Fmr President TRUMP Says He Will Accept Being Speaker of the House on an Interim Basis.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

And how does he get that disability Sookie?

Trump's conduct triggered the disability, JinMi.

No.


That's now how removal of rights works, sorry.


You answered your own question though, even though you can not see it or choose not to see it.

Good times!

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

And how does he get that disability Sookie?

Trump's conduct triggered the disability, JinMi.

Seems this is a popular career choice among Liberals here.

All of us morons arguing over laws.


Only one of us will tell you that they are a moron though.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Mahogany
Would love to see this happen.

The Republicans would have to change the rule to allow people under indictment to serve in leadership, which would be very unpopular and possibly lose them the House in 2024, but if they want to change it I say go for it.

Unpopular with who? The vast majority understand that this is a witch hunt and these are bogus politically biased charges

Second, it would trigger the 14th amendment question immediately and would force the courts to answer that before he could serve in government again.

Nope, but there are plenty of dimwits out there who believe this silliness (that the 14th issue can apply to people who haven't been convicted.

First answer. How about the independents? How about some Republicans too. Some Republicans think this is a witch hunt, but many don't. Almost none of the independents think this or they wouldn't be independent, they would register Republican.

And there are about 25-26% Republican voters, about the same Democrats, and then almost 50% of all voters are independent. That's quite a large group, right? One might say, the independents are the ones that choose the winner, not the quarter dems or pubs.

Second answer, even though you're insulting... you're confusing different sections of the 14th Amendment. One applies to due process, which applies to criminal law, and Section 3 applies to public office eligibility. They are not to be conflated.

One may violate their oath of office and make themselves ineligible to hold office again, but they may not actually get criminally charged for that offense. They're two different things. Section 3 of the 14th is self-enforcing, the same way age eligibility is. You don't need to go to court to be convicted of being 34 to be ineligible. You just simply aren't eligible at 34. Same thing applies if you violate your oath of office or worse.

a reply to: JinMI

That's now how removal of rights works, sorry.

That's how constitutional qualifications and disabilities work.

a reply to: Mahogany

Second answer, even though you're insulting... you're confusing different sections of the 14th Amendment. One applies to due process, which applies to criminal law, and Section 3 applies to public office eligibility. They are not to be conflated.

By this logic then, section 1 of the 14th amendment can't apply anywhere else in the Constitution.

Your logic is utterly broken.

Furthermore, insurrection is an actual statute, by name and definition.

Even barring all of that, there is to this day, zero evidence that Trump "engaged in insurrection."

Even if you do think he was, and I think he was not, how would we rectify who is correct?

That would be....due process.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

That's now how removal of rights works, sorry.

That's how constitutional qualifications and disabilities work.

And the qualifications are as such:

The Qualifications Clause set forth in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requires the President to be a natural-born citizen, at least thirty-five years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years.1

And the disability requires due process for the said charge of insurrection.


I know, all these difficult words and ideas are too much for you. Thats fine, you certainly are entitled to your beliefs.


I appreciate your continued service.

a reply to: JinMI

Thats fine, you certainly are entitled to your beliefs.

I would bet they these guys don’t even believe what they are even saying anymore.

But they are so far deep into the BS they have been running, they can’t possibly change their tune now.

Their credibility really can’t get any lower.

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: JinMI

Thats fine, you certainly are entitled to your beliefs.

I would bet they these guys don’t even believe what they are even saying anymore.

But they are so far deep into the BS they have been running, they can’t possibly change their tune now.

Their credibility really can’t get any lower.

Oh I think they 100% believe it.


The problem comes when you try to get them to explain why they believe it and you get circular arguments or arguments devoid of fact.

It's why I keep saying that they are providing a valuable service. From the MSM, spewed onto ATS where we get to tear it down to factual means.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Mahogany

Second answer, even though you're insulting... you're confusing different sections of the 14th Amendment. One applies to due process, which applies to criminal law, and Section 3 applies to public office eligibility. They are not to be conflated.

By this logic then, section 1 of the 14th amendment can't apply anywhere else in the Constitution.

Your logic is utterly broken.

Furthermore, insurrection is an actual statute, by name and definition.

Even barring all of that, there is to this day, zero evidence that Trump "engaged in insurrection."

Even if you do think he was, and I think he was not, how would we rectify who is correct?

That would be....due process.

Like I already said earlier, I'm not going to reply to you in long posts any more, I feel like my time is being wasted.

Read this if you will:
DL the 126 page paper here

When you've read AND understood all of that, we'll both be able to say that we know what we're talking about.

Enjoy your night, JinMI.

a reply to: Mahogany

Yea...it's opinion.


And?

It's not a hard argument to understand and it's even easier in the face of the right to due process which is in the exact same amendment....


I find it odd that you feel that you are wasting your time responding to me when your entire post history has been wasted on falsities, lies, disinformation and partisan hackery. But you do you.

But you know what defeats that entire opinion outright?




That Trump has not "engaged in insurrection."


And if you want to claim he did, then you'll have to prove that in a court of law (due process)

a reply to: JinMI

I know, all these difficult words and ideas are too much for you. Thats fine, you certainly are entitled to your beliefs.

LOL You're such a HOOT!

Tell it to the conservative hoi polloi at the Federalist Society!

Conservative Legal Scholars Argue Trump Is Disqualified for Office Under 14th Amendment
"Donald Trump cannot be president—cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office—unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on January 6."

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who laid out the charges last week in a 45-page indictment, has proposed a January 2, 2024 trial date.

But legal experts and historians have argued that Trump is disqualified for office under Section 3 whether or not he is convicted.

In their new paper, Baude and Paulsen wrote that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment—known as the insurrection clause—is "self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress."

"It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications," Baude and Paulsen argued, rejecting the notion that the First Amendment shields those who have engaged in or incited insurrection from disqualification under Section 3.

I'm sure these gentlemen will appreciate your condescending and snarky input.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, I know you and Mah want to appeal to authority. It was really fun when you guys were cheering Avenatti!



Lets make this super simple, like 5 year old logic.

You think Trump "engaged in insurrection." (as assumed and predicated by the 14th amendment argument of disability)

I think he did not engage in insurrection.



How will we find out who is correct?

Everyone needs to stop acting like there's set grounds for how 14 (3) applies.

It's never been used. The courts have never ruled on it.

There's arguments to be made that it's self-executing and there's arguments to be made that it's not.

Until a state pulls the trigger and the courts get involved it's all speculation.

a reply to: Threadbare

I think it's fairly obvious that due process applies regardless.


As explained by my dumbed down 5 year old logic above.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

I know, all these difficult words and ideas are too much for you. Thats fine, you certainly are entitled to your beliefs.

LOL You're such a HOOT!

Tell it to the conservative hoi polloi at the Federalist Society!

Conservative Legal Scholars Argue Trump Is Disqualified for Office Under 14th Amendment
"Donald Trump cannot be president—cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office—unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on January 6."

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who laid out the charges last week in a 45-page indictment, has proposed a January 2, 2024 trial date.

But legal experts and historians have argued that Trump is disqualified for office under Section 3 whether or not he is convicted.

In their new paper, Baude and Paulsen wrote that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment—known as the insurrection clause—is "self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress."

"It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications," Baude and Paulsen argued, rejecting the notion that the First Amendment shields those who have engaged in or incited insurrection from disqualification under Section 3.

I'm sure these gentlemen will appreciate your condescending and snarky input.

We will expect a full apology for wasting our time when none of that happens.
But will we get it after you being wrong again? I doubt it.

a reply to: JinMI

Yes, I know you and Mah want to appeal to authority. It was really fun when you guys were cheering Avenatti!

OOhoomph. You're on a roll tonight. I don't remember supporting Avenatti, personally. But I did and do support Stormy!

However, I seem to remember about you guys being all Rudy! You guys were all over The Kraken lady and My Pillow guy too!

You think Trump "engaged in insurrection.

I think he violated his oath. I think he gave aid and comfort to enemies of The People of the USA, I think the insurrection he was planning failed and backfired at every step, of which there were many.

I think he did not engage in insurrection.
How will we find out who is correct?

The courts have convicted several people for sedition, for their part in the very insurrection that you say didn't happen.

a reply to: RazorV66

Don't blame me! I'm not a Conservative Federalist and I didn't write the article. I just linked it for you.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I think he violated his oath. I think he gave aid and comfort to enemies of The People of the USA, I think the insurrection he was planning failed and backfired at every step, of which there were many.

I don't.


So now what. What mechanic do we have to get to the bottom of this?

The courts have convicted several people for sedition, for their part in the very insurrection that you say didn't happen.

How many Donald Trump's have been indicted and convicted?

Bonus question, how many have been charged with insurrection?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Yes, I know you and Mah want to appeal to authority. It was really fun when you guys were cheering Avenatti!

OOhoomph. You're on a roll tonight. I don't remember supporting Avenatti, personally. But I did and do support Stormy!

However, I seem to remember about you guys being all Rudy! You guys were all over The Kraken lady and My Pillow guy too!

You think Trump "engaged in insurrection.

I think he violated his oath. I think he gave aid and comfort to enemies of The People of the USA, I think the insurrection he was planning failed and backfired at every step, of which there were many.

I think he did not engage in insurrection.
How will we find out who is correct?

The courts have convicted several people for sedition, for their part in the very insurrection that you say didn't happen.

Utter trash.
Who exactly is “enemies of The People of the USA”?
I suppose you agree with Hillary that Trump supporters need to be reprogrammed?

Fantasies in your head don’t translate to facts, especially when those fantasies are that far out.

a reply to: RazorV66

Who exactly is “enemies of The People of the USA”?

According to Trump, it's the media, liberal Jews, California, New York and the Deep State et al! Who'd I miss?