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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump isn't qualified as an insurrectionist because he wasn't formally charged as one so the amendment dosent even apply. Its as simple as it gets to which that distinction will be determined in March if he's an insurrectionist or not.
He's not. It's others that are ignorant of the Constitution here.
Other than in this thread, I have not found anything anywhere that even implies that one has to be formally charged with insurrection to be be an insurrectionist.Trump isn't qualified as an insurrectionist because he wasn't formally charged as one so the amendment dosent even apply. Its as simple as it gets to which that distinction will be determined in March if he's an insurrectionist or not.
Election interference is illegal, which is why Trump will be going to prison for engaging in it along with much of his orbit of lackeys from his consiglieres down to his low information army of soldiers that stormed the Capitol.Election interference and lack of due process are both Unconstitutional.
If that's all he had done, he wouldn't have been indicted. Trump went much further and committed crimes against the Constitution and the American people, who rejected Trump and chose Joe Biden instead.This is Trump's argument for Jan 6. He felt he had to speak out against the unconstitutional tactics and deem the election unconstitutional.
I think you're conflating the 2020 election with the 2016 election, in which the Trump campaign successfully colluded with Putin to exploit social media on Trump's behalf. I know that you believe that that didn't happen, but you're wrong. Of course Putin assisted Trump covertly. There is no possibility that he didn't. I explained this to you in a post a few months ago, but you didn't respond. Remember the dog test? From that post:The team that won in 2020 used Big Government to engage in unconstitutional Social media censorship, which violated free speech to cheat the election.
I think you're conflating the 2020 election with the 2016 election, in which the Trump campaign successfully colluded with Putin to exploit social media on Trump's behalf. I know that you believe that that didn't happen, but you're wrong. Of course Putin assisted Trump covertly. T
No formal declaration required? Thats really stupid.Other than in this thread, I have not found anything anywhere that even implies that one has to be formally charged with insurrection to be be an insurrectionist.
What is your source for this bold claim?
You understand the Constitution is ambiguous and up to interpretation, right? You understand the decision will very likely be overturned, right?We need to deal with what the Constitution says, not what you think it should say.
It seems to me that when people say this ruling is unconstitutional what they really mean is they don't like it. But the reality is that this is perfectly constitutional whether you like it or not.
I’ve explained ad nauseum. Merry Christmas!Yes, the Supreme Court is likely to overturn this. But that is because they are a corrupt Republican institution right now. They have demonstrated that with various 9-3 decisions. There decisions have been politically based and not Constitutionally based.
But meanwhile you have as yet to show why they should not follow the Constitution besides you not liking it.
Yes, rather poorly. You put false demands on what it takes to be disqualified. Precedent shows that a conviction is not required.I’ve explained ad nauseum. Merry Christmas!
What is your source?No formal declaration required? Thats really stupid.
Trump isn't qualified as an insurrectionist because he wasn't formally charged as one so the amendment dosent even apply.
It is not that ambiguous, certainly not the parts that are relevant to this issue. You can't just make it say whatever you want it to say.You understand the Constitution is ambiguous and up to interpretation, right?
It might be overturned, I am not sure what will happen but I do agree there is more than a 50% chance that this Supreme Court will side with Trump. The only prediction that I will make is that if they do overturn it they will not be able provide a logical coherent reason for doing so based on the Constitution.You understand the decision will very likely be overturned, right?
What is clear according to the U.S. Constitution that it is up to the individual States to decide what constitutes an insurrection for the purposes the 14th amendment.Here’s an exercise: Name for me the elements required to prove “insurrection.”
He isn't formally charged in a criminal court of law yet. Where do you think this came from?Where are you getting this from?
I meant where are you getting this "if he hasn't been convicted of insurrection in a criminal court, the 14th Amendment doesn't apply" stuff from?He isn't formally charged in a criminal court of law yet. Where do you think this came from?
Um... you just can't just say a person's an insurrectionist outright and then conveniently kick them off the ballot on that alone.I meant where are you getting this "if he hasn't been convicted of insurrection in a criminal court, the 14th Amendment doesn't apply" stuff from?
What are the elements of an “insurrection” under the 14th?Yes, rather poorly. You put false demands on what it takes to be disqualified. Precedent shows that a conviction is not required.
Up to the states to decide what an insurrection is? Where in the world do you get that???It is not that ambiguous, certainly not the parts that are relevant to this issue. You can't just make it say whatever you want it to say.
It might be overturned, I am not sure what will happen but I do agree there is more than a 50% chance that this Supreme Court will side with Trump. The only prediction that I will make is that if they do overturn it they will not be able provide a logical coherent reason for doing so based on the Constitution.
What is clear according to the U.S. Constitution that it is up to the individual States to decide what constitutes an insurrection for the purposes the 14th amendment.
Not according to at least one conservative judge, who's opinions have been used to vindicate Trump (During his impeachments) before.Um... you just can't just say a person's an insurrectionist outright and then conveniently kick them off the ballot on that alone.