Can Congress Disqualify Trump? What To Know After Supreme Court Keeps Him On Ballot

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: xuenchen

The Supreme Court killed efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the ballot on Monday, ruling states can’t disqualify federal candidates under the 14th Amendment, but the court’s ruling left open the possibility of Congress trying to remove Trump if he wins—and experts warn the decision could lead to a “nasty post-election period.”

This is just stupid. What’s the point of elections if 435 people can veto the outcome?

Why not just have the house pick the next president right now…..

The House very well may be deciding who's President next January. 😎

a reply to: JinMI

But if they were already covered under the Impeachment Clause why would an amendment be required?

a reply to: Threadbarer

What exactly are you trying to ask that I haven't already answered?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: xuenchen

Congress can "disqualify" or convict Trump, but it requires a majority, and they actively declined, twice. I wonder if there's a regulation about how many times the same charge can be filed because the 14th is useless if they have to wait out the cooldown effect before playing that card again.

The "Disqualification" in The 14th says Both Chambers in Congress need 2/3 majorities, if I see it right. 😯

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: xuenchen

The Supreme Court killed efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the ballot on Monday, ruling states can’t disqualify federal candidates under the 14th Amendment, but the court’s ruling left open the possibility of Congress trying to remove Trump if he wins—and experts warn the decision could lead to a “nasty post-election period.”

This is just stupid. What’s the point of elections if 435 people can veto the outcome?

Why not just have the house pick the next president right now…..

The House very well may be deciding who's President next January. 😎

Which is my point - our constitutional Republic GONE.

Xcaliber doesn’t seem to have a problem with that.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

But if they were already covered under the Impeachment Clause why would an amendment be required?

Start writing that Bill for Jamie. He's waiting. 😀

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: xuenchen

Congress can "disqualify" or convict Trump, but it requires a majority, and they actively declined, twice. I wonder if there's a regulation about how many times the same charge can be filed because the 14th is useless if they have to wait out the cooldown effect before playing that card again.

Double , Double Jeopardy ? WTF is Wrong with these People ? Being Anal isn't Enough .

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: xuenchen

The Supreme Court killed efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the ballot on Monday, ruling states can’t disqualify federal candidates under the 14th Amendment, but the court’s ruling left open the possibility of Congress trying to remove Trump if he wins—and experts warn the decision could lead to a “nasty post-election period.”

This is just stupid. What’s the point of elections if 435 people can veto the outcome?

Why not just have the house pick the next president right now…..

The House very well may be deciding who's President next January. 😎

HAHA
SO now my argument is your argument.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

LOL
Carry on.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: xuenchen

The Supreme Court killed efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the ballot on Monday, ruling states can’t disqualify federal candidates under the 14th Amendment, but the court’s ruling left open the possibility of Congress trying to remove Trump if he wins—and experts warn the decision could lead to a “nasty post-election period.”

This is just stupid. What’s the point of elections if 435 people can veto the outcome?

Why not just have the house pick the next president right now…..

The House very well may be deciding who's President next January. 😎

HAHA
SO now my argument is your argument.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

LOL
Carry on.

OHHH !! I thought you wanted The Supreme Court to tell The House to select the next President 😀

One Vote per State does the trick 😀

a reply to: xuenchen

Then you see it wrong. It only says a 2/3 vote is required to overturn a disqualification.

I double-dog dare the democrats and leftists to do it.

C'mon.

Do it.

You CALL Trump an insurrectionist.

DO something about it.

Now.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: xuenchen

Then you see it wrong. It only says a 2/3 vote is required to overturn a disqualification.

Thanks for clarifying !! I wasn't sure. 😬

Get going!!!

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer

For representatives of confederate states.


It's even spelled out in the opinion.

Lol, this is what’s embarrassing. They don’t know the genesis or origins of anything, and when it gets dropped on their misshapen melons, they just say stuff like “nuh-uh, did not, who cares, doesn’t matter”.

a reply to: arcticshuffle

And it sucks.

Because there are some really interesting legal questions and tangential topics we could be discussing.

Like why is it still on the books and why hasn't it been applied since?

Or presidential immunity and how far it goes.

As examples

originally posted by: KKLOCO

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: KKLOCO

What's the point of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of there's no mechanism to keep insurrectionists from running for federal office?

Why not just raise an uprising and seize control of the government instead of going through with an election?

Read the quote again.

but the court’s ruling left open the possibility of Congress trying to remove Trump if he wins—and experts warn the decision could lead to a “nasty post-election period.”

It’s one thing to decline him the opportunity to run - and they’ve had plenty of time to do that. But they haven’t succeeded. It’s MONUMENTALLY (d)ifferent to change a decision made by the people after an election has taken place.

They’re also trying to change the outcome of the impeachment with state level proclamations, and then brand new retroactive laws.

They’re oh-fer two with the impeachment and the CO proclamation….. a new federal law would just be triple jeopardy using a dumbass 3rd different method. When this fails, they’ll try it in yet another form. Civil suit in some leftist city ? When that fails, try a 5th variation, then a 6th, then a 7th.

The SC will have to jump in again and remind these morons that double jeopardy is a thing.

a reply to: xuenchen

" TREASON ALERT: Deep State Announces Plan To Disregard Trump Reelection "


" Jack Posobiec breaks down how the Atlantic is the brain bug of the left."



banned.video...


So the Dems Need to regain the Majority in the House to do this . Not Going to Happen..............I Hope !

a reply to: JinMI

He read it in the talking points they pushed out to the NPCs yesterday.

No coherent thought was involved.

OK Experts !

Next Question:

Can Congress do this ahead of an election?

Or does the "Target" need to be elected first, and "Disqualified" before being sworn in?

What's the pertinent language in the Law?

a reply to: xuenchen

Ex post facto applies methinks.

Have a peek as I don't have the link handy.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: JinMI

He read it in the talking points they pushed out to the NPCs yesterday.

No coherent thought was involved.

The Maddow directive


Understood