Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
What does MSM have to do with the court of law? We are talking about actual laws here
-
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!
The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
What does MSM have to do with the court of law? We are talking about actual laws here
Flimsier response.
Laniakea
Not of this world
Are we?
What is the legal definition of "insurrection"? AND why hasn't Trump ever been prosecuted and tried for it?
It seems to be nothing more than a talking point for liberals to throw around without any real meaning.
Laniakea
Not of this world
The shoe fit.
The foo.....
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What makes you think that they are?
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
I don't care about the political stuff more than I care about the fact that he has been indicted on 91 felony charges. Like I said, we are talking about rule of law. He should not be above being held accountable for the consequences of his actions
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That might be a legal way to do it. That would make things difficult because I do not think that it would make an automatic win for Biden. If the Trump votes were not allowed they would probably have to go back to the states where they came from and they would have to come up with an alternative.
"Justices gave the power instead to Congress, saying lawmakers have the power to enforce section three under section five of the 14th Amendment, which gives lawmakers power to enact “appropriate” legislation to enforce other parts of the amendment."
"The justices did put some limits on what steps Congress can take, ruling any legislation to enforce section three must show restraint in “preventing or remedying” the issue of insurrectionists holding office and be “tailor[ed]” to the conduct at issue—which liberal justices noted in a concurrence means Congress likely wouldn’t be able to use existing federal legislation to enforce the amendment.
If Trump wins, lawmakers in Congress could try to pass legislation to enforce section three of the 14th Amendment and disqualify him from actually holding office—though passing that legislation would remain an extreme long shot in a narrowly divided House and Senate."
Can Congress Disqualify Trump? What To Know After Supreme Court Keeps Him On Ballot.
Justices kicked the issue of whether Trump can be disqualified under the 14th Amendment over to Congress—and experts warn their ruling could still sow chaos.
www.forbes.com
It would be very messy. But it would take only a few honest Republicans to get it to be passed. Are there four honest Republicans in the House?
Would you like me to respond as if you're being sincere?
That would take violating the Constitution to do. A successful challenge to Trump's eligibility on Jan. 6 would render all EC votes for him invalid. The winner would be chosen based on the remaining valid votes.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I don't know. But the problem is that the winning number of electoral votes is set on the total number of electoral votes available. Not on the total number after disqualified votes are rejected. If I recall correctly. That might meant that it would go to Congress for the members to choose a President.
It would be such a mess.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Have a great day.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
okWhy should you be allowed to stay?
The reality is that there is a humanitarian crisis that, imo, needs to be addressed with both thinking and compassion. Do we just turn our backs on people suffering?
OTOH, we need a sane and orderly set of solutions, but Trump and the Trumpettes don't want that as we've seen.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, a booming economy and a record highs on Wall Street. And also lower inflation than other countries that also had to contend with the Pandemic. It is just awful.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I doubt it. In the recent polls the Trumpettes have always polled much higher than the votes that they received. You did not understand how the election in New York to pick a successor for Santos could be a harbinger of things to come. Trump leading in the polls. Perhaps married Republican women do not want their husbands to know how they voted? Just a speculation. But we know that abortion could very likely be the issue that sinks Trump.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Sure, but that is not a compromise I or other republicans want to make.
Each republican is different. I have given my reasons why I don't think it is a good bill. Why do you not support Biden reestablishing Trump's executive orders that Trump had in place that Biden reversed. The border was in a better situation when he was president.
Then why did not the dems vote for this bill?
They could have compromised in 2023 and had a border bill but none of them voted for it. Why do you insiste republicans compromise but not democrats?
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Because it is a fact some illegal migrants have committed crimes. Do you really need me to substantiate that?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So far I have found two major flaws in it:
(Sec. 103) This section imposes additional requirements on DHS related to the construction of barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. For example, the bill requires DHS to construct a border wall (including related infrastructure and technology) along at least 900 miles of that border, whereas currently DHS is required to have at least 700 miles of reinforced fencing along that border.
This section also requires DHS to waive all legal requirements necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of the border barriers, whereas currently DHS is authorized to waive such requirements.
And
(Sec. 115) This section prohibits DHS from (1) processing the entry of non-U.S. nationals (aliens under federal law) arriving in between ports of entry; (2) providing funds to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that facilitate or encourage unlawful activity; or (3) providing funds to NGOs that provide certain services, such as lodging or immigration legal services, to inadmissible non-U.S. nationals who enter the United States.
There are probably more, but the second one alone appears to violate international law. Or perhaps I misunderstood it. What is supposed to be done with refugees? We cannot legally refuse them once they turn themselves in.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Ok, and I found flaws with the current bill.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
He's a traitor and insurrectionist. That is a fact.