• 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!

Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.


He's not. It's others that are ignorant of the Constitution here.
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.
 

McBell

Unbound
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.
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?
 

McBell

Unbound
411851483_750473180451063_5768886620897003585_n.jpg
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Election interference and lack of due process are both Unconstitutional.
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.
This is Trump's argument for Jan 6. He felt he had to speak out against the unconstitutional tactics and deem the election 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.
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. 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:

"You defrosted a steak on a plate which you put on the table, but forgot to put it back into the refrigerator before you left for work. Your dog is home alone, loves steak, has never been trained, and can get to the steak. Question: did the dog eat the steak? Of course it did. If it had the will and the means to get to it, there is no other possible outcome unless the dog dies of a heart attack trying to get to the steak. Just ask yourself, would Putin help the Trump campaign if he thought he could? That's a no-brainer. Would Trump and his consiglieres accept that help were it offered? Still no brain required."
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
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
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
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?
No formal declaration required? Thats really stupid.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.
You understand the Constitution is ambiguous and up to interpretation, right? You understand the decision will very likely be overturned, right?

Here’s an exercise: Name for me the elements required to prove “insurrection.”
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.
I’ve explained ad nauseum. Merry Christmas!
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
You understand the Constitution is ambiguous and up to interpretation, right?
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 decision will very likely be overturned, 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.

Here’s an exercise: Name for me the elements required to prove “insurrection.”
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.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
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?
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 think you would need a Criminal Court to decide that first.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.
Up to the states to decide what an insurrection is? Where in the world do you get that???
 

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
Um... you just can't just say a person's an insurrectionist outright and then conveniently kick them off the ballot on that alone.
Not according to at least one conservative judge, who's opinions have been used to vindicate Trump (During his impeachments) before.

 
Top