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.

 

Judge rules Trump ineligible to appear on Illinois ballot under 14th Amendment

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I can’t fathom how many times JinMi needs to spell it out before you get it?

You cannot deny Trump DUE PROCESS and say he is guilty of insurrection as an excuse to him keep off any ballot.

You Cracker Jack lawyers really need to brush up on it.
edit on 28-2-2024 by RazorV66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JadedGhost

FBI already said there was no insurrection that day. 😃



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha




Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Keep setting em up, I'll keep knocking em down sookie. And when you want to use historical racist arguments to omit people from their civil rights, i'll call that out too.


LOL Drama Queen!

How does Trump being disqualified from the office of the presidency under the 14th Amendment, Section 3 violate

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
and mimic historically racist arguments to omit people from their civil rights?

edit on 5820242024k38America/Chicago2024-02-28T21:38:58-06:0009pm2024-02-28T21:38:58-06:00 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha




How does Trump being disqualified from the office of the presidency under the 14th Amendment, Section 3 violate


For the umpteenth time, his liberty to run for the office. Since you want to frame the argument as being disqualified from the presidency, what state has that power Sookie?

What state can unilaterally keep a POTUS from the office based on whimsical allegation?




and mimic historically racist arguments to omit people from their civil rights?


You've heard of the Dred Scott decision...yea?



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

How does Trump being disqualified from the office of the presidency under the 14th Amendment, Section 3 violate

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
and mimic historically racist arguments to omit people from their civil rights?


I believe it is 9 - 0 for the SC to say the President is outside of 14 Amend Section 3 otherwise they would be listed. Even the liberal judges were frustrated with arguments to suggest otherwise. It's a dead horse...

edit on x29Wed, 28 Feb 2024 21:51:43 -0600202458America/ChicagoWed, 28 Feb 2024 21:51:43 -06002024 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

You can go down that path as well.

Or you can go down the states rights path.

I'm thinking 7-2 myself.



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: RazorV66




You cannot deny Trump DUE PROCESS and say he is guilty of insurrection as an excuse to him keep off any ballot.


First of all, Trump did have due process in Colorado's, in Maine's and in Illinois' civil courts.

Secondly, the 14th Amendment, section 3 says nothing about a criminal conviction.



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Section 5 does:

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI




For the umpteenth time, his liberty to run for the office.


For the umpteenth time squared....
Holding the office of President of the United States is a privilege. It's not a liberty/civil right.



what state has that power Sookie?


The states represent the people. As you know, these cases were brought before the state courts by the voters on behalf of their right to have a ballot free of insurrectionists. They sued Trump for removal from the ballot on the basis that he incited insurrection. In Colorado, Maine and now Illinois, the plaintiffs won their cases and each States' Supreme Courts order Trump removed, stayed their ruling until SCOTUS hears the case, which they did hear.

If The People, through their states, can't keep their states' electoral votes safe from insurrectionists, who can? The DOJ, that's part of the Executive Branch and led by a political appointee? Congress?

Don't worry tho. I have no doubt that SCOTUS will totally wimp out on their duty and kick this case down to the road.



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha




For the umpteenth time squared....
Holding the office of President of the United States is a privilege. It's not a liberty/civil right.


He was being disqualified from R U N N I N G, thus the purpose of removing him from the ballot.




If The People, through their states, can't keep their states' electoral votes safe from insurrectionists, who can? The DOJ, that's part of the Executive Branch and led by a political appointee? Congress?

Don't worry tho. I have no doubt that SCOTUS will totally wimp out on their duty and kick this case down to the road.


Yet, there exists a statute for insurrection, adopted by congress.

So that bar must be met.


It's hilarious that you want this to be a states rights thing. I mean we are talking about a federal election here.



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI




He was being disqualified from R U N N I N G, thus the purpose of removing him from the ballot.


That's what the Reublican voters asked for, since they're Republicans and didn't want insurrectionist Trump on their primary ballot, seeing as he incited an insurrection and all.



Yet, there exists a statute for insurrection, adopted by congress.


Yet, there is no law that states that one has to be criminally convicted to be ineligible for office. Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection, and his eligibility was the question in the civil court cases in Colorado, Maine and Illinois. In each of those states Donald Trump had the right to defend himself, confront his accusers and make his case before the court, which he did, through his lawyers. (Due Process)



It's hilarious that you want this to be a states rights thing. I mean we are talking about a federal election here.


And yet here we are, not just me, but 3 States, with their district courts rulings, all the way up to their supreme courts rulings, all wanting to make this a states' rights issue.



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha




That's what the Reublican voters asked for, since they're Republicans and didn't want insurrectionist Trump on their primary ballot, seeing as he incited an insurrection and all.


Sure, republicans.......
Sure, insurection......
Sure, incitement of insurrection....

Shame there isn't a factual basis you can point to eh?




Yet, there is no law that states that one has to be criminally convicted to be ineligible for office. Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection, and his eligibility was the question in the civil court cases in Colorado, Maine and Illinois. In each of those states Donald Trump had the right to defend himself, confront his accusers and make his case before the court, which he did, through his lawyers. (Due Process)


Was he charged for insurrection as is the congressional provision provided for in section 5?




And yet here we are, not just me, but 3 States, with their district courts rulings, all the way up to their supreme courts rulings, all wanting to make this a states' rights issue.


And there it sits in SCOTUS after the 9 justices sank all of their arguments.



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I guess Joe will need to be removed as well since his cognitive condition prevents him from holding office. What ever happen to Karri and bribe from big money back east, you don't hear about anymore.
edit on 28-2-2024 by SomeStupidName because: Add content

edit on 28-2-2024 by SomeStupidName because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2024 by SomeStupidName because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: JadedGhost

If they want to rule Donald Trump’s candidacy holds more weight than the constitution, it will be no surprise.



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 11:12 PM
link   
I can envision a Crow dinner, with all the fixins.
It will be so delicious to just watch them all eat it.



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Most states have a deadline for removing a candidate from their State ballots.
Ballots for the PPP were printed months ago in most states.
SCOTTUS is going to start debating Trumps eligibility for the November election starting April 22.
DJT could be nominated as the Republican presidential nominee without Illinois.

Supreme court said it was Trumps wish to delay the decision from them.
SCOTTUS may have to rule that those three states that won't allow a Republican party nominee on their ballot would not be able to vote in the presidential race.



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Section 3, 14th Amendment:

“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.”



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Your due process argument is tired. What do you call it when a case gets to the state and federal Supreme Courts? Due process.



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

First y’all blame the FBI for staging the insurrection to frame Trump

Now y’all want to trust the FBI in their declaration that there was no insurrection.

Well the point is actually quite clear. Trump lost the election. But he declared he won, and fired up his supporters to protest the election certification. So unless you can prove he won, he clearly incited insurrection.



posted on Feb, 28 2024 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

Which jurisdiction has convicted Trump of insurrection or rebellion?


insurrection
noun


: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

www.merriam-webster.com...


rebellion
noun


: opposition to one in authority or dominance
2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government
b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

www.merriam-webster.com...

Trump cannot be guilty of insurrection or rebellion because he was an established government and the one in authority or dominance.
Definitions are important.
Learn the laws, learn what words mean.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join