After they'd failed to take over the Capitol.
-
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
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
We're talking about the National Guard, and the pecking order is as I posted: president then the vice president then the Speaker: AP fact check rates GOP claim Pelosi blocked National Guard on Jan. 6 ‘false’
You'd be surprised how actually looking things up can be helpful.
Tinkerpeach
Active Member
From your own source lol
“The decision on whether to call National Guard troops to the Capitol is made by what is known as the Capitol Police Board, which is made up of the House sergeant at arms, the Senate sergeant at arms and the architect of the Capitol. The board decided not to call the Guard ahead of Jan. 6 but did eventually request assistance after the rioting had already begun, and the troops arrived several hours later, according to the Associated Press.”
The president cannot simply send the guard wherever he wants, they are not his personal police force.
They need to be requested first and although Trump said he was willing to send them three days in advance his offer was refused by Pelosi. The mayor of DC sent a formal letter to Trump explaining just this which will be entered as evidence at his trial.
They listened to him lie about there being election fraud. The protest was buikt on deception and lies by Trump. He is ultimately accountable for all the events including the violence.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Nice cherry-picking while ignoring the reality, which is this:
“As Speaker of the House, Pelosi does not direct the National Guard,” the AP reported in its fact check. “Further, as the Capitol came under attack, she and the Senate Majority leader called for military assistance, including the National Guard.”
As a House panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection questioned four members of law enforcement who responded to the attack on Tuesday, several members of the House GOP during media interviews attempted to pin the violence that broke out on Pelosi, saying the Capitol Complex was not properly secured.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Did you miss this part in the amendment? "...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
There is also this. A person does not have to committed acts of violence to have 'engaged in insurrection.
The precedent likewise confirms that one can “engage” in insurrection without personally committing violent acts. Neither Kenneth Worthy nor Couy Griffin were accused of engaging in violence, yet both were ruled to be disqualified because they knowingly and voluntarily aided violent insurrections. These rulings are consistent with the views of Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who opined in 1867 that when a person has “incited others to engage in [insurrection or] rebellion, he must come under the disqualification.” President Andrew Johnson and his Cabinet approved that interpretation, and Johnson directed officers commanding the Southern military districts to follow it.
The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
www.citizensforethics.org
Did you miss this part in the amendment? "...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
There is also this. A person does not have to committed acts of violence to have 'engaged in insurrection.
The precedent likewise confirms that one can “engage” in insurrection without personally committing violent acts. Neither Kenneth Worthy nor Couy Griffin were accused of engaging in violence, yet both were ruled to be disqualified because they knowingly and voluntarily aided violent insurrections. These rulings are consistent with the views of Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who opined in 1867 that when a person has “incited others to engage in [insurrection or] rebellion, he must come under the disqualification.” President Andrew Johnson and his Cabinet approved that interpretation, and Johnson directed officers commanding the Southern military districts to follow it.The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
The amendment is a joke --- being accused of Insurrection .. or "giving aid and comfort the the Enemy" ( who is the enemy ? there is none and there was no insurrection ) should not disbar one from seeking the will of the people. Insurrection is required to overturn illegitimate authority .. getting elected is a form of insurrection .. a legitimate form. How then is wanting an insurrection grounds for banning someone from legal insurrection via the will of the people .. removal of the old Gov't.
This is a kangaroo 3rd world clown show attempt to take away the will of the poeple .. to forsake the will of the people by kangaroo court.
The Colorado case has finished and the judge will likely return the judgment some time next week. If it is judged a valid complaint and Trump is removed, then it is expected (like 100%) that Trump will apeal. If the appeals court upholds the judgment, then Trump will surely apveal to the Supreme Court, and that is where the sausage will be made. It will likely be a fast ruling since primaries are coming soon, and ballots for 2-024 need to be designed and printed.
Minnesota is also hearing a removal case. If these removals are upheld the question is will the ruling apply to all states. States have pretty broad authority over their elections. But how the SC rules for the election in a few states shold apply to all 50 states since the question is a USA constitution issue. I am guessing this issue will be resolved by March, before Trump's first criminal trial.
If Trump is removed from the ballot will we see Trump supporters become violent? At some point even Trump supporters will get tired of the drama, and want to move on. By guess is they will need a replacement "God" to follow, and who will that be?
Minnesota is also hearing a removal case. If these removals are upheld the question is will the ruling apply to all states. States have pretty broad authority over their elections. But how the SC rules for the election in a few states shold apply to all 50 states since the question is a USA constitution issue. I am guessing this issue will be resolved by March, before Trump's first criminal trial.
If Trump is removed from the ballot will we see Trump supporters become violent? At some point even Trump supporters will get tired of the drama, and want to move on. By guess is they will need a replacement "God" to follow, and who will that be?
Only according to the far right who see the Constitution as an obstacle to their corrupt candidate's wish for power. Why not pick an ethical option?
Oh, I guess you've never heard or seen the Jan 6 riots where about 1000 Trump supporters broke in to the Capitol to disrupt the Congress counting EC votes. How many are in prison? They aren't considered enemies to the USA, in your belief? Then what are they, patriots? Who bought Trump's lies, which was his part in this massive crime?
The will of the people is irrelevant if a candidate violated the Constitution. That's the law. It's more indication that the far right doesn't care about the law or the Constitution.
OK, cite the legal precedent that backs up your claim.
This is the reaction from the far right who doesn't want to honor the Supreme court, or any court. That would cast you as an enemy of the state.
McBell
Unbound
You do know that Trump LOST the popular vote twice, right?
A sad pile of rabid nonsense. Trump was not involved in the Capital Protest .. but even if he was -- Protesting againt the Gov't does not disqualify one from running for elected office .. except in a 3rd world kangaroo land.
Why are you asking me for Legal Precedent advertizing your lack of understanding ? Its up to you to provide valid legal precedent silly - you are the one wanting to make law barring someone who took part in a protest from running for Political Office .. this "Legal Precedent" that you would love to see .. makes those protesting Cop-City "Terrorists" .. and thus having their constitutional rights forfeit .. the normal due process . and the Rule of Law .. and these dissenters .. according to you and your splendid president -- not allowed to run for office .. the will of the people be damned.
Got to love this cancel culture logic -- no thought to long term consequences .. ends justify the means in the moment .. its good enough - totalitarian police state is what serves thew wishes of the Prog Blue crew .. and so consequence be damned .. in kangaroo land.
Indeed friend .. well aware out good friend Trumper lost the popular vote twice .. how does this disbarr him from running a third time though. Thats what I don't understand !
The only basis for the riot and attack on the Capitol was Trump's claims of election fraud, which he was informed by many around him was baseless. Trump continued to claim election fraud, along with many co-conspirators who have been indicted, and some have already pleaded guilty.
There never should have been a "protest" because there was nothing to dispute. The protests were based on lies, lies Trump told, and his followers believed. Some of the Jan 6 rioters have admitted they trusted Trump and were duped. It seems you are still duped, but were lucky to not have been at the Capitol and broken in, and arrested, and convicted.
Yes, protests are allowed. Even protesting a valid and secure election due to lies otherwise is allowed. Breaking laws is not allowed. Why so many dumb citizens still believe Trump after all this time is beyond me.
Your beliefs about the law are not supported by legal experts. That's your problem, and likely due to watching right wing disinformation.
Oh the irony.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why do you think that legal precedent is necessary? That is insane. With that belief any new law could never be enforced because there is no precedent. Someone has to be the first case. And Trump may be the first case for that involves this amendment. It is all but guaranteed to go to the Supreme Court. Trump has packed it with dishonest Republicans so he does have a fair chance there. If anything that might be the "kangaroo court" but their jumping decision would be for Trump not against him.
I do, but in this case, it might be a mistake. It isn't necessary to keep Trump off of any ballot, and many on the left want Trump to be the Republican nominee - not banned from running. I'm one who is hoping that the moves to prevent his name from appearing on any ballot are unsuccessful. Why? He's a proven loser. Biden, who now enjoys the advantages of being an incumbent, already beat him once when Trump was an incumbent in a landslide before the world knew the worst things about Trump, which came out during and after the 2020 election:
If you're a MAGA Republican and you think that assessment is valid or might be, you might agree with keeping his name off of ballots to make room for somebody more competitive.
Others disagree, some in very high places. Many are offended that Trump coordinated a violent assault on the Capital, which meets the definition of insurrection: "a violent uprising against an authority or government." Trump mistook himself for the government, and he'll go to prison for it as have many of his lowest level co-conspirators (soldiers and their leaders) and more to come (consiglieres).
Proud Boys Leader Sentenced to 22 Years in Prison for Seditious Conspiracy and Other Charges Related to U.S. Capitol Breach
McBell
Unbound
No idea what you mean about losing the popular vote getting him barred...Indeed friend .. well aware out good friend Trumper lost the popular vote twice .. how does this disbarr him from running a third time though. Thats what I don't understand !
I was mentioning his losing the popular vote in response to "the will of the people" comment.
"The will of the people" is to NOT have Trump as President.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
Consider an alternate scenario in which Trump wins both the electoral college and the popular vote in the 2020 presidential election.
Would you have felt and said the same thing if it had been thousands of Biden supporters storming the US Capitol to prevent Congress and the current Vice President from certifying Trump as the next President? Would you accuse these thousands of Biden's supporters of insurrection for storming the Capitol, violently attacking the police, vandalizing and destroying the Capitol building, and threatening the life of the current Vice President? And finally, would you support preventing Biden from being on the 2024 presidential ballot if he had perpetually spread lies that he had actually won the presidential election, despite being repeatedly proven wrong in 60+ lawsuits (including a SCOTUS case), and told his supporters rallied around him to "fight like hell" or they wouldn't have a country anymore before they stormed the Capitol in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying Trump as the next president?
Please answer these questions honestly, without sarcasm or rude remarks, and with no angry accusations or personal attacks against my character.
Go back and read my post.. as all your questions are answered there-in. What part of .. "Participating in a Protest should not disqualify one from running for office" - did you miss ? That goes for red or blue friend .. and kid yourself not , my arguments against Trump are way better than yours.
Did you not understand the comment on "consequence" and Precedent ? the Cop city Protesters - now "Terrorists" -- and losing constitutional protection on this basis .. no more Rule of Law .. Do not pass Go .. straight into kangarooland ?
Did you not understand that our friends in GITMO do not have the same legal rights .. rule of law no longer applies .. and that the same applies to the folks designated as Terrorists .. be it during the Capital Protest .. "Cop City" or any other protest going forward ... Red - White - Blue .. matters not .. the new Police State legislation colorblind ..
The part that describes what Trump was actually involved in, a protest his LIES created, and a protest that got way out of control due to a plan to disrupt the count by a conspiracy of anti-democracy actors. These actions included federal crimes of over 1000 of Trump's supprters, most of whom have been arrested and convicted.
There never should have been a protest because there was nothing to protest. Trump lied about election fraud and his stupid followers were duped into protesting. Those who travelled to the Jan 6 protest were gullible, and wasted time and money. Those who broke in were arrested on various crimes, some minor and some severe, and they were the dumbest of the lot.
So if your questions make misleading assertions you won't be answered.
I haven't seen you post any. What are you critical of Trump about, too much orange makeup?
Irrelevant deflections.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
I won't answer his questions for the reason you indicated.
I'm interested in seeing the posts as well.
He replied to my post just like I expected him to. I wasn't expecting a pertinent response.