the State.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top