The 14th Amendment Sec 3 does not apply to the Presidency

a reply to: Threadbarer

This is real easy.

The states currently trying to keep Trump off the ballot is because of his actions on 1/6. There is nothing for them to refer to. No conviction. He was cleared by Congress. This is a fact. The FBI also found no wide spread conspiracy. This is a fact. Sedition/Insurrection....whichever you want to use.

Now, you have a person who was convicted of sedition. It does not matter what they did. It does not matter what they said. They were convicted and then ran for President getting the most votes of a Socialist candidate. There does not have to be a ruling on the 14th because this is shows a person can be convicted and STILL run for President. So if the candidate is not convicted there is no issue.

It is not that hard.

a reply to: matafuchs

As I've stated, there's compelling arguments on both sides about whether or not the 14th Amendment is applicable. That's why the case needs to through the courts.

The fact that there have been no other cases on this issue, and that includes Debs, means there's no legal precedent in place. It will be up to these courts to set that precedent.

a reply to: Threadbarer

They (the SC) should take this seriously in their consideration; else risk of invalidating themselves by ignoring clear constotutional language. I suspect they won't and will confirm a justifiable necesity to expand the court (as if the necessity doesn't already exist). While you say there's a compelling argument on both sides, I'm not seeing it. If A14/Sec3 weren't self executing, then why add the clause that it can be overcome by a 2/3 vote of congress? Conviction isn't a requirement (else it woul be enumerared), so it's a states rights issue; plain and simple. If they (the SC) invalidate that section, then they invalidate themselves as an entity along with the entirety of the Constitution; because if some of it doesn't count, then none of it does. This is a crossroads moment for our nation.

a reply to: WiiDemBoyz

If A14/Sec3 weren't self executing, then why add the clause that it can be overcome by a 2/3 vote of congress?

Because it is meant for everyone under the President and VP. The due process for President and VP is impeachment.

Conviction isn't a requirement...

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Self executing is a nonsense argument where it regards the rights of Americans.

a reply to: WiiDemBoyz

The 2020 election was a crossroads for the nation. It was the first time they had to fix it....

a reply to: JinMI

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Nobody is denying Donald Trump life, liberty or property, or a bridging a privilege or any immunities owed him, by not allowing him to be President of the United States.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You really want to do this again?

Fine, I'll gladly slay your MSM talking points...again.


What relief is being sought by the petitioners Sookie?

a reply to: JinMI

What relief is being sought by the petitioners Sookie?

You're the one slaying MSM dragons, you tell me.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

then leave him on the ballot....

a reply to: matafuchs

He isn't on any ballot, yet, in which to leave him on, or off.

There are plenty of people who would like to be on "the ballot", but they just can't get there.

Regardless if you think Trump should be on the ballot or not, I do think removing him.or declaring him ineligible will create a bigger rift and more mistrust within the US government.

Let the people decide.

Had the Democratic party not failed since 2016 to find a leader that 51%+ of US population did not have serious concerns about, Trump would not be in the picture.

The reality is the DNC rigged the 2016 and 2020 primaries to block Bernie Sanders and nominate their status quo candidate to the top. Republicans did this in 2008 and 2012 with Ron Paul and initially tried with Trump leading up the 2016 primary...but the Trump supporters were too strong to overcome.

I just do not understand why the DNC thinks 4 more years of Biden is a winning strategy.

Lawyers in the Minnesota case have just been notified that the court will be issuing an order by the end of the day today.

a reply to: Threadbarer

And....



....rejected.

a reply to: JinMI

For now....

What they're saying: "Although the Secretary of State and other election officials administer the mechanics of the election, it is an internal party election to serve internal party purposes," the ruling reads.

"And winning the presidential nomination primary does not place the person on the general election ballot as a candidate for President of the United States."

The intrigue: The order doesn't address the underlying issues surrounding the 14th Amendment, and it leaves the door open for petitioners to bring a challenge related to the general election ballot if Trump becomes the party's nominee.

www.axios.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

For now.


...and at axios.

a reply to: JinMI

It's a real cop-out decision, waving their judicial hand with a limp wrist, saying "He's not on the ballot yet! We'll decide AFTER he's officially the Republican candidate." As if the issue of whether or not Trump is disqualified by the 14th Amendment would change based on the investment of the Republican Party in the candidate.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
I agree, nothing was solved on any judicial basis.

"Nuh-uh 'acause he's not on the primary ballot....yet."

While ignoring contemporary issues and question.

The legal question is valid or it is not, and the court seems to believe that it is....but won't answer it.

a reply to: JinMI

Rejected because the GOP is a private organization and they are free to list whoever they want. The case was dismissed without prejudice. So they are free to re-file once Trump makes it onto the general ballot.

This ruling makes no judgment as to whether or not the 14th Amendment is applicable to this case.

a reply to: Threadbarer

*Punt*