Just Breaking SCOTUS Rules Trump Is Eligible To Be On Colorado Ballot.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha

All secondary because the issue was authority, not procedure.

So what result were you looking for? What specifics and wording would have made ya happy? ♾️

So you agree with me, SCOTUS did not answer the question?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha

All secondary because the issue was authority, not procedure.

So what result were you looking for? What specifics and wording would have made ya happy? ♾️

So you agree with me, SCOTUS did not answer the question?

Now here ya go with your red herrings again.

So what result were you looking for? What specifics and wording would have made ya happy? ♾️

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Absolutely nothing you just posted shows SCOTUS ruling on whether or not the Office of the President of the United States is eligible for disqualification under Section 3.

Again, is president named? No

So the question is invalid.

Sorry you don't like it. Maybe ask better questions?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha

All secondary because the issue was authority, not procedure.

So what result were you looking for? What specifics and wording would have made ya happy? ♾️

So you agree with me, SCOTUS did not answer the question?

So who asked the question? Quote from the case and briefs. 😬

Then run down where it's the issue. 😀

Jamie Raskin is taking suggestions. Email his office. 😀

a reply to: JinMI

The issue isn't settled until SCOTUS, not you, says it's settled. They purposely didn't address it in their ruling, even though it was part of Trump's defense and addressed in amicus briefs from both sides, and brought up during the hearing by either Kagan or Sotomayor.

Because it's not settled, Democrats like Jaimi Raskin will continue to pursue the issue, all they up to Jan 6th, 2025, if need be.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Did the original CO case and/or CO Supreme Court make Congress an issue ? That might help your arguments. 😀

The issue isn't settled until SCOTUS, not you, says it's settled.

They did....

a reply to: xuenchen

Did the original CO case and/or CO Supreme Court make Congress an issue ? That might help your arguments.

What arguments? You're not making any sense. Do you even know what my "arguments" are? Can you articulate them?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The issue isn't settled until SCOTUS, not you, says it's settled.

At this point it's not even a question.


All these months we've been debating this and you come out on the bottom every damn time.

At least have some self respect.

a reply to: JinMI

You can't even admit the ruling says what it actually says and what it doesn't say! Have some dignity of your own, and admit that SCOTUS did just what I said it would all along, it wimped out, kicked the issue down the road, to Congress, and left door wide open for some epic Jan. 6th 2025 chaos.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

...as I've posted multiple citations from said opinion.


I wish you well in your insurrection.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Did the original CO case and/or CO Supreme Court make Congress an issue ? That might help your arguments.

What arguments? You're not making any sense. Do you even know what my "arguments" are? Can you articulate them?

Pretty sure you’re responsible for about 15 pages of this thread because of asking this insufferable question 20 times.

But that was your goal, so there’s that.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

I know that.

My point is, because they failed to answer that question, the issue isn't settled. I predicted that because it isn't settled, if Trump wins the electoral vote, on Jan 6th, 2025, congress members will object to states' votes based on Trump being an insurrectionist, and ultimately The House of Representatives will decide the election.

I'm not reading it anymore it is boring and tiresome and I really don't care.

Your point is one you are trying to stretch (like you always do) into something that you like, or maybe you are wishing will happen.

This is back in 2021

There is a recent Supreme Court opinion discussing the scope of the Constitution's "Officers of the United States"-language. In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that "[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'" Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States.

Elected officials are not officers...

The Commissions Clause provides that "all the officers of the United States" receive presidential commissions. (emphasis added) All means all. This structure explains why appointed executive-branch and judicial-branch officers receive commissions, but there is no record of any elected official, whether a President, Vice President or a member of Congress, ever receiving a [presidential] commission. The reason is simple: Elected officials like the President are not "Officers of the United States.

Officers are commissioned, all... Military or Goverment...Congress and the President are not officers, or any other elected officials.

Then we have the impeachment clause that deals with the President and actually lists the President. Noticed how it lists the President and then say AND all civil officers.... There is the difference once again.

The Impeachment Clause, Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of 1788, expressly applies to the President. The Impeachment Clause provides:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

But the jurisdictional element of Section 3 does not specifically mention the presidency. Instead of using express language akin to the Impeachment Clause, the jurisdictional element of Section 3 applies to:

A "person . . . 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."

It lists member of congress because they are not officers, but it sure lists everything within a state as that was the main purpose to prevent Confederates from being in the Goverment after the war.

At some point Trump needs to be convicted and not just charged, he was never impeached, so what else do you have.

I'm done with this, and you can keep stretching it all you want, but Trump will be the next President for 4 years.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Did the original CO case and/or CO Supreme Court make Congress an issue ? That might help your arguments.

What arguments? You're not making any sense. Do you even know what my "arguments" are? Can you articulate them?

Spin away. Sorry to bother you. 👋 buhh byy

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
Not sure how reliable this is but ........

Assassin Targeting Trump Allies Is on the Loose, FBI Warns

Newsweek

"Imagine if you will, a time where everything is moving but it seems to stand still"....Imagine a place where a known politician will be willing to attempt this because Orange man is soooo bad, for them and their ilk.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xtrozero

I think an insurrection has taken place, imho.

Only it is the left that has actually succeeded.

Now they're just projecting.

The crowd I am in has a few who think like this and count me in on that too. It is clear they are just almost in total control if it weren't for that Orange man and his white hat faction.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I have come to the Conclusion that You Personally are Incapable of Comprehending the Meaning of the Word " Settle "


For the Record ...

" Settle " . Definition.............

1. to clarify by causing dregs or impurities to sink
2. to make quiet or orderly
3. to fix or resolve conclusively
4. to establish or secure permanently
5. to arrange in a desired position
6. to make or arrange for final disposition of
7. to become fixed, resolved, or established
8. to become quiet or orderly
9. to come to a decision —used with on or upon
10. to make or arrange for final disposition of

Go ahead , Pick One that You Believe is the Definitive Correct Interpretation of the Word " Settle " . I am somewhat Curious how your Mind Really Works Sooks .

She made it fun and I didn't have to consider one word of that totally stupid approach if I didn't need to because all of your reactions that I read were spectacular. I could read enough in hers to say, YUP you guys are nailing it.

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Did the original CO case and/or CO Supreme Court make Congress an issue ? That might help your arguments.

What arguments? You're not making any sense. Do you even know what my "arguments" are? Can you articulate them?

Pretty sure you’re responsible for about 15 pages of this thread because of asking this insufferable question 20 times.

But that was your goal, so there’s that.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Is it settled?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

xuenchen doesn't seem to think so.