Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

[Twilight Hue]

I asked you this before and didn't get a response. I don't expect I'll be more successful this time, but here goes...

That clause prohibits depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Do you think that eligibility for the presidency is:

1. Life
2. Liberty, or
3. Property?

What the hell does that have to do with the office of presidency?

Here's the actual and official list of eligibility for president, none of what you listed is included in any way that accommodates your totally unrealated query.

Qualifications

Constitutional requirements for presidential candidates | USAGov

Learn the requirements to run for U.S. president. These include being a natural-born U.S. citizen at least 35 years old.

www.usa.gov

Disqualification

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C5-1/ALDE_00013692/

But I'll humor your ridiculous list because....

This is about the individual running for presidency as that's where due process applies. Learn the difference.

For your direct answer that you seek , it's none of the above for the office of presidency because the office president has no such requirement, and that requirement most certainly applies for the individual.

So it's number one and number two for the person seeking office, since the person doesn't own anything when taking official office so number three is obviously N/A.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The whole topic is about trump.

If it was not for the ignorant, this debate would not exist.

Due process does not mean, be stupid and allow business to put that POS back in office.

The world watched what trump did on jan 6. there is no excuse and no defense!

It is not about Trump, its about the integrity of our election system and due process for individuals, and there's plenty of defense for no other reason that if they can do it to Trump, then they can do it to anybody else they want to, and that has to be challenged because Trump has just as much access to due protection you or me has, and besides, this ridiculous and completely stupid argument is going to definitely be put the rest because additionally the precious disqualification clause that is being used here by M and Mrs lefty unbeknownst to them had an expiration date put there by those who had penned the disqualification clause. There a wrench to that hive mind plan to get rid of ones major political adversaries.

Looky looky......

What the framers said about the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause: Analysis

An analysis of what the framers meant when they created the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause.

abcnews.go.com

Snippet ....

As it originally passed the House, the 14th Amendment's third section was not nearly as broad as the version now being invoked to strike Trump's name from the ballot. It was narrowly crafted to apply only to those who willingly took part in the Civil War, and it was only meant to deprive former confederates of their right to cast ballots in federal elections. It also had an expiration date. Sec. 3. Until the 4th day of July, in the year 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and for electors for President and Vice President of the United States," the original, House-passed version read, according to congressional records of the era.

I'm thinking thats sure bound to help deflate someone's commie red ballon out there.

But, let's see how the legal experts on the Supreme Court interprets the above because it's pretty obvious that's where it's going to be headed for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Their argument seems to be more of a legal one re: what the powers of the Sec of State in California are. Apparently we have unique rules.

It does appear to vary from state to state. In Colorado it was initiated in the courts. In Maine it was started by the state top election official. Now again, contrary to the claims of "kangaroo court" by the Trumpistsas, the courts of Colorado did not think they were the last word, nor did this election official. On his own he paused it to allow the Trump supporters to appeal it in court:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics/trump-maine-14th-amendment-ballot/index.html

And though those against this try to base it on what they think is needed legally for this to happen is not supported by cases from after the Civil War when only a handful of people opposed the application of this amendment.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Their argument seems to be more of a legal one re: what the powers of the Sec of State in California are. Apparently we have unique rules.

Speaking of California, I'm absolutely floored to hear the governor say this in opposition to his peers. "We defeat candidates at the polls"...

MSN

www.msn.com

Well credit is where credit is due. Hats off to the integrity displayed at a fair and straightforward fight admist the madness and I have to admire Gavins confidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What the hell does that have to do with the office of presidency?

Absolutely nothing, but you claimed it was relevant.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Absolutely nothing, but you claimed it was relevant.

No I didn't. It seems your brains a little rusty on your assessment of my non existent claim that you made up on my behalf. I think it needs a bit of an adjustment.

There....

 

[Subduction Zone]

What the hell does that have to do with the office of presidency?

Here's the actual and official list of eligibility for president, none of what you listed is included in any way that accommodates your totally unrealated query.

Qualifications

Constitutional requirements for presidential candidates | USAGov

Learn the requirements to run for U.S. president. These include being a natural-born U.S. citizen at least 35 years old.

www.usa.gov

Disqualification

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C5-1/ALDE_00013692/

But I'll humor your ridiculous list because....

This is about the individual running for presidency as that's where due process applies. Learn the difference.

For your direct answer that you seek , it's none of the above for the office of presidency because the office president has no such requirement, and that requirement most certainly applies for the individual.

So it's number one and number two for the person seeking office, since the person doesn't own anything when taking official office so number three is obviously N/A.

You forgot part of the Constitution. You may not realize this, but Amendments to the Constitution are part of it when passed. And the 14th Amendment section 3 modifies the rules of disqualification:

"

Section 3​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Four of the judges on the Colorado Supreme Court were quite clear that Trump did engage in insurrection. And I quoted from you of a person that was denied his seat due to the 14th Amendment that was never tried or convicted and still found to not be eligible to serve.

I know, that article totally supported those that oppose you so ignoring it was your best strategy.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You forgot part of the Constitution. You may not realize this, but Amendments to the Constitution are part of it when passed. And the 14th Amendment section 3 modifies the rules of disqualification:

"

Section 3​

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Four of the judges on the Colorado Supreme Court were quite clear that Trump did engage in insurrection. And I quoted from you of a person that was denied his seat due to the 14th Amendment that was never tried or convicted and still found to not be eligible to serve.

I know, that article totally supported those that oppose you so ignoring it was your best strategy.

Not really,

It’s clearly you who are doing the actual ignoring here, including your own lack of education on it and proper research.

Particularly so in light there is also existing information on the disqualification clause that isnt even being used, of which the clause actually has an expressed expiration date to even begin with, making this whole thing a very questionable endeavor on top of a person's right to due process , also clearly listed and outlined under the same exact amendment being used to remove Trump ( or anyone else for that matter).

Sec. 3. Until the 4th day of July, in the year 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and for electors for President and Vice President of the United States,"

Of course you can lecture me on who's doing the ignoring around here. Please do proceed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No I didn't.

Yes, you did:

Still on repeat in spite of people including myself repeatedly telling you time and time again that there is a due process clause in the same Amendment you are implying isn't there.

Of course, I know ignorant denial can be a very hard pill to swallow for some people.

Care to answer my question now?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really,

It’s clearly you who are doing the actual ignoring here, including your own lack of education on it and proper research.

Particularly so in light there is also existing information on the disqualification clause that isnt even being used, of which the clause actually has an expressed expiration date to even begin with, making this whole thing a very questionable endeavor on top of a person's right to due process , also clearly listed and outlined under the same exact amendment being used to remove Trump ( or anyone else for that matter).

Sec. 3. Until the 4th day of July, in the year 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and for electors for President and Vice President of the United States,"

Of course you can lecture me on who's doing the ignoring around here. Please do proceed.

Did you think that I thought that the current version appeared out of thin air? I knew that there were prior versions. What you quoted was from an earlier version that was found to be insufficient. It was originally just about those that participated in the Civil War. That is true. But Congress rethought that and made it more general, not less. They could have specified that it did apply only to the participants in the Civil War, as you quoted. But they thought better of that because they saw the possibility of such an action occurring again.

You actually harmed your case with that quote. You did not help it. Do you understand?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Did you think that I thought that the current version appeared out of thin air? I knew that there were prior versions. What you quoted was from an earlier version that was found to be insufficient. It was originally just about those that participated in the Civil War. That is true. But Congress rethought that and made it more general, not less. They could have specified that it did apply only to the participants in the Civil War, as you quoted. But they thought better of that because they saw the possibility of such an action occurring again.

You actually harmed your case with that quote. You did not help it. Do you understand?

No because these type of convenient add-ons brings about its own legal challenges.

If Donald Trump is Convicted of Violating 18 U.S.C. § 2383, Will He Be Disqualified From Serving As President?

[This post is co-authored with Seth Barrett Tillman.] The impeachment process has now drawn to a close. It remains to...

reason.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

No because these type of convenient add-ons brings about its own legal challenges.

If Donald Trump is Convicted of Violating 18 U.S.C. § 2383, Will He Be Disqualified From Serving As President?

[This post is co-authored with Seth Barrett Tillman.] The impeachment process has now drawn to a close. It remains to...

reason.com

Try to find reliable sources that agree with you. A far right lawyer writing for a far right rag is not very convincing.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Try to find reliable sources that agree with you. A far right lawyer writing for a far right rag is not very convincing.

Only for you it is

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only for you it is

Only for any rational person Lawyers can be bought to support almost anything. So of course a right wing lawyer is going to make right wing arguments. As long as he gets his name out there he is a winner. It does not really matter if he is right or wrong. Try finding a lawyer that will be hurt if he is wrong and he will not be making such frivolous arguments.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Only for any rational person Lawyers can be bought to support almost anything. So of course a right wing lawyer is going to make right wing arguments. As long as he gets his name out there he is a winner. It does not really matter if he is right or wrong. Try finding a lawyer that will be hurt if he is wrong and he will not be making such frivolous arguments.

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court decides on the matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court decides on the matter.

And their reasoning. It has not been all that sound lately.

 

[Sargonski]

That is a vague claim. How was due process not followed? And yes, the precedents that I linked showed that this sort of "due process" was not required. I have posted it at least five times now. Go back to the posts from late yesterday and you will find the link.

Is not a vague claim .. Barr went on to give specifics as to exactly why due process was not afforded beloved Donald .. and no .. nothing you have provided comes close to addressing Barr's comments regardless of how many times you post the same link.. unless is different than the one you posted previously .. I call BS .. just like your "Vague Claim" statement is BS ..

Cite from this link where Barr's comments are addressed instead of proposing a wild goose hunt and pretending this is an argument for something. You do understand what citing from your source means right ?!

 

[Bthoth]

It is not about Trump, its about the integrity of our election system and due process for individuals,

People of integrity could not vote for trump.

and there's plenty of defense for no other reason that if they can do it to Trump, then they can do it to anybody else they want to,

OK start a precedence, crooks should never be given a chance to be president. a... He is most definitely not conservative. b... irresponsible c.... stolen governmental secrets in his possession. d.... went against UN. e...... used NDA to subdue witnesses f.... used attorneys that lost their licenses to circumvent responsibility.

And to this day, causing divide among US citizens.

Lousy leadership that does nothing good for anyone.

and that has to be challenged because Trump has just as much access to due protection you or me has, and besides, this ridiculous and completely stupid argument is going to definitely be put the rest because additionally the precious disqualification clause that is being used here by M and Mrs lefty unbeknownst to them had an expiration date put there by those who had penned the disqualification clause. There a wrench to that hive mind plan to get rid of ones major political adversaries.

Looky looky......

What the framers said about the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause: Analysis

An analysis of what the framers meant when they created the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause.

abcnews.go.com

Snippet ....

As it originally passed the House, the 14th Amendment's third section was not nearly as broad as the version now being invoked to strike Trump's name from the ballot. It was narrowly crafted to apply only to those who willingly took part in the Civil War, and it was only meant to deprive former confederates of their right to cast ballots in federal elections. It also had an expiration date. Sec. 3. Until the 4th day of July, in the year 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and for electors for President and Vice President of the United States," the original, House-passed version read, according to congressional records of the era.

OK... amend the law: Anyone that voted for trump loses their right to vote until learning personal responsibility and comprehend the difference of right and wrong to participate in civil society.

I'm thinking thats sure bound to help deflate someone's commie red ballon out there.

The commies enjoy trump style dictatorship and that idea of being infallible.

But, let's see how the legal experts on the Supreme Court interprets the above because it's pretty obvious that's where it's going to be headed for.

The same group that undid roe vs. wade? Trump appointed judges

 

[metis]

No it wouldn’t.

An amendment cannot be altered without going through an amendment process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is not a vague claim .. Barr went on to give specifics as to exactly why due process was not afforded beloved Donald .. and no .. nothing you have provided comes close to addressing Barr's comments regardless of how many times you post the same link.. unless is different than the one you posted previously .. I call BS .. just like your "Vague Claim" statement is BS ..

Cite from this link where Barr's comments are addressed instead of proposing a wild goose hunt and pretending this is an argument for something. You do understand what citing from your source means right ?!

If he was precise then why couldn't you quote him? The lack of quotes indicate that the opposite is the case.