Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

[Twilight Hue]

It was about Trump's eligibility to run for President. Try to keep up.

Sometimes, people's criminal conduct will have other implications: sometimes it's civil liability; sometimes it's revocation of a professional license; sometimes it's ineligibility to run for office, etc., etc.

These processes can all run in parallel. There's no rule that says that everything else has to wait until the criminal trial has wrapped up.

That's bull**** banana republic stuff and clearly the leftest out of control authoritarians needs to be put back into the putrid hole they crawled out from.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It was about Trump's eligibility to run for President. Try to keep up.

Sometimes, people's criminal conduct will have other implications: sometimes it's civil liability; sometimes it's revocation of a professional license; sometimes it's ineligibility to run for office, etc., etc.

These processes can all run in parallel. There's no rule that says that everything else has to wait until the criminal trial has wrapped up.

That's bull**** banana republic stuff.

Clearly the leftest out of control authoritarians needs to be put back in the putrid hole they crawled out from.

I look forward to the appeal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's bull**** banana republic stuff.

Clearly the leftest out of control authoritarians needs to be put back in the putrid hole they crawled out from.

I look forward to the appeal.

Do you feel the same way when, say, a doctor who assaults patients loses their license before they have their criminal trial?

Edit: the 14th Amendment could have easily been written so that a criminal conviction for insurrection was what caused someone to be ineligible for office. Why do you think they didn't write it that way?

Edit 2: what Trump pulled on January 6th was the bull**** banana republic stuff. What's happening now is the "**** around and find out" stuff.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you feel the same way when, say, a doctor who assaults patients loses their license before they have their criminal trial?

Usually it's not a loss but a suspension until a proper trial takes place for malpractice.

I think you're making an apples versus oranges comparison.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you're making an apples versus oranges comparison.

... because you agree with Trump.

 

[F1fan]

In my opinion, there is no doubt about what O.J. Simpson had done, but popular opinion, no matter how overwhelming, is not the standard.

You mean all those rushing yards and an amazing acting career? I know. Some think his acting was mediocre. Too bad he’s a murderer.

Seriously I think there’s more room to doubt OJ as murderer than Trump as a conspirator to overthrow the government, or the democratic system that did not go his way. His actions were in essence a coup, and how that is not obviously criminal is beyond me. There’s no question that he is disqualified.

 

[F1fan]

The district court ruled that the 14th amendment, Section 3 does not apply to presidents. The colorado supreme court overruled them and said that it does.

This is why the 14th amendment does not apply to presidents. If you read it it lists electors, people that have taken an oath of congress, officer of the US or member of state legislature, executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the US. It does not list the president or vice president in that list. So why would it apply to them? Here is the text:

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.

Show me where this applies to presidents.

Presidents take an oath of office, that’s the office of president. Why would this provision apply to representatives who can hold an office for decades but not a president limited to two terms?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A conviction is not needed to remove a political opponent who is only accused?

Yes, since this is no a criminal punishment. There is no prison needed, but you are not being quite proper in your response. Those that argued to take Trump off of the ballot had to prove in court that he was "guilty' of leading an insurrection. And the lower court admitted that those bringing the case had done that. I can link the decision of the first case where the judge ruled that to be the case.

What you describe is a banana republic perfectly.

No, not at all. Once again, the people bringing the charges had to prove the case. Second, everyone knew that regardless of the judges decision that this was going to a higher court. And then a higher one yet. Exaggeration of this sort hurts your case. No judge yet even began to believe that they were the final arbiter.

Arnold wasn't born in the US.

True, but he did not incite and insurrection either. That puts them on an equal level.

BTW I already know about the interpretation of section 3 from the 14th amendment that is used to justify getting rid of one's political competition.

Okay, then why are you complaining?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Presidents take an oath of office, that’s the office of president. Why would this provision apply to representatives who can hold an office for decades but not a president limited to two terms?

Trump had his fingers crossed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah this leaves open to the fact that all someone has to do now is simply accuse somebody of something and then he or she is off the ballot.

Wow! Really? You know that little about this? Once again no. Those arguing to take him off had to prove to the judge that he incited an insurrection. And they did.

 

[Viker]

The district court ruled that the 14th amendment, Section 3 does not apply to presidents. The colorado supreme court overruled them and said that it does.

This is why the 14th amendment does not apply to presidents. If you read it it lists electors, people that have taken an oath of congress, officer of the US or member of state legislature, executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the US. It does not list the president or vice president in that list. So why would it apply to them? Here is the text:

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.

Show me where this applies to presidents.

"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,"

 

[Twilight Hue]

Wow! Really? You know that little about this? Once again no. Those arguing to take him off had to prove to the judge that he incited an insurrection. And they did.

And you know so little about the fact you can't hold a trial twice for the same crime. Especially since the real insurrection trial is slated for this coming March in the People's Republic of New York.

Of course, there is always exceptions and workarounds involving the marxist minded left wing where the nation's double jeopardy laws intended for protecting the defendant from repeat prosecution simply don't apply out of sheer convince, interpretation of law and complete disregard as it applies to double jeopardy.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.




It applies to anyone who holds any office civil or military.

No, read it again. There si a qualifier:

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.

No where does this say President of the US. Again it lists the positions who have taken an oath to support the constitution. I does not list the President.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Presidents take an oath of office, that’s the office of president. Why would this provision apply to representatives who can hold an office for decades but not a president limited to two terms?

No, read it again. There is a qualifier:

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.

No where does this say President of the US. Again it lists the positions who have taken an oath to support the constitution. I does not list the President.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

"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,"

No, read it again. There si a qualifier:

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.

No where does this say President of the US. Again it lists the positions who have taken an oath to support the constitution. I does not list the President.

 

[fantome profane]

No, read it again. There si a qualifier:

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.

No where does this say President of the US. Again it lists the positions who have taken an oath to support the constitution. I does not list the President.

I am not going to debate you here in this sub-forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you know so little about the fact you can't hold a trial twice for the same crime. Especially since the real insurrection trial is slated for this coming March in the People's Republic of New York.

You cannot criminally prosecute someone twice for the same crime. This is not a criminal prosecution. That does not apply.

Of course, there is always exceptions and workarounds involving the marxist minded left wing where the nation's double jeopardy laws intended for protecting the defendant from repeat prosecution simply don't apply out of sheer convince, interpretation of law and complete disregard as it applies to double jeopardy.

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong by name calling again. This is rather straight forward Constitutional law. I gave examples. The reason that there are not that many is two fold. One, especially right after the war, those in the South were a bit depressed by the loss and not very many people even tried to run for office that had been involved in the war. Second, after about four years a general amnesty was passed which allowed them to run for office again legally. And I do believe that there is even a provision for that in the 14th Amendment that allows for that. Do you need a quote?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, read it again. There si a qualifier:

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.

No where does this say President of the US. Again it lists the positions who have taken an oath to support the constitution. I does not list the President.

And that was what the first judge based her decision upon. It may be valid, it may not be. I am not a lawyer. We will see how this works out at the USSC. Personally I believe that the interpretation of the Colorado Supreme Court was correct. I know that the first judge had no thoughts that she was the final arbiter. I was not crying and yelling when she ruled for Trump. I know that the Colorado Supreme Court knows that they are not the final world when they ruled against Trump so sadly no Dancing in the Street. The USSC will be those that make the final decision. And since they are rather corrupt in their support of right wing causes instead of following the Constitution lately you should not get your panties in too much of a knot. The odds for Trump are pretty good.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You cannot criminally prosecute someone twice for the same crime. This is not a criminal prosecution. That does not apply.

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong by name calling again. This is rather straight forward Constitutional law. I gave examples. The reason that there are not that many is two fold. One, especially right after the war, those in the South were a bit depressed by the loss and not very many people even tried to run for office that had been involved in the war. Second, after about four years a general amnesty was passed which allowed them to run for office again legally. And I do believe that there is even a provision for that in the 14th Amendment that allows for that. Do you need a quote?

You're the one who said this was over the Insurrection. Now your deflecting as everyone knows you habitually do.

You tell me what it was about then if it wasn't that , even though you still mentioned insurrection in your very postings.

Here with this exchange in post #73...

Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

It was about Trump's eligibility to run for President. Try to keep up. Sometimes, people's criminal conduct will have other implications: sometimes it's civil liability; sometimes it's revocation of a professional license; sometimes it's ineligibility to run for office, etc., etc. These...

www.religiousforums.com

Make up your mind what this is actually over.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I am not going to debate you here in this sub-forum.

Ok