-
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
- Thread starter Viker
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
We know, but we keep on trying.
It is not my claim -- but a Rule of Law Principle .. and principle of Justice .. We don't punish people prior to being found guilty of a crime .. If you do not understand "Innocent until Proven Guilty" -- I can not help you further.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is in reality done quite often. People are fined by the government quite often with a trial. The city can fine a homeowner for various violations. Speeding on the highway and other traffic violations end up in fines without a trial. Now the person that is fined often has the option of taking it to court, but it is not automatic, one has to often even pay ahead to have a trial with the money returned if they win. And even then they sometimes have to pay to even file a suit and that is not returned.
Also those trials very rarely have juries. They are judge only trials.
In Colorado's case it was brought up in a trial to start with. And those bringing up lost. They appealed and won. That is two trials in Colorado. In Maine he was removed by a voting official, but he automatically put it on hold for a trial. How are they not following due process?
Which law?
We don't impose criminal punishments without a criminal trial, but there are all sorts of ways that we impose other punishments without a criminal trial.
The Rule of Law is not a Law .. it is a principle of Justice .. in this case "Innocent until proven Guilty" ... and sorry .. we do not impose punishment for anything without the person being found guilty .. since the action in question is a criminal action.. the trial is a criminal trial. This is not a parking ticket Friend .. This is attempting to take over the entire Gov't.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
It is NOT a criminal trial. It is a question of qualification. There are no criminal charges filed by ANYONE in this case. Trump is not subject to ANY criminal penalties in the disqualification question (no jail, no fines, no felony or misdemeanor charges have been filed against him in this case.)
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
| Name | Took oath in what public position? | "Engaged" in insurrection how? | Public position when disqualified | Mechanism of disqualification | Deciding body | Court Review | Convicted of a crime? | Year | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kenneth H. Worthy | County Sheriff | Held local office in a Confederate state. Worthy was not accused of engaging in violence. | County Sherriff | Mandamus action by Worthy to challenge his disqualification by county commissioners under state law implementing Section 3. | North Carolina Supreme Court | Yes. Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N.C. 199 (1869), appeal dismissed, 76 U.S. 611 (1869) | No | 1869 | “The oath to support the Constitution is the test. The idea being that one who had taken an oath to support the Constitution and violated it, ought to be excluded from taking it again, until relieved by Congress.” |
| William L. Tate | County Attorney | Served as an officer in the Confederate Army | State Solicitor | Mandamus action by Tate challenging his Section 3 disqualification by state judge. | North Carolina Supreme Court | Yes. In re Tate, 63 N.C. 308, 309 (1869) | No | 1869 | |
| J.D. Watkins | District Attorney | “Engaged in the late rebellion” (unclear precisely what Watkins did) | State Judge | Quo warranto action filed against Watkins under state law and Section 3. | Louisiana Supreme Court | Yes. Louisiana ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631 (La. 1869). | No | 1869 | Court confirmed state courts can enforce Section 3 and that Section 3 is not a criminal punishment but a qualification for office. |
Read the last example. This is the case law that you have been using an ostrich defense against:
The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
www.citizensforethics.org
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
in your make believe world.
You have yet to show any civil court citing a criminal charge as applicable before the defendant , facing a criminal charge even went to trial in a criminal court and is convicted and sentenced of said criminal charge.
Civil cases come after a criminal charge and sentencing has been levied. Who ever heard of a civil case proceeding a criminal trial and on top of it , with somebody that hasn't even been convicted of said criminal offense to boot even? That is absolutely bat**** nuts.
in this case , how in the hell is Insurrection which is definitely a criminal offense is applied towards a civil case , given that's the exact reason givin as to why Trump was kicked off the ballot before he was even convicted and sentenced in criminal court?
Is the criminal felony of Insurrection somehow magically now a civil charge in your strange world given a civil court was utilized? And just how do you convict somebody just being accused of a criminal charge fits in with in a civil court before that criminal charge is even processed and formally declared ?
Do you even have the foggiest idea of what innocent before guilty means?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Wow just wow! The felony charge of Insurrection now equivalent to a traffic ticket!
Traffic tickets are now felonies as well that can go into the Civil Court with no jury and just the judge? I never knew that.
IOW, not an actual law, but a vague but mistaken idea of how you think the law will work.
I take it that you aren't a member of a licensed profession.
"Friend"? You presume too much.
No, it was Trump who did that in 2021. This is why he lost his eligibility for federal office.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I never said that. It appears that you simply cannot argue about this rationally.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's okay because it appears that you can't explain it rationally
Murder is also a criminal offense. But you can sue the person in civil court for wrongful death before the criminal trial begins, and you can still sue them for wrongful death even if he person is aquited in criminal court. The one is not necessary for the other.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Sure he can, and that is what he and others have been doing here. What they are incapable of doing is making you understand the explanation. Rather than refute the argument, you just ignore it and repeat your position as if it had never been refuted.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, now you are blaming others for your flaws. I cannot convince the willfully ignorant.
The Charge is Insurrection .. a criminal Charge .. certainly there have been many who have found Jail on the basis of this charge. The claim that level of crime is not needed to boost someone from office has yet to be determined via due process - legitimate process. The bar arbitrarily chosen.
And regardless .. The Charge must be proven .. and it has not been .. no due process .. no jury .. no time .. arbitrary definition of the meaning of insurrection.. another arbitraty bar which is supposed to go through due process to be set .. . Violation of the Rule of Law .. and Rules of Justice .. down Kangaroo ally.
Wonder where the kettle learned that
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Don't get mad just because you are wrong. Perhaps if you stopped using the ostrich defense? Just a suggestion.Wonder where the kettle learned that
So we have some ad hom fallacy coupled with personal invective - closing with repetition of vague nonsensical premise - assumed premise fallacy.
Yes Friend .. we know that you think trump did something that qualifed him for losing the right to run for political office .. and that you can't clarify quite what it is he did .. which is perhaps not your fault because the Colorado Kangaroo court Justice can not figure it out either .. and God forbid we allow a Jury near this one .. not the Peoples court here .. but a private affair .. like we have for Terrorists .. The GITMO Justice treatment.
Lack of Due process not how the law supposed to work.. cept in Penguin land I suppose .. the batman variety.