|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 61,021 Likes: 72
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 61,021 Likes: 72 |
Maybe. My guess is it’ll take an intervention from SCOTUS to ensure that’s true in every state, though, given that it sure seems clear that he stands in violation… or whatever the right term is… of Amendment 14 Sec 3.
… and that may happen. But this particular shït-show seems like it’s headed our way. You don't have grandkids do you?
I am MAGA.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,109 Likes: 66
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,109 Likes: 66 |
This all comes down to Peak Oil.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Campfire 'Bwana
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312 |
Lol.. you got me there.
This all comes down to proof. Can the government prove Trump tried to steal it? Can Trump prove his assertions?
Jack Smith will be coming with evidence and witnesses. They will be compelling. You do not charge a former POTUS lightly, and he did not do so. So far Trump has brought……. nothing. Almost 3 years later. The dude has blue balls from all the unreleased krakens.
The CENTER will hold.
Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two
FÜCK PUTIN!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Campfire 'Bwana
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312 |
Or maybe it’s the other way around. Can a 78 year old geezer even RELEASE a kraken? 😂
Guessing about half the crazy forum is qualified to answer that one…………..
The CENTER will hold.
Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two
FÜCK PUTIN!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Campfire 'Bwana
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312 |
But we digress.
He very well might not even be on the ballot. The Constitution has things to say about this… and they are pretty straightforward things… this is not one of those “a well-regulated militia being necessary…” type preambles that muddies the whole damn thing for no good reason (god I hate that preamble); it’s pretty straightforward.
The CENTER will hold.
Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two
FÜCK PUTIN!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 28,750 Likes: 14
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 28,750 Likes: 14 |
But we digress.
He very well might not even be on the ballot. The Constitution has things to say about this… and they are pretty straightforward things… this is not one of those “a well-regulated militia being necessary…” type preambles that muddies the whole damn thing for no good reason (god I hate that preamble); it’s pretty straightforward. Go ride your dirt bike without a helmet ya fugking dipshit
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,800 Likes: 4
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,800 Likes: 4 |
Lol.. you got me there.
This all comes down to proof. Can the government prove Trump tried to steal it? Can Trump prove his assertions?
Jack Smith will be coming with evidence and witnesses. They will be compelling. You do not charge a former POTUS lightly, and he did not do so. So far Trump has brought……. nothing. Almost 3 years later. The dude has blue balls from all the unreleased krakens. Not surprisingly, you’re confused. Trump doesn’t need to prove anything. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ only applies to one side.
�Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.�
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 8,972 Likes: 11
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 8,972 Likes: 11 |
Jeff O is an idiot Jeff O allways been an idiot Jeff O will allways be an idiot Jeff O say it ain't so but with only the credibility of an idiot you'll search for ever to have anything to say but I'm Jeff O resident idiot Jeff O all due respect, none of us has any for you. Good bye.
" Cheapest velocity in the world comes from a long barrel and I sure do like them. MB "
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Campfire 'Bwana
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312 |
Lol.. you got me there.
This all comes down to proof. Can the government prove Trump tried to steal it? Can Trump prove his assertions?
Jack Smith will be coming with evidence and witnesses. They will be compelling. You do not charge a former POTUS lightly, and he did not do so. So far Trump has brought……. nothing. Almost 3 years later. The dude has blue balls from all the unreleased krakens. Not surprisingly, you’re confused. Trump doesn’t need to prove anything. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ only applies to one side. Of course. But practically speaking, if he can’t demonstrate a stollen election, then he’s in trouble, because we all saw what he tried to do. The ONLY justification for it is a stollen election. You know this. It’s why the folks here are so desperate to hang onto that notion, all evidence to the contrary. Without that, he’s guilty AF, and they are morons for believing a serial liar. Which is what I believe to be the case.
The CENTER will hold.
Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two
FÜCK PUTIN!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,535 Likes: 4
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,535 Likes: 4 |
Lol.. you got me there.
This all comes down to proof. Can the government prove Trump tried to steal it? Can Trump prove his assertions?
Jack Smith will be coming with evidence and witnesses. They will be compelling. You do not charge a former POTUS lightly, and he did not do so. So far Trump has brought……. nothing. Almost 3 years later. The dude has blue balls from all the unreleased krakens. Not surprisingly, you’re confused. Trump doesn’t need to prove anything. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ only applies to one side. Of course. But practically speaking, if he can’t demonstrate a stollen election, then he’s in trouble, because we all saw what he tried to do. The ONLY justification for it is a stollen election. You know this. It’s why the folks here are so desperate to hang onto that notion, all evidence to the contrary. Without that, he’s guilty AF, and they are morons for believing a serial liar. Which is what I believe to be the case. Idiot he doesn't have to prove the election was stolen all he has to do is provide the facts already collected. https://electionfraud20.org/This site aims to summarize the allegations of fraud, as presented in governmental hearings, courts, and investigative reports, by state, to provide an easy reference and portal for further research.
Dog I rescued in January
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Campfire 'Bwana
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312 |
Lol.. you got me there.
This all comes down to proof. Can the government prove Trump tried to steal it? Can Trump prove his assertions?
Jack Smith will be coming with evidence and witnesses. They will be compelling. You do not charge a former POTUS lightly, and he did not do so. So far Trump has brought……. nothing. Almost 3 years later. The dude has blue balls from all the unreleased krakens. Not surprisingly, you’re confused. Trump doesn’t need to prove anything. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ only applies to one side. Of course. But practically speaking, if he can’t demonstrate a stollen election, then he’s in trouble, because we all saw what he tried to do. The ONLY justification for it is a stollen election. You know this. It’s why the folks here are so desperate to hang onto that notion, all evidence to the contrary. Without that, he’s guilty AF, and they are morons for believing a serial liar. Which is what I believe to be the case. Idiot he doesn't have to prove the election was stolen all he has to do is provide the facts already collected. https://electionfraud20.org/This site aims to summarize the allegations of fraud, as presented in governmental hearings, courts, and investigative reports, by state, to provide an easy reference and portal for further research. A website that summarizes the allegations of fraud. Golf clap. PROOF, my man. There is none.
The CENTER will hold.
Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two
FÜCK PUTIN!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 18,093 Likes: 29
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 18,093 Likes: 29 |
At issue with Trump is Section 3 of the amendment, which bars from office anyone who, having previously sworn an oath to support the Constitution, has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." The language was written to prevent former officials who had backed the Confederacy from regaining power, subject to an out — Congress could grant amnesty by a two-thirds vote.
Your thoughts? Lots of Confederates served in Federal government in the decades after 1865, most never were granted "amnesty". That legislation is a political anachronism and does not come into play in the year 2023. Frankly, it's intellectual laziness to even mention it as a reason to oppose Pres. Trump.
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
We are all Rhodesians now.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 21,840 Likes: 5
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 21,840 Likes: 5 |
[ Lots of Confederates served in Federal government in the decades after 1865, most never were granted "amnesty". That legislation is a political anachronism and does not come into play in the year 2023. Frankly, it's intellectual laziness to even mention it as a reason to oppose Pres. Trump. Its the Constitution. It ALWAYS comes into play. BMT
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,535 Likes: 4
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,535 Likes: 4 |
Lol.. you got me there.
This all comes down to proof. Can the government prove Trump tried to steal it? Can Trump prove his assertions?
Jack Smith will be coming with evidence and witnesses. They will be compelling. You do not charge a former POTUS lightly, and he did not do so. So far Trump has brought……. nothing. Almost 3 years later. The dude has blue balls from all the unreleased krakens. Not surprisingly, you’re confused. Trump doesn’t need to prove anything. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ only applies to one side. Of course. But practically speaking, if he can’t demonstrate a stollen election, then he’s in trouble, because we all saw what he tried to do. The ONLY justification for it is a stollen election. You know this. It’s why the folks here are so desperate to hang onto that notion, all evidence to the contrary. Without that, he’s guilty AF, and they are morons for believing a serial liar. Which is what I believe to be the case. Idiot he doesn't have to prove the election was stolen all he has to do is provide the facts already collected. https://electionfraud20.org/This site aims to summarize the allegations of fraud, as presented in governmental hearings, courts, and investigative reports, by state, to provide an easy reference and portal for further research. A website that summarizes the allegations of fraud. Golf clap. PROOF, my man. There is none. Idiot read it. Real numbers, did you ever wonder why the invalid votes were not removed from the recounts? Or even why no legitimate federal investigation was launched? GA has no case as there was plenty of reason to question the results of the 2020 election. Fani has no case, which she mostly based on voice mails and phone calls.
Dog I rescued in January
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 18,093 Likes: 29
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 18,093 Likes: 29 |
[ Lots of Confederates served in Federal government in the decades after 1865, most never were granted "amnesty". That legislation is a political anachronism and does not come into play in the year 2023. Frankly, it's intellectual laziness to even mention it as a reason to oppose Pres. Trump. Its the Constitution. It ALWAYS comes into play. BMT It's over, it's irrelevant. Sorry, not sorry. Next!!!!
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
We are all Rhodesians now.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Campfire 'Bwana
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312 |
As pertains to this thread, my opinion that this is a huge looming constitutional issue only gathers strength. The question of whether the 14th sec 3 prevents Trump from ever even RUNNING for an elected position- much less POTUS- appears to be a very legitimate constitutional question. It really only hinges of the definition of “insurrection”. I gave a definition from a legal dictionary, but here it is again: Insurrection
insurrection n
: the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government ;also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt [whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or against the authority of the United States…shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years "U.S. Code"]
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Published under license with Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.Here’s one from a regular dictionary (Cambridge) insurrection noun [ C or U ] US /ˌɪn.sɚˈek.ʃən/ UK /ˌɪn.sərˈek.ʃən/ Add to word list an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:Here’s from Brittanica: insurrection, an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt. An insurrection may facilitate or bring about a revolution, which is a radical change in the form of government or political system of a state, and it may be initiated or provoked by an act of sedition, which is an incitement to revolt or rebellion.I’m not putting these forth as binding on SCOTUS, of course. But note that “violence” is not a requirement as commonly defined. And make no mistake, this is headed to SCOTUS, and fairly quickly. I guarantee there are election administrators at every level preparing to use this to disqualify Trump from the primary election. SCOTUS has not taken kindly to Trumps alternate-facts based arguments thus far. We’ll see. A huge side benefit of this will likely be a clearer definition of what, in constitutional terms, constitutes an insurrection. There will be a whole body of law that will form in the coming years as the 14th Sec 3 is used by partisans on both sides to attempt to disqualify candidates. Obviously, the main thrust of which will be to differentiate between legitimate protest, even that which verges on outright rioting, vs. an insurrection. My guess is that the ultimate guardians of the notion of the rule of law (IE, SCOTUS) will err on the side against organized activities such as we all saw Trump and his clown posse engage in. In other words, in my opinion they will rule that Trump engaged in insurrection for the purposes of the 14th Sec 3. We shall see. But it’s coming. That’s my broader point here: put this issue right square in your radar. It’s barreling at us like a freight train. I hope folks here read the preprint of the original article created by the two conservative Heritage Foundation lawyers/ constitutional scholars I linked to at the beginning of this thread. I’ll go grab that link and edit to include it. Here’s a new article from Tribe and Luttig, linked below, that I believe also has that link. It’s important to realize the original paper is being received by serious people as very legit scholarship by very legit constitutional scholars who are presenting very legit constitutional analysis of this issue. Link to original paper: https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delive...5077094093067&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUEYou’ll find fault in the Tribe opinion piece below. I did. And the tone is annoying. I suggest reading it anyway. Edit: this hits a paywall unless you are a subscriber. I posted the text of this article, next page https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...presidency/675048/?utm_source=apple_news
Last edited by Jeff_O; 08/19/23.
The CENTER will hold.
Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two
FÜCK PUTIN!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 96,109 Likes: 22
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 96,109 Likes: 22 |
Lol.. you got me there.
This all comes down to proof. Can the government prove Trump tried to steal it? Can Trump prove his assertions?
Jack Smith will be coming with evidence and witnesses. They will be compelling. You do not charge a former POTUS lightly, and he did not do so. So far Trump has brought……. nothing. Almost 3 years later. The dude has blue balls from all the unreleased krakens. Not surprisingly, you’re confused. Trump doesn’t need to prove anything. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ only applies to one side. Of course. But practically speaking, if he can’t demonstrate a stollen election, then he’s in trouble, because we all saw what he tried to do. The ONLY justification for it is a stollen election. You know this. It’s why the folks here are so desperate to hang onto that notion, all evidence to the contrary. Without that, he’s guilty AF, and they are morons for believing a serial liar. Which is what I believe to be the case. Idiot he doesn't have to prove the election was stolen all he has to do is provide the facts already collected. https://electionfraud20.org/This site aims to summarize the allegations of fraud, as presented in governmental hearings, courts, and investigative reports, by state, to provide an easy reference and portal for further research. A website that summarizes the allegations of fraud. Golf clap. PROOF, my man. There is none. I think you mean Golf Cap and POOF. You're a liar. You don't HAVE any men on the Fire. You only have Gayghost, Eric302 and Houston_2. Like the PA judge essentially said, Executive Privilege means this schiett is dead. free online image hostingSo why would Smith and Fani push this crap? It's because Trump and the Patriots are behind it. Why? So Trump can be the President with the precedent of being in The Trial of the Century. Why? So he can prove the traitors perped the Election Fraud of the Century. Why? So the people will demand Voter ID? Why? To destroy the DNC Any more why's? So people will learn the truth and support what he and the Military Patriots do. Why? Because those who Commited treason are going to GITMO to die. Like Dr Jan Harper-Hayes said, Donald Trump has the goods! Like that crazy Eyeball has been saying for years, Space Force. We can believe lying you or we can believe Trump and Q. Both said, "The best is yet to come". Both said, "Nothing Can Stop What Is Coming". Both said, "We have it all". Here's a Clue. Connect the Numbers.
Last edited by jaguartx; 08/19/23.
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
I Dindo Nuffin
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 18,093 Likes: 29
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 18,093 Likes: 29 |
INSURRECTION!!!! blah blah blah.....
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
We are all Rhodesians now.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Campfire 'Bwana
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312 |
Jag, please let the adults talk. I stay off your “Dots” thread. Give us some space for rational discourse here.
The CENTER will hold.
Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two
FÜCK PUTIN!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,535 Likes: 4
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,535 Likes: 4 |
As pertains to this thread, my opinion that this is a huge looming constitutional issue only gathers strength. The question of whether the 14th sec 3 prevents Trump from ever even RUNNING for an elected position- much less POTUS- appears to be a very legitimate constitutional question. It really only hinges of the definition of “insurrection”. I gave a definition from a legal dictionary, but here it is again: Insurrection
insurrection n
: the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government ;also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt [whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or against the authority of the United States…shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years "U.S. Code"]
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Published under license with Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.Here’s one from a regular dictionary (Cambridge) insurrection noun [ C or U ] US /ˌɪn.sɚˈek.ʃən/ UK /ˌɪn.sərˈek.ʃən/ Add to word list an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:Here’s from Brittanica: insurrection, an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt. An insurrection may facilitate or bring about a revolution, which is a radical change in the form of government or political system of a state, and it may be initiated or provoked by an act of sedition, which is an incitement to revolt or rebellion.I’m not putting these forth as binding on SCOTUS, of course. But note that “violence” is not a requirement as commonly defined. And make no mistake, this is headed to SCOTUS, and fairly quickly. I guarantee there are election administrators at every level preparing to use this to disqualify Trump from the primary election. SCOTUS has not taken kindly to Trumps alternate-facts based arguments thus far. We’ll see. A huge side benefit of this will likely be a clearer definition of what, in constitutional terms, constitutes an insurrection. There will be a whole body of law that will form in the coming years as the 14th Sec 3 is used by partisans on both sides to attempt to disqualify candidates. Obviously, the main thrust of which will be to differentiate between legitimate protest, even that with verges on outright rioting, vs. an insurrection. My guess is that the ultimate guardians of the notion of the rule of law (IE, SCOTUS) will err on the side against organized activities such as we all saw Trump and his clown posse engage in. In other words, in my opinion they will rule that Trump engaged in insurrection for the purposes of the 14th Sec 3. We shall see. But it’s coming. That’s my broader point here: put this issue right square in your radar. It’s barreling at us like a freight train. I hope folks here read the preprint of the original article created by the two conservative Heritage Foundation lawyers/ constitutional scholars I linked to at the beginning of this thread. I’ll go grab that link and edit to include it. Here’s a new article from Tribe and Luttig, linked below, that I believe also has that link. It’s important to realize the original paper is being received by serious people as very legit scholarship by very legit constitutional scholars who are presenting very legit constitutional analysis of this issue. Link to original paper: https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delive...5077094093067&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUEYou’ll find fault in the Tribe opinion piece below. I did. And the tone is annoying. I suggest reading it anyway. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...presidency/675048/?utm_source=apple_newsThe Atlantic is controlled by George Soros dipschit. About your phony insurrection; https://hereistheevidence.com/capitol-protest-1-6-21/
Dog I rescued in January
|
|
|
|
592 members (1234, 10ring1, 1badf350, 10gaugemag, 10Glocks, 10gaugeman, 67 invisible),
15,643
guests, and
1,026
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,195,306
Posts18,545,494
Members74,060
|
Most Online21,066 May 26th, 2024
|
|
|
|