It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Kotamari
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Kotamari
How about you go look up the term "dicta" and get back with us.
Welcome to ATS.
(Man, I've been saying that alot lately......)
thank you, was hoping for more ufo stories but ill chime in on these too.
sorry to hear you have a hard time accepting reality. hope you deal with that.
originally posted by: RazorV66
originally posted by: Myhandle
Who appointed Jack Smith?
Apparently Garland did…..and now some law professors are claiming that Smith’s appointment in illegal.
And they have filed a brief to present the case to the SC.
We all know that all of this stinks to high heaven.
Former Attorney General Ed Meese has presented arguments to the Supreme Court that they should reject Special Counsel Jack Smith’s requests because he was unconstitutionally appointed in the first place.
Meese, along with law professors Steven G. Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson, filed a friend-of-the-court brief Wednesday to present the case that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Smith — a private citizen — is in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
"Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor," the brief states.
"Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos," they argued.
www.foxnews.com...
originally posted by: Myhandle
a reply to: UpIsNowDown2
Glad we’re focused on the important things here. Caps lock is way more important than law and order.
originally posted by: Boomer1947
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer
I'm claiming that there's nearly 250 years of precedence establishing the authority of special counsels.
How many times has a president been brought on charges in that 250 year history?
.
The exact same number of times a sitting President tried to illegally stay in power after the Electoral College told him he lost.
originally posted by: stosh64
It is all so dystopian, 1984'ish. The Ministry of Truth has declared it an 'insurrection, and By Any Means Necessary the 'authorities will crush anyone that disagrees.
Just look at this example...
It is all so surreal, what just a decade or so ago would have been quickly exposed for the propaganda and blatant lies it in reality is, is now basically unchallenged and used as a basis to gain further power.
Amazing how Orwell, Huxley, Rand etc...saw this coming.
originally posted by: JinMI
originally posted by: Myhandle
Who appointed Jack Smith?
Furthermore, how many congress members confirmed him?
*DINGDING*
The wire service also reported that the FBI has found no evidence at this point proving that Trump or those close to him were involved in any coordination of the insurrection on the Capitol. The FBI declined to comment to The Hill on the Reuters report and referred The Hill back to court documents in the cases regarding information on Jan. 6.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: WeMustCare
Trump's own words have made his engagement, and his part in it public.
originally posted by: Enduro
Didn’t the US sanction Venezuela for taking a Presidential candidate off the ballot?
Here ,
"Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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."
I’m no law professor like most of the people on here but that doesn’t even sound like it’s for the President/Ex President
originally posted by: some_stupid_name
originally posted by: UpIsNowDown2
a reply to: WeMustCare
I DONT KNOW but has your caps lock got a mind of ITS OWN
I ask this of you mutilple times yet you never answer, no doubt my post will get removed for being off topic, but it seems since Trump does this more frequently so do you, is it a sign of affection you have for him? or do you feel it somehow makes you point more valid
Just asking out of curiosity
It looked like emphasis to me, is conversation not your first language? Just asking out of curiosity.
originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: RazorV66
All 7 judges in Colorado agreed that Trump committed insurrection. The three dissenting judges disagreed on procedural grounds.
Considering Smith has nothing to do with that case I have no idea what it has to do with this case.
originally posted by: JinMI
originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI
Then zero.
So you agree that precedent means nothing at the moment....
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: Threadbarer
Honestly it's a good question and one that may be answered shortly. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is pretty vague on how it's enforced. Other aspects of the 14th Amendment specify they're enforced by Congress.
On the other hand, the Constitution is very clear that the States are granted autonomy on how they run their elections.
Here is the 3rd section:
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.
So Biden could be removed from the ticket due to his comfort to an invading force at the border, and giving Iran aid, as they are actively attacking us via proxy. That's interesting.
Here is section one:
Section 1 Rights
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
Sookie was nice enough to accuse me of not understanding that term a few days ago, so it's fresh in my mind. What due process determined Trump took place in an insurrection?
Thanks so much for your thoughtful replies.
originally posted by: WingDingLuey
Talk about rigged !!!!!
Google search for "insurrection cases" is so rigged, all the Jan6 crap comes up first !!
Yet no insurrection charges ever came from Jan6 indictments ROFLOLz
😀Google Search: "insurrection cases"😀
originally posted by: WeMustCare
originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: RazorV66
All 7 judges in Colorado agreed that Trump committed insurrection. The three dissenting judges disagreed on procedural grounds.
Considering Smith has nothing to do with that case I have no idea what it has to do with this case.
These judges saw something the "Get Trump!" DOJ/FBI, and Pelosi's Capitol Police, couldn't find during their investigations of (formerly) President Trump?
That's crazy! The Colorado Water perhaps?