Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

[fantome profane]

To start, I think Congress should establish elements for what an “insurrection” is under the 14th.

I am sorry if I was not clear, that's my bad. I specifically do not want to know what you think should happen, I really don't care. I want to know what you think the law says should happen. I am not asking about your personal wishes or desires, I want your interpretation of the law. Do you understand my question?


Is there something in the Constitution or in any law that says that Congress needs to establish elements for what an "insurrection" is under the 14th?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’re confused because you clearly do not understand legal terms. You’ve demonstrated that time and again.

Projection. You are abusing legal terms that you do not appear to understand.

 

[Watchmen]

No, why haven't you quoted applicable passages from them. Did you read the legal precedents that I linked on this topic.

The position that it is a slam dunk is that Trump participated in an insurrection. I watched his speech. I watched what happened as a result of his lies during his speech. Yes, one time he said "protest peacefully". But multiple times he urged his followers to fight and even "fight like hell". It appears that all of the judges agreed with that too.

I missed the “legal precedent” you think you posted. Can you provide the post #?

So you think insurrection was a slam dunk. What are the elements of an “insurrection?”

 

[Watchmen]

And you were told why that was a ridiculous demand.

It’s not ridiculous. Why would it be ridiculous?

 

[Watchmen]

I am sorry if I was not clear. I specifically do not want to know what you think should happen, I really don't care. I want to know what you think the law says should happen. I am not asking about your personal wishes or desires, I want your interpretation of the law. Do you understand my question?


Is there something in the Constitution or in any law that says that Congress needs to establish elements for what an "insurrection" is under the 14th?

Have you read the dissents?

 

[Watchmen]

Projection. You are abusing legal terms that you do not appear to understand.

False. What’s your legal training and experience?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’re confused because you clearly do not understand legal terms. You’ve demonstrated that time and again.

Oh my. Making false claims about others, That is a very convincing debating technique.

 

[fantome profane]

Have you read the dissents?

Is there something in the Constitution or in any law that says that Congress needs to establish elements for what an "insurrection" is under the 14th?

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. What’s your legal training and experience?

What is yours.

 

[Watchmen]

Oh my. Making false claims about others, That is a very convincing debating technique.

It’s not false. Your posts speak for themselves and you’re getting desperate.

 

[Watchmen]

Is there something in the Constitution or in any law that says that Congress needs to establish elements for what an "insurrection" is under the 14th?

It’s explained in the dissents. Did you read them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s not ridiculous. Why would it be ridiculous?

Asked and answered. I am not repeating answers that you did not understand multiple times over.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And you used a strawman argument. Naughty, naughty.

Strawman my ***.

 

[Watchmen]

What is yours.

Law school and successful legal career. Yours?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s not false. Your posts speak for themselves and you’re getting desperate.

No, I am getting bored. I provided legal precedent for this. It shows that your claims are false. You did not read it. You showed that by citing a wrong case.

 

[Watchmen]

Asked and answered. I am not repeating answers that you did not understand multiple times over.

Nice try. You’re stuck because you never answered. lol. What a joke!

 

[fantome profane]

It’s explained in the dissents. Did you read them?

Got a link? I know I could find it, but if you have it handy I would appreciate it.

 

[Watchmen]

Got a link? I know I could find it, but if you have it handy I would appreciate it.

No. I don’t have it handy. You can Google as fast as I can.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Law school and successful legal career. Yours?

I have doubts about that. You seem to be immune to certain aspects of the law. Or, and this happens to some very competent people, your own personal bias is getting in the way of you reasoning rationally.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And while it's not binding legal precedent, we have what happened after the Civil War: hundreds of former Confederates who petitioned Congress to restore their eligibility for federal office through the process given in the 14th Amendment.

The vast majority weren't convicted in any criminal court, but they understood that their participation in a rebellion excluded them from office.

...and none got a reply from Congress to the effect of "your petition is unnecessary because you remain eligible for office unless you are convicted criminally for what you did in the war."

Yeah just call somebody Confederate and call it a day.

Then take them to Judge Judy Court.