Sounds like we will be talking about this a bunch in the upcoming months so we might as well get that ball rolling. From what I’m reading this very likely will be used to keep Trump off primary ballots unless the SCOTUS intervenes.
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.
A group of conservative lawyers wrote a long opinion piece after researching this extensively and to hear them tell it, it’s pretty straightforward and conclusive. Here’s the abstract:
The Sweep and Force of Section Three University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, Forthcoming 126 Pages Posted: 14 Aug 2023 William Baude University of Chicago - Law School
Michael Stokes Paulsen University of St. Thomas School of Law
Date Written: August 9, 2023
Abstract Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
And here’s a link to the paper, so that the brilliant (sic) legal minds of the Fire can parse it:
I hardly consider any events around Jan 6 to be considered an "insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof". If it does, then any protest could be considered the same.
Sounds like we will be talking about this a bunch in the upcoming months so we might as well get that ball rolling. From what I’m reading this very likely will be used to keep Trump off primary ballots unless the SCOTUS intervenes.
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.
A group of conservative lawyers wrote a long opinion piece after researching this extensively and to hear them tell it, it’s pretty straightforward and conclusive. Here’s the abstract:
The Sweep and Force of Section Three University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, Forthcoming 126 Pages Posted: 14 Aug 2023 William Baude University of Chicago - Law School
Michael Stokes Paulsen University of St. Thomas School of Law
Date Written: August 9, 2023
Abstract Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
And here’s a link to the paper, so that the brilliant (sic) legal minds of the Fire can parse it:
This includes betraying the USA by taking bribes from Russia in exchange for promising Putin that he could conquer Ukraine without interference from NATO and the USA. As Biden did!
This includes betraying the USA by taking bribes from Russia in exchange for promising Putin that he could conquer Ukraine without interference from NATO and the USA. As Biden did!
I hardly consider any events around Jan 6 to be considered an "insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof". If it does, then any protest could be considered the same.
I’m glad you guys are “thinking” about this. It’s very likely going to be a major issue, and sooner than later, because it might very well keep Trump off the ballot in the primaries, lacking an intervention from SCOTUS.
The authors of that paper make the case that folks administering elections are required to prevent such an applicant from being on the ballot, in the same way they are required to do so if an applicant doesn’t meet, say, the minimum age set out for a POTUS candidate as stated in the Constitution.
It’s in the Constitution. It’s pretty real. As were Trump’s many and varied attempts to steal the election. I’m no lawyer but it seems to me that the only thing left is to debate the meaning of “insurrection”. Is attempting to steal an election an insurrection? Passes the smell test for ME.
Your thoughts? Would love to hear from any real lawyers here. Heck, even JoeBob.
What’s fascinating about this one is that it will likely force SCOTUS to rule on whether what Trump attempted was or was not an insurrection as defined in the Constitution.
What’s fascinating about this one is that it will likely force SCOTUS to rule on whether what Trump attempted was or was not an insurrection as defined in the Constitution.
What’s fascinating about this one is that it will likely force SCOTUS to rule on whether what Trump attempted was or was not an insurrection as defined in the Constitution.
Your thoughts?
Insurrections look like the bottom half. Should be easy enough for the bright Justices to figure out
TRH, before your outright religious and racial bigotry came to the forefront you used to pretend to be a Constitutionalist and man of the law.
What’s your take on a) whether what Trump attempted was an insurrection and b) if so, does the 14th sec 3 apply?
If you're stupid enough to even entertain those questions, you're really beyond hope.
Nice dodge. Golf clap!
However, this one is gonna be a big deal. Calling me names won’t solve your problem here. Let me rephrase it.
Using your legal training as a guide, how do you think SCOTUS will rule on this? They’re gonna have to; many many local and state election admin’s are going to keep Trump off the ballot otherwise on what appears to be solid- or at least highly defensible- Constitutional grounds.
Your thoughts? Please keep your anti-semitism in your pants for this one.
This crap is just like the Russian collusion lie that you progressive fascists tried the frame President Trump with. Then there were the two impeachments without evidence. You are just like Stalin and Putin abusing the criminal justice system to remove your enemies.
This is what they 2nd amendment was written for. To allow citizens to fight tyranny. If you are successful Americas will be angry and lose faith in our government. It could start a civil war against you fascist.
This crap is just like the Russian collusion lie that you progressive fascists tried the frame President Trump with. Then there were the two impeachments without evidence. You are just like Stalin and Putin abusing the criminal justice system to remove your enemies.
This is what they 2nd amendment was written for. To allow citizens to fight tyranny. If you are successful Americas will be angry and lose faith in our government. It could start a civil war against you fascist.
For sure, chaos will come first allowing retribution for those idiots ruining the country. I see it more as a gene pool improvement program.
I believe Jeff O has some very valid points. What I saw on January 6 was definitely an attempted insurrection and an attempt to overthrow the government of the US led by then President Trump. I personally believe Trump’s candidacy for POTUS will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
What’s fascinating about this one is that it will likely force SCOTUS to rule on whether what Trump attempted was or was not an insurrection as defined in the Constitution.
Your thoughts?
Insurrections look like the bottom half. Should be easy enough for the bright Justices to figure out
Not necessarily. A case can be made that an insurrection is simply any attempt to prevent or usurp the rightful possession or transfer of power (I just made that up, so if any of our Brilliant legal minds here want to pick it apart, please do, I’m here to learn).
I’m not really talking about J6, although we could. It was much, much more violent than your pic portrays and no, it was not antifa or the Feds doing it. But that’s a side issue. Even without J6 it seems fair to this lunk to say that Trump attempted to prevent and hence overthrow the exercise of our democratic process. I will argue that meets any reasonable definition of “insurrection”. Could be wrong there.
I believe Jeff O has some very valid points. What I saw on January 6 was definitely an attempted insurrection and an attempt to overthrow the government of the US led by then President Trump. I personally believe Trump’s candidacy for POTUS will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
You're FOS. The only people involved in the attack, riots, destruction of property were the Piglosi/ CYA/FBY/Antifa pieces of schiett like you.
Remember there was a congressional investigation and an FBY investigation.
They cross-examined Wray under oath. Asked if any MAGA people or Trumpsters were involved in the terrorists anarchy. He
answered that there were none. Incredulous, the examiner replied, there were no terrorists involved. Wrays answer was, 'Well I didn't say that." The questions stopped immediately. The investigator suddenly had no more questions.
Does someone with a brain have to spell it out for you? OK, I will. THE INVESTIGATOR DIDNT WANT WRAY TO TELL WHO THE ANTIFA TERRORISTS WERE.
Do you really want to come here and prove yourself stupid by pushing Fake Nues CNN BS?
This crap is just like the Russian collusion lie that you progressive fascists tried the frame President Trump with. Then there were the two impeachments without evidence. You are just like Stalin and Putin abusing the criminal justice system to remove your enemies.
This is what they 2nd amendment was written for. To allow citizens to fight tyranny. If you are successful Americas will be angry and lose faith in our government. It could start a civil war against you fascist.
Amen. And the stupid bastards are too stupid to even discuss the facts with because they know no facts but only CNN propaganda.
The left tries to push conviction of people through public opinion. That will not work now when the Patriots are in Control.
Guys. At least TRY to have a serious conversation. This is a legitimate constitutional issue that may soon moot pretty much everything else……. if you think about it. I suggest you do so.
Guys. At least TRY to have a serious conversation. This is a legitimate constitutional issue that may soon moot pretty much everything else……. if you think about it. I suggest you do so.
Hahaha!
Do your daughters know you support sexually enslaving children?
Sounds like we will be talking about this a bunch in the upcoming months so we might as well get that ball rolling. From what I’m reading this very likely will be used to keep Trump off primary ballots unless the SCOTUS intervenes.
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.
A group of conservative lawyers wrote a long opinion piece after researching this extensively and to hear them tell it, it’s pretty straightforward and conclusive. Here’s the abstract:
The Sweep and Force of Section Three University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, Forthcoming 126 Pages Posted: 14 Aug 2023 William Baude University of Chicago - Law School
Michael Stokes Paulsen University of St. Thomas School of Law
Date Written: August 9, 2023
Abstract Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
And here’s a link to the paper, so that the brilliant (sic) legal minds of the Fire can parse it:
Not necessarily. A case can be made that an insurrection is simply any attempt to prevent or usurp the rightful possession or transfer of power (I just made that up, so if any of our Brilliant legal minds here want to pick it apart, please do, I’m here to learn).
I’m not really talking about J6, although we could. It was much, much more violent than your pic portrays and no, it was not antifa or the Feds doing it. But that’s a side issue. Even without J6 it seems fair to this lunk to say that Trump attempted to prevent and hence overthrow the exercise of our democratic process. I will argue that meets any reasonable definition of “insurrection”. Could be wrong there.
Your thoughts?
Why do you make schiedt up if you truly are trying to have an informed discussion?
Jell-O and Rolly, you prove Q correct. You people are stupid.
Do you know what a Rupar is? It's a common commie scum trick your dimocommies use to misinform people - IOW, lie.
They even fool their own fools like you two. The delete a few words in an audio loop and Fake Nues MSM plays the lie.
And stupid pukes like you believe it. Here's a clue. Trump didn't tell Ratsinburger to "Find more votes". The full quote is in the post below.
CLUE NUMBER 2
You goofballs already forget that the PA Judge ruled Trump had executive privilege protection for things like this. Duh?
Trump and the Military Patriots are driving the narrative you are seeing on TV. It's done to awaken the people and its working. The people are learning the truth about your Dimocommie scum.
I believe Jeff O has some very valid points. What I saw on January 6 was definitely an attempted insurrection and an attempt to overthrow the government of the US led by then President Trump. I personally believe Trump’s candidacy for POTUS will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
So what in your pitiful excuse for a mind implies the rather minor riot at the capital was an insurrection? And why would Trump possibly be able to overthrow the government with a riot at the Capital? And what proof do you have that these assumptions are true?
So what in your pitiful excuse for a mind implies the rather minor riot at the capital was an insurrection? And why would Trump possibly be able to overthrow the government with a riot at the Capital? And what proof do you have that these assumptions are true?
These idiots equate actions on Trump's part to legally challenge an obviously stolen election with insurrection.
I believe Jeff O has some very valid points. What I saw on January 6 was definitely an attempted insurrection and an attempt to overthrow the government of the US led by then President Trump. I personally believe Trump’s candidacy for POTUS will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Insurrections usually require guns or were you not aware of that? Trump told the crowd to protest peacefully, unfortunately FB Lie had some of its contract Antifa goons opening the doors to the building and telling people to enter. Speaks volumes that the only person killed was an unarmed protester and I bet dollars to donuts that cops beaten were by Antifa. That is not what they want you to know.
Saying Jeff has some valid points is like saying Jeffrey Dahmer was a vegetarian.
So what in your pitiful excuse for a mind implies the rather minor riot at the capital was an insurrection? And why would Trump possibly be able to overthrow the government with a riot at the Capital? And what proof do you have that these assumptions are true?
These idiots equate actions on Trump's part to legally challenge an obviously stolen election with insurrection.
“This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress,” [Barr] said. “The allegation, essentially, by the government is that at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme, that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.”
I believe Jeff O has some very valid points. What I saw on January 6 was definitely an attempted insurrection and an attempt to overthrow the government of the US led by then President Trump. I personally believe Trump’s candidacy for POTUS will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Insurrections usually require guns or were you not aware of that? Trump told the crowd to protest peacefully, unfortunately FB Lie had some of its contract Antifa goons opening the doors to the building and telling people to enter. Speaks volumes that the only person killed was an unarmed protester and I bet dollars to donuts that cops beaten were by Antifa. That is not what they want you to know.
Saying Jeff has some valid points is like saying Jeffrey Dahmer was a vegetarian.
I do not believe it’s true that “insurrections usually require guns”, although your use of the word “usually” makes your point a bit squishy anyway. But I’m glad you said that, because I think it’s exactly this that SCOTUS will be deciding once state and local election folks begin denying Trump access to the primary ballot.
“This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress,” [Barr] said. “The allegation, essentially, by the government is that at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme, that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.”
What do you expect the Bolsheviks to put in the charges? It's total BS. Anyone with half a brain sees right through it. I think even they know it's BS. That you don't is pretty sad.
Trump is accused, in multiple venues, of directing and participating in a large, multi-state conspiracy involving many people, to retain power illegally.
If that’s not an insurrection, what is it? If he had succeeded, what would be the difference?
“This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress,” [Barr] said. “The allegation, essentially, by the government is that at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme, that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.”
What do you expect the Bolsheviks to put in the charges? It's total BS. Anyone with half a brain sees right through it. I think even they know it's BS. That you don't is pretty sad.
What Pinocchio does not realize is that the Dems are playing a game of election interference. Damn is he slow witted.
“This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress,” [Barr] said. “The allegation, essentially, by the government is that at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme, that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.”
What do you expect the Bolsheviks to put in the charges? It's total BS. Anyone with half a brain sees right through it. I think even they know it's BS. That you don't is pretty sad.
I’ll grant that you appear to have half a brain.
You’ve given the other half to Trump. Big mistake.
“This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress,” [Barr] said. “The allegation, essentially, by the government is that at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme, that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.”
What do you expect the Bolsheviks to put in the charges? It's total BS. Anyone with half a brain sees right through it. I think even they know it's BS. That you don't is pretty sad.
I’ll grant that you appear to have half a brain.
You’ve given the other half to Trump. Big mistake.
It's clear you despise 99% of this board so why not post on the DU.
Separately, the records of Mr Biden's 36-year career as a US senator are being held at the University of Delaware, which says it will not release any papers until two years after Mr Biden leaves public life. Ms Reade says the records will contain evidence that she complained to her superiors about Mr Biden, and perhaps that other members of his staff may have made similar accusations.
“This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress,” [Barr] said. “The allegation, essentially, by the government is that at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme, that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.”
What do you expect the Bolsheviks to put in the charges? It's total BS. Anyone with half a brain sees right through it. I think even they know it's BS. That you don't is pretty sad.
What Pinocchio does not realize is that the Dems are playing a game of election interference. Damn is he slow witted.
What Trump did had to be prosecuted or we are literally a lawless banana republic. Given that he lost, it’s unavoidable that the prosecution is being executed under the opposing party.
It gives you guys cover to circle the wagons and keep gaslighting each other, that’s for sure, and it’s unfortunate. But here we are. What he did HAS TO BE PROSECUTED.
To the point at hand, it might all be moot anyway in terms of his prospects as a politician. He appears to be constitutionally prevented from running again, and it appears to be on fairly solid ground to think that. Notably, none here are even really addressing that point. Have any of you even read the paper, or even the abstract? I can find a “explainer” type article and post it.
But, SCOTUS bats last on this one, conceded.
I’m just giving you guys a heads-up that this is coming down the pike. You’re welcome.
Gonna go ride my dirt bike for a bit, see if the jetting change I just made makes it even mo’ betta. I’ll find an explainer when I’m done screwing around. Carry on.
I just bumped the Stone/Bannon thread for you TRH. Go click the links. Then come back here and talk about how it wasn’t a planned attempt to steal the election, which very credibly (IMHO) can be called an insurrection, thus invoking Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Trump is accused, in multiple venues, of directing and participating in a large, multi-state conspiracy involving many people, to retain power illegally.
If that’s not an insurrection, what is it? If he had succeeded, what would be the difference?
He is only accused, that's it. Did you forget about the part where he requested additional officers and palsy denied? did you forget about the leos opening doors and allowing people in? Just whose capital do you think it is? You think it belongs to the Democrats? Lol
The left is accusing him of everything, they are and apparently you are terrified as everytime they accuse him, his support grows...
Its laughable that you nut jobs think you are on the side of the constitution. You in fact are the insurrectionist.
Go play on a pro joe forum. Do you really think you are going to convince someone on here that your side is in the right.
Not necessarily. A case can be made that an insurrection is simply any attempt to prevent or usurp the rightful possession or transfer of power (I just made that up, so if any of our Brilliant legal minds here want to pick it apart, please do, I’m here to learn).
I’m not really talking about J6, although we could. It was much, much more violent than your pic portrays and no, it was not antifa or the Feds doing it. But that’s a side issue. Even without J6 it seems fair to this lunk to say that Trump attempted to prevent and hence overthrow the exercise of our democratic process. I will argue that meets any reasonable definition of “insurrection”. Could be wrong there.
Your thoughts?
Why do you make schiedt up if you truly are trying to have an informed discussion?
: 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…
The use of the term “esp.” indicates it’s not a requirement that it be violent, as does the rest of the definition.
I stand by my (correct) extemporaneous guess. I was just trying to be expeditious.
Question… do you guys EVER get tired of all the “winning” against me?! I almost feel guilty sometimes. Like I’m being mean.
So, with that dealt with, it seems pretty clear to me that Trump engaged in insurrection. His only way out is if he can prove that instead of him stealing the election, it was actually stollen (sic, I just love mocking his spelling, it’s a guilty pleasure) from him. So far, almost 3 years later, he has failed to do so. Most recently with his big reveal scheduled for Monday where we were gonna see “Irrefutable, Overwhelming” proof. Yeah, no, that isn’t actually going to happen. “Who knew?!” (hint: me).
If he engaged in insurrection, he cannot run for President. It’s literally in the Constitution in plain English.
a man convinced, against his will, is of the same, opinion still.
no way to prove rigged election "at a level sufficient to change the outcome"..
the rigging was prior to election day, with teh ZUCK-BUCKS using COVID waivers to bundle, solicit, package, absentee, mailout nd mailing in, and finally, whatever may have happened at 3 AM when all the cameras were turned off and observers excused.. we will never know what or how these things affected outcome, but only DJT loathers can account for 81 million votes for a Biden/Kamealot candidacy//
I mentioned and posted the 14th sec.3 in another thread yesterday, nobody even responded at all....they must really like you Jeff
Yeah no kidding lol. So much love.
They need to hear this stuff. Reality is coming, and is she pissed. Whether they know it or not, I’m doing them a favor. They have essentially become cult members, and reprogramming them is a slow, gnarly, and un-appreciated process. Most of them are not idiots; wail and gnash as they will, what I’m telling them sinks in…. slowly…
This is a good example. They’ve learned a lot from this thread. They won’t be able to un-learn it.
I mentioned and posted the 14th sec.3 in another thread yesterday, nobody even responded at all....they must really like you Jeff
Yeah no kidding lol. So much love.
They need to hear this stuff. Reality is coming, and is she pissed. Whether they know it or not, I’m doing them a favor. They have essentially become cult members, and reprogramming them is a slow, gnarly, and un-appreciated process. Most of them are not idiots; wail and gnash as they will, what I’m telling them sinks in…. slowly…
This is a good example. They’ve learned a lot from this thread. They won’t be able to un-learn it.
People like you made Washington and Oregon the reality they now are. Take some responsibility for that and maybe folks here will take you seriously.
a man convinced, against his will, is of the same, opinion still.
no way to prove rigged election "at a level sufficient to change the outcome"..
the rigging was prior to election day, with teh ZUCK-BUCKS using COVID waivers to bundle, solicit, package, absentee, mailout nd mailing in, and finally, whatever may have happened at 3 AM when all the cameras were turned off and observers excused.. we will never know what or how these things affected outcome, but only DJT loathers can account for 81 million votes for a Biden/Kamealot candidacy//
Well said and true. The dumbasses can't connect the dots to consider the effects of illegal ballots.
To the traitors, a vote is a vote, which is why they don't mind destroying the nation with illegal immigration.
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.
This is why the left keeps chanting "insurrection."
Its silly, an insurrection requires a VIOLENT act.
Not according to the Merriam-Websters Dictionary of Law. Violence not required.
Originally Posted by Jeff_O
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…
Not according to the Websters Law Dictionary. Violence not required.
Originally Posted by Jeff_O
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…
The use of the term “esp.” indicates it’s not a requirement that it be violent, as does the rest of the definition.
I stand by my (correct) extemporaneous guess. I was just trying to be expeditious.
Question… do you guys EVER get tired of all the “winning” against me?! I almost feel guilty sometimes. Like I’m being mean.
If he wins the primary, I’d wager he’ll be on the ballot here in NH.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[ 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.
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.
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.
[ 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!!!!
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"]
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.
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.
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.
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"]
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.
Ah, crap. My Atlantic article hits a paywall. Here’s the text:
———————————-
As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.
This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.
The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.
Having thought long and deeply about the text, history, and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause for much of our professional careers, both of us concluded some years ago that, in fact, a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.
The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause.
We were immensely gratified to see that a richly researched article soon to be published in an academic journal has recently come to the same conclusion that we had and is attracting well-deserved attention outside a small circle of scholars—including Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Anjani Jain of the Yale School of Management, whose encouragement inspired us to write this piece. The evidence laid out by the legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen in “The Sweep and Force of Section Three,” available as a preprint, is momentous. Sooner or later, it will influence, if not determine, the course of American constitutional history—and American history itself.
Written with precision and thoroughness, the article makes the compelling case that the relevance of Section 3 did not lapse with the passing of the generation of Confederate rebels, whose treasonous designs for the country inspired the provision; that the provision was not and could not have been repealed by the Amnesty Act of 1872 or by subsequent legislative enactments; and that Section 3 has not been relegated by any judicial precedent to a mere source of potential legislative authority, but continues to this day by its own force to automatically render ineligible for future public office all “former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion,” as Baude and Paulsen put it. Among the profound conclusions that follow are that all officials who ever swore to support the Constitution—as every officer, state or federal, in every branch of government, must—and who thereafter either “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution or gave “aid and comfort to the enemies” of that Constitution (and not just of the United States as a sovereign nation) are automatically disqualified from holding future office and must therefore be barred from election to any office.
Regardless of partisan leaning or training in the law, all U.S. citizens should read and consider these two simple sentences from Section 3:
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.
The Fourteenth Amendment was promulgated and ratified in the context of postbellum America when, even after losing the Civil War, southern states were sending men to Congress who had held prominent roles in the Confederacy or otherwise supported acts of rebellion or insurrection against the United States.
The two of us have long believed, and Baude and Paulsen have now convincingly demonstrated, that notwithstanding its specific historical origin, Section 3 is no anachronism or relic from the past; rather, it applies with the same force and effect today as it did the day it was ratified—as does every other provision, clause, and word of the Constitution that has not been repealed or revised by amendment.
Baude and Paulsen also conclude that Section 3 requires no legislation, criminal conviction, or other judicial action in order to effectuate its command. That is, Section 3 is “self-executing.” (Other scholars have relied on Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase’s poorly reasoned opinion in an 1869 case called In Re Griffin to support the contrary view. Baude and Paulsen decisively dismantle Griffin as a precedent.) They conclude further that disqualification pursuant to Section 3 is not a punishment or a deprivation of any “liberty” or “right” inasmuch as one who fails to satisfy the Constitution’s qualifications does not have a constitutional “right” or “entitlement” to serve in a public office, much less the presidency. (For that reason, they argue that the section, although it does not entirely override preexisting limits on governmental power, such as the First Amendment’s ban on abridgments of the freedom of speech, powerfully affects their application.) Finally, the authors conclude that Section 3 is “expansive and encompassing” in what it regards as “insurrection or rebellion” against the constitutional order and “aid and comfort to the enemies” of the United States. Baude and Paulsen are two of the most prominent conservative constitutional scholars in America, and both are affiliated with the Federalist Society, making it more difficult for them to be dismissed as political partisans. Thus it is all the more significant and sobering that they do not hesitate to draw from their long study of the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history the shattering conclusion that the attempted overturning of the 2020 presidential election and the attack on the Capitol, intended to prevent the joint session from counting the electoral votes for the presidency, together can be fairly characterized as an “insurrection” or “rebellion.” They write:
The bottom line is that Donald Trump both “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid or comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution.
At the time of the January 6 attack, most Democrats and key Republicans described it as an insurrection for which Trump bore responsibility. We believe that any disinterested observer who witnessed that bloody assault on the temple of our democracy, and anyone who learns about the many failed schemes to bloodlessly overturn the election before that, would have to come to the same conclusion. The only intellectually honest way to disagree is not to deny that the event is what the Constitution refers to as “insurrection” or “rebellion,” but to deny that the insurrection or rebellion matters. Such is to treat the Constitution of the United States as unworthy of preservation and protection. Baude and Paulsen embrace the “idea that men and women who swore an oath to support the Constitution as government officials, but who betrayed that oath by engaging in or abetting acts of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, should be disqualified from important positions of government power in the future (unless forgiven by supermajorities of both houses of Congress).” To them, as to us, this will forever “remain a valid, valuable,” and “vital precept” for America.
Section 3’s disqualification clause has by no means outlived its contemplated necessity, nor will it ever, as the post–Civil War Framers presciently foresaw. To the contrary, this provision of our Constitution continues to protect the republic from those bent on its dissolution. Every official who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, as Article VI provides every public official must, is obligated to enforce this very provision. The Baude-Paulsen article has already inspired a national debate over its correctness and implications for the former president. The former federal judge and Stanford law professor Michael McConnell cautions that “we are talking about empowering partisan politicians such as state Secretaries of State to disqualify their political opponents from the ballot … If abused, this is profoundly anti-democratic.” He also believes, as we do, that insurrection and rebellion are “demanding terms, connoting only the most serious of uprisings against the government,” and that Section 3 “should not be defined down to include mere riots or civil disturbances.” McConnell worries that broad definitions of insurrection and rebellion, with the “lack of concern about enforcement procedure … could empower partisans to seek disqualification every time a politician supports or speaks in support of the objectives of a political riot.”
We share these concerns, and we concur that the answer to them lies in the wisdom of judicial decisions as to what constitutes “insurrection,” “rebellion,” or “aid or comfort to the enemies” of the Constitution under Section 3.
As a practical matter, the processes of adversary hearing and appeal will be invoked almost immediately upon the execution and enforcement of Section 3 by a responsible election officer—or, for that matter, upon the failure to enforce Section 3 as required. When a secretary of state or other state official charged with the responsibility of approving the placement of a candidate’s name on an official ballot either disqualifies Trump from appearing on a ballot or declares him eligible, that determination will assuredly be challenged in court by someone with the standing to do so, whether another candidate or an eligible voter in the relevant jurisdiction. Given the urgent importance of the question, such a case will inevitably land before the Supreme Court, where it will in turn test the judiciary’s ability to disentangle constitutional interpretation from political temptation. (Additionally, with or without court action, the second sentence of Section 3 contains a protection against abuse of this extraordinary power by these elections officers: Congress’s ability to remove an egregious disqualification by a supermajority of each House.)
The entire process, with all its sometimes frail but thus far essentially effective constitutional guardrails, will frame the effort to determine whether the threshold of “insurrection” or “rebellion” was reached and which officials, executive or legislative, were responsible for the January 6 insurrection and the broader efforts to reverse the election’s results. The process that will play out over the coming year could give rise to momentary social unrest and even violence. But so could the failure to engage in this constitutionally mandated process. For our part, we would pray for neither unrest nor violence from the American people during a process of faithful application and enforcement of their Constitution. If Donald Trump were to be reelected, how could any citizen trust that he would uphold the oath of office he would take upon his inauguration? As recently as last December, the former president posted on Truth Social his persistent view that the last presidential election was a “Massive Fraud,” one that “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
No person who sought to overthrow our Constitution and thereafter declared that it should be “terminated” and that he be immediately returned to the presidency can in good faith take the oath that Article II, Section 1 demands of any president-elect “before he enter on the Execution of his Office.”
We will not attempt to express this constitutional injunction better than did George Washington himself in his “Farewell Address” to the nation, in 1796:
The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government. All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency … However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Our first president may well have been our most prescient. His fears about “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men” have, over the centuries, proved all too well founded. But his even stronger hopes for the republic were not misplaced. Still today, the Constitution, through its Reconstruction Amendments, contains a safeguard that it originally lacked—a safeguard against the undermining of our constitutional democracy and the rule of law at the hands of those whose lust for power knows no bounds. The men who framed and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment entrusted to us, “the People of the United States,” the means to vigilantly protect against those who would make a mockery of American democracy, the Constitution, the rule of law—and of America itself. It fell to the generations that followed to enforce our hallowed Constitution and ensure that our Union endures. Today, that responsibility falls to us.
Ah, crap. My Atlantic article hits a paywall. Here’s the text:
students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president. This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies. The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024. Quinta Jurecic: Trump discovers that some things are actually illegal Having thought long and deeply about the text, history, and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause for much of our professional careers, both of us concluded some years ago that, in fact, a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup. The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause.
We were immensely gratified to see that a richly researched article soon to be published in an academic journal has recently come to the same conclusion that we had and is attracting well-deserved attention outside a small circle of scholars—including Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Anjani Jain of the Yale School of Management, whose encouragement inspired us to write this piece. The evidence laid out by the legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen in “The Sweep and Force of Section Three,” available as a preprint, is momentous. Sooner or later, it will influence, if not determine, the course of American constitutional history—and American history itself. Written with precision and thoroughness, the article makes the compelling case that the relevance of Section 3 did not lapse with the passing of the generation of Confederate rebels, whose treasonous designs for the country inspired the provision; that the provision was not and could not have been repealed by the Amnesty Act of 1872 or by subsequent legislative enactments; and that Section 3 has not been relegated by any judicial precedent to a mere source of potential legislative authority, but continues to this day by its own force to automatically render ineligible for future public office all “former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion,” as Baude and Paulsen put it. Among the profound conclusions that follow are that all officials who ever swore to support the Constitution—as every officer, state or federal, in every branch of government, must—and who thereafter either “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution or gave “aid and comfort to the enemies” of that Constitution (and not just of the United States as a sovereign nation) are automatically disqualified from holding future office and must therefore be barred from election to any office. Regardless of partisan leaning or training in the law, all U.S. citizens should read and consider these two simple sentences from Section 3:
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.
The Fourteenth Amendment was promulgated and ratified in the context of postbellum America when, even after losing the Civil War, southern states were sending men to Congress who had held prominent roles in the Confederacy or otherwise supported acts of rebellion or insurrection against the United States.
The two of us have long believed, and Baude and Paulsen have now convincingly demonstrated, that notwithstanding its specific historical origin, Section 3 is no anachronism or relic from the past; rather, it applies with the same force and effect today as it did the day it was ratified—as does every other provision, clause, and word of the Constitution that has not been repealed or revised by amendment. Baude and Paulsen also conclude that Section 3 requires no legislation, criminal conviction, or other judicial action in order to effectuate its command. That is, Section 3 is “self-executing.” (Other scholars have relied on Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase’s poorly reasoned opinion in an 1869 case called In Re Griffin to support the contrary view. Baude and Paulsen decisively dismantle Griffin as a precedent.) They conclude further that disqualification pursuant to Section 3 is not a punishment or a deprivation of any “liberty” or “right” inasmuch as one who fails to satisfy the Constitution’s qualifications does not have a constitutional “right” or “entitlement” to serve in a public office, much less the presidency. (For that reason, they argue that the section, although it does not entirely override preexisting limits on governmental power, such as the First Amendment’s ban on abridgments of the freedom of speech, powerfully affects their application.) Finally, the authors conclude that Section 3 is “expansive and encompassing” in what it regards as “insurrection or rebellion” against the constitutional order and “aid and comfort to the enemies” of the United States. Baude and Paulsen are two of the most prominent conservative constitutional scholars in America, and both are affiliated with the Federalist Society, making it more difficult for them to be dismissed as political partisans. Thus it is all the more significant and sobering that they do not hesitate to draw from their long study of the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history the shattering conclusion that the attempted overturning of the 2020 presidential election and the attack on the Capitol, intended to prevent the joint session from counting the electoral votes for the presidency, together can be fairly characterized as an “insurrection” or “rebellion.” They write:
The bottom line is that Donald Trump both “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid or comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution.
At the time of the January 6 attack, most Democrats and key Republicans described it as an insurrection for which Trump bore responsibility. We believe that any disinterested observer who witnessed that bloody assault on the temple of our democracy, and anyone who learns about the many failed schemes to bloodlessly overturn the election before that, would have to come to the same conclusion. The only intellectually honest way to disagree is not to deny that the event is what the Constitution refers to as “insurrection” or “rebellion,” but to deny that the insurrection or rebellion matters. Such is to treat the Constitution of the United States as unworthy of preservation and protection. Baude and Paulsen embrace the “idea that men and women who swore an oath to support the Constitution as government officials, but who betrayed that oath by engaging in or abetting acts of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, should be disqualified from important positions of government power in the future (unless forgiven by supermajorities of both houses of Congress).” To them, as to us, this will forever “remain a valid, valuable,” and “vital precept” for America.
Section 3’s disqualification clause has by no means outlived its contemplated necessity, nor will it ever, as the post–Civil War Framers presciently foresaw. To the contrary, this provision of our Constitution continues to protect the republic from those bent on its dissolution. Every official who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, as Article VI provides every public official must, is obligated to enforce this very provision. The Baude-Paulsen article has already inspired a national debate over its correctness and implications for the former president. The former federal judge and Stanford law professor Michael McConnell cautions that “we are talking about empowering partisan politicians such as state Secretaries of State to disqualify their political opponents from the ballot … If abused, this is profoundly anti-democratic.” He also believes, as we do, that insurrection and rebellion are “demanding terms, connoting only the most serious of uprisings against the government,” and that Section 3 “should not be defined down to include mere riots or civil disturbances.” McConnell worries that broad definitions of insurrection and rebellion, with the “lack of concern about enforcement procedure … could empower partisans to seek disqualification every time a politician supports or speaks in support of the objectives of a political riot.” We share these concerns, and we concur that the answer to them lies in the wisdom of judicial decisions as to what constitutes “insurrection,” “rebellion,” or “aid or comfort to the enemies” of the Constitution under Section 3. As a practical matter, the processes of adversary hearing and appeal will be invoked almost immediately upon the execution and enforcement of Section 3 by a responsible election officer—or, for that matter, upon the failure to enforce Section 3 as required. When a secretary of state or other state official charged with the responsibility of approving the placement of a candidate’s name on an official ballot either disqualifies Trump from appearing on a ballot or declares him eligible, that determination will assuredly be challenged in court by someone with the standing to do so, whether another candidate or an eligible voter in the relevant jurisdiction. Given the urgent importance of the question, such a case will inevitably land before the Supreme Court, where it will in turn test the judiciary’s ability to disentangle constitutional interpretation from political temptation. (Additionally, with or without court action, the second sentence of Section 3 contains a protection against abuse of this extraordinary power by these elections officers: Congress’s ability to remove an egregious disqualification by a supermajority of each House.)
The entire process, with all its sometimes frail but thus far essentially effective constitutional guardrails, will frame the effort to determine whether the threshold of “insurrection” or “rebellion” was reached and which officials, executive or legislative, were responsible for the January 6 insurrection and the broader efforts to reverse the election’s results. The process that will play out over the coming year could give rise to momentary social unrest and even violence. But so could the failure to engage in this constitutionally mandated process. For our part, we would pray for neither unrest nor violence from the American people during a process of faithful application and enforcement of their Constitution. If Donald Trump were to be reelected, how could any citizen trust that he would uphold the oath of office he would take upon his inauguration? As recently as last December, the former president posted on Truth Social his persistent view that the last presidential election was a “Massive Fraud,” one that “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” David A. Graham: The Georgia indictment offers the whole picture No person who sought to overthrow our Constitution and thereafter declared that it should be “terminated” and that he be immediately returned to the presidency can in good faith take the oath that Article II, Section 1 demands of any president-elect “before he enter on the Execution of his Office.” We will not attempt to express this constitutional injunction better than did George Washington himself in his “Farewell Address” to the nation, in 1796:
The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government. All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency … However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Our first president may well have been our most prescient. His fears about “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men” have, over the centuries, proved all too well founded. But his even stronger hopes for the republic were not misplaced. Still today, the Constitution, through its Reconstruction Amendments, contains a safeguard that it originally lacked—a safeguard against the undermining of our constitutional democracy and the rule of law at the hands of those whose lust for power knows no bounds. The men who framed and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment entrusted to us, “the People of the United States,” the means to vigilantly protect against those who would make a mockery of American democracy, the Constitution, the rule of law—and of America itself. It fell to the generations that followed to enforce our hallowed Constitution and ensure that our Union endures. Today, that responsibility falls to us.
How many stories has the Atlantic had to retract in the last six years?
Read the articles, folks. Just read them. The quote from George Washington is highly pertinent. You gotta read through the different syntax from that era but I think at least some of you possess the triple-digit IQ’s to do so.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
What he’s saying is that bad men will try to seize power, then having done so, destroy the mechanisms (IE, democracy itself) that put them there in the first place. This is an accurate description of what Trump attempted, IMHO.
Look. Why am I even bothering to post this here? Here’s why.
- I watched a very alarming feedback/ self gaslight loop form here;
- I have seen many here advocate for outright revolution and the violent destruction of anyone who opposes them;
- via the feedback/gaslight loop formed with Trump, I watched as these people worked themselves into a frenzy;
- I was monitoring here prior to, during, and after JAN 6 and I know that many here wanted the violent overthrow of our government at that moment. Then I watched the backpedaling and ridiculous excuses. I know what I saw. I see you. I know who you are, and I know what you want.
- in about 5 minutes I could go grab quotes from members of this forum still openly advocating for the violent overthrow of America to include the destruction of their political opponents;
- I stand for our constitutional Republic, always have, always will. This puts me in opposition with these people.
- it’s my hope that through direct confrontation, myself and others (to include the courts and ultimately SCOTUS) can and will break the gaslight/feedback loop and we can return to a more rational discourse in this great nation.
We must find out what happened in 2020. Trump will have every chance to prove what I believe to be his lies in open court. But we’ll see. Meanwhile, the 14th Sec 3 looms as a potential disqualifying mechanism for his ever holding elected office again. I hope it does do exactly that. The question of the legality of his actions will still remain, and be litigated, but we’ll be done with him as a politician in America.
Sounds like we will be talking about this a bunch in the upcoming months so we might as well get that ball rolling. From what I’m reading this very likely will be used to keep Trump off primary ballots unless the SCOTUS intervenes.
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.
A group of conservative lawyers wrote a long opinion piece after researching this extensively and to hear them tell it, it’s pretty straightforward and conclusive. Here’s the abstract:
The Sweep and Force of Section Three University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, Forthcoming 126 Pages Posted: 14 Aug 2023 William Baude University of Chicago - Law School
Michael Stokes Paulsen University of St. Thomas School of Law
Date Written: August 9, 2023
Abstract Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
And here’s a link to the paper, so that the brilliant (sic) legal minds of the Fire can parse it:
What about the listed shenanigans done by a majority of the democRATic party. Why do you consider Trump 'guilty' of the made up bullschidt, you democRATs have come up with ( fabricated )..yet everything people in your party are actually guilty of violating the constitution any way they think is inconvenient for they needs and desires., You DemocRATS deny it and then claim you are all innocent, on everything you are guilty of...
Trump is not the problem.... you lying denying democRATS are the problem. you clowns are the one that violate the constitution, any time you find it in the way of your platform and goals.
and then you are supported by the RINOs in the Republican party.. they and most of the democRATS need to be rounded up, jailed and the key thrown away...
This could actually play to Trump’s advantage, and I’m surprised jag and his ilk haven’t seized on this yet.
This one is headed to SCOTUS and it’ll happen quickly. Otherwise the whole primary is going to be horked by administrators taking Trump off the ballot in jurisdictions all across America.
SCOTUS is good at narrowing decisions as much as possible, but, it seems like their presumed ruling on this will by necessity be a ruling on whether what Trump did was or was not an insurrection. That, in turn, could bear directly on Jack Smith’s indictments around the election aftermath. In other words, if SCOTUS ruled even tangentially that Trump did not engage in “insurrection”, it would weaken Smith’s case… I think. The law doesn’t always work the way it seems like it should.
Lawyers? Even “Brilliant” ones like JoeBob? Your thoughts?
I will read that more thoroughly this evening. I cannot seem to copy/past from it, but the section on the 3rd page titled “Engaging in Insurrection and Rebellion” jumped out at me. Suggest folks read it.
This could actually play to Trump’s advantage, and I’m surprised jag and his ilk haven’t seized on this yet.
This one is headed to SCOTUS and it’ll happen quickly. Otherwise the whole primary is going to be horked by administrators taking Trump off the ballot in jurisdictions all across America.
SCOTUS is good at narrowing decisions as much as possible, but, it seems like their presumed ruling on this will by necessity be a ruling on whether what Trump did was or was not an insurrection. That, in turn, could bear directly on Jack Smith’s indictments around the election aftermath. In other words, if SCOTUS ruled even tangentially that Trump did not engage in “insurrection”, it would weaken Smith’s case… I think. The law doesn’t always work the way it seems like it should.
Lawyers? Even “Brilliant” ones like JoeBob? Your thoughts?
The REAL "insurrection" is PedoBiden sitting in the Oval Office after STEALING the 2020 election. Everybody knows that, even you.
I will read that more thoroughly this evening. I cannot seem to copy/past from it, but the section on the 3rd page titled “Engaging in Insurrection and Rebellion” jumped out at me. Suggest folks read it.
I will read that more thoroughly this evening. I cannot seem to copy/past from it, but the section on the 3rd page titled “Engaging in Insurrection and Rebellion” jumped out at me. Suggest folks read it.
This could actually play to Trump’s advantage, and I’m surprised jag and his ilk haven’t seized on this yet.
This one is headed to SCOTUS and it’ll happen quickly. Otherwise the whole primary is going to be horked by administrators taking Trump off the ballot in jurisdictions all across America.
SCOTUS is good at narrowing decisions as much as possible, but, it seems like their presumed ruling on this will by necessity be a ruling on whether what Trump did was or was not an insurrection. That, in turn, could bear directly on Jack Smith’s indictments around the election aftermath. In other words, if SCOTUS ruled even tangentially that Trump did not engage in “insurrection”, it would weaken Smith’s case… I think. The law doesn’t always work the way it seems like it should.
Lawyers? Even “Brilliant” ones like JoeBob? Your thoughts?
The REAL "insurrection" is PedoBiden sitting in the Oval Office after STEALING the 2020 election. Everybody knows that, even you.
Excuse me?
The 2020 election was not stolen. It was free and fair. Trump TRIED, but his Clown Coup fizzled out when the popular uprising he hoped to provoke didn’t happen.
We can cuss and discuss that on another thread. This thread is about the 14th amendment of the Constitution and whether it automatically DQ’s Trump from running.
A 30 second search reveals the Atlantic, the journal for the illiterate, published disinformation of over 20 fake news article claiming Russia and Trump collaborated
We can cuss and discuss that on another thread. This thread is about the 14th amendment of the Constitution and whether it automatically DQ’s Trump from running.
Pro tip: it plainly does.
Pro tip: you’ve been wrong plenty in the past, and I don’t believe anyone is looking to you for clarity on Constitutional issues.
If it was ‘plainly’ evident, there wouldn’t be any discussion or debate.
I’m certain the electoral officials in my State give zero [bleep] about your interpretation.
Where in this speech did he "tRy tO pRoVoKe aN uPrISiNg"?
And I highly doubt anything was free and fair. It amazes me that people like you exist and the ones that do piss me off to no extent. You stupid fùcks are the reason the country can't improve because you stupidly believe everything is okay because you're ingrained with the sound bites of liberal lies, politicians and media. You can see the writing on the wall, Biden bribes and money laundering with Ukraine, the constant attacks on any opposition, etc... but you keep wringing your hands and shout the loudest. How is the country any better since Biden took office? It isnt and you know it.
The docs case is pretty cut and dried, gentlemen. The FBI raided his house because he willfully defied a subpoena to return government documents. When they raided it, they found them. There’s also clear evidence of obstruction from Trump. He’s in big legal peril. But do you see me pounding that drum? Seriously, do you? No. You do not. It’s an example of why he’s utterly unfit for office but I never did really GAF about that one. I care about the fact that he tried to take down our Republic. Full stop.
I’m not even going to bother with that dumb and disingenuous list. The only thing that’s remotely comparable is Hillary AND I DID NOT VOTE FOR HER!
Sounds like we will be talking about this a bunch in the upcoming months so we might as well get that ball rolling. From what I’m reading this very likely will be used to keep Trump off primary ballots unless the SCOTUS intervenes.
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.
A group of conservative lawyers wrote a long opinion piece after researching this extensively and to hear them tell it, it’s pretty straightforward and conclusive. Here’s the abstract:
The Sweep and Force of Section Three University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, Forthcoming 126 Pages Posted: 14 Aug 2023 William Baude University of Chicago - Law School
Michael Stokes Paulsen University of St. Thomas School of Law
Date Written: August 9, 2023
Abstract Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
And here’s a link to the paper, so that the brilliant (sic) legal minds of the Fire can parse it:
Folks….. the overall point I’ve been trying to make, here on this thread and elsewhere, is that reality is coming. Trump is going to trial. I feel like some folks have gotten so addicted to the thrill of seeing no consequences for DJT that they’ve lost sight of reality.
He’s being prosecuted for serious crimes that all evidence points to him committing. He’s going to jail unless he can show that in fact the election was stolen from him. In other words, provide the proof the guy has been claiming to have FOR ALMOST THREE YEARS! Lacking that, he’s in heap big trouble. Why? Because he did what he did and we all saw it being done. It’s utterly inexcusable- unless there truly was a vast conspiracy and it was stolen from him. One way or another we’re going to find out, but it’s not looking good for the former guy.
That’s just a general recap. This thread is specifically about whether the constitution prevents him from even running. If he engaged in insurrection or rebellion, then it very plainly does just that.
This stuff is real, it’s happening, and it’s coming.
Folks….. the overall point I’ve been trying to make, here on this thread and elsewhere, is that reality is coming. Trump is going to trial. I feel like some folks have gotten so addicted to the thrill of seeing no consequences for DJT that they’ve lost sight of reality.
He’s being prosecuted for serious crimes that all evidence points to him committing. He’s going to jail unless he can show that in fact the election was stolen from him. In other words, provide the proof the guy has been claiming to have FOR ALMOST THREE YEARS! Lacking that, he’s in heap big trouble. Why? Because he did what he did and we all saw it being done. It’s utterly inexcusable- unless there truly was a vast conspiracy and it was stolen from him. One way or another we’re going to find out, but it’s not looking good for the former guy.
That’s just a general recap. This thread is specifically about whether the constitution prevents him from even running. If he engaged in insurrection or rebellion, then it very plainly does just that.
This stuff is real, it’s happening, and it’s coming.
You've yet to realize that Jeff_O is a joke here and nobody gives a fugg what he has to say.
Folks….. the overall point I’ve been trying to make, here on this thread and elsewhere, is that reality is coming. Trump is going to trial. I feel like some folks have gotten so addicted to the thrill of seeing no consequences for DJT that they’ve lost sight of reality.
He’s being prosecuted for serious crimes that all evidence points to him committing. He’s going to jail unless he can show that in fact the election was stolen from him. In other words, provide the proof the guy has been claiming to have FOR ALMOST THREE YEARS! Lacking that, he’s in heap big trouble. Why? Because he did what he did and we all saw it being done. It’s utterly inexcusable- unless there truly was a vast conspiracy and it was stolen from him. One way or another we’re going to find out, but it’s not looking good for the former guy.
That’s just a general recap. This thread is specifically about whether the constitution prevents him from even running. If he engaged in insurrection or rebellion, then it very plainly does just that.
This stuff is real, it’s happening, and it’s coming.
What ever happens you'll still be a retard...............
One thing which I don't know if it was mentioned but the 2 authors are members of the Heritage Foundation. They aren't even remotely close to being liberals. One could come to the conclusion that the Heritage Foundation wants Trump out of the way.
Trump needs and wants these lawsuits. Dershowitz and the Judge in PA said Trump was still the POTUS and had presidential immunity for things said. Believe this schiett or not, but even Presidents have 1 A rights.
You think if Trump wants to set precedent of having charges and trial of a past president he can't get those guys or Barr to say he's in big hot water.
I bet you're a champ at catching bouncy balls.
Like Trump said, he's going to have fun (acting) presenting evidence to the World in The Trial of the Century.
Why shouldn't he, he's a genius and he's the greatest actor in the world.
Do you think Smith and Fani are working for Trump and the Military Patriots or do you think the Patriots have a gun to their heads to make them file such stupid, illegitimate junk cases?
As Q said, Grab the popcorn and enjoy the show, Trump is.
Oh, and BTW, I figure there is a great chance the jury will be told to find him guilty too. Then you can crow about that.
Trump may want to set precedent for that for future trials and finding Zero and Slick guilty too.
Like Dr Jan Halper-Hayes of the Dept of Defense said to give you a clue, Trump is playing 5 D chess, are you?
Hey Jell-O, do you really believe the stupid schiett your buds on the left are pushing by saying what hunter did was OK because he wasn't working for Pedo Joe or the Govt?
BTW, how many internet aliases did Pedo Joe have? As of now they have three.
If Pedo Joe says he didn't have connections to Hunters business deals then why was Hunter traveling with him 8 times on AF2 to foreign countries to do business and have business deal emails CC to and from his dad, who you may remember is Pedo Joe, all on Govt devices.
Didn't Q say youse guys were stupid. Qs going to be blessed with another lucky Quincidence on that statement too.
Hey you need to thank me, bro, didn't I try to help you out by letting you know the truth was going to come out?
Here, I'll give you another truthful clue by telling you Comer has the emails between Pedo Joe and Hunter on their traitorus illegal business deals.
How many I told you, dumbass, the Patriots are in control.
And now the banking records are going to be under the spotlight too, as are their tweets and emails.
I think you may owe Q an apology, because Q is Quincidently going to get lucky again and it's going to put the dick to you and your POS traitorus Dimocommie friends.
If you will remember what Q said, and don't tell me you and Gayghost and Lostinhell and woolve and MrWiltsome and MrEd and Buttview and Eric302 and Smokeapole and Tigger are too stupid to connect the investigation into the Bidets banking records to this Q drop. Now JQube and Jefkoff Handy and LroyJetsam and J Loco are probably too stupid to do it but surely youse guys of the Genius Crew can Connect the Dots. Good luck, Corksucker, you're going to need it, along with your buds in the Genius Crew. Have fun.
Hey Jell-O, I'm going to give you and Mr Ed and JQube and Johnny Poco and LROYJETSAM and the woolve and MrEd and Buttview and Eric302 and Smokeapole and Mr Wiltsome and Houston_2 some more PURE COMEDY.
What do you and the Genius Crew think the odds are of our Patriot Q getting another lucky Quincidence all over again for the lucky umpteenth lucky Quincidence time that the investigations into Pedo Joe's alias texts and emails are going to lead to other corksucking commies aliases and their texts and emails.
Do youse guys think the coming revelations of these pukes communications will be PURE COMEDY? Well, I do.
I'm even stupid enough to think Q may be also right about saying, "The truth will come out", do you?
Let's see, do youse guys think we may get into the communications of James Comer, Loretta Lynch, BARACK FUGHKING HUSSEIN OZERO.
Hahaha. I'm thinking that would be PURE COMEDY, how about you?
BTW, how's that special "Feeling" you have about these BS charges against Trump now?
Don't worry, that feeling is going to feel like warm mud running down your legs before long.
Hey Jell-O and Gayghost and Lostinhell and Calledumb and Houston_2, it's amazing isn't it, how you can only eat so much lying MSM Bull Schiett before it turns on you and gives you the schietts.
I love it. Pure freaking comedy.
I'm loving this movie. Trump is the greatest actor in the world.
Jell-O, I'm getting that "Special Feeling", like Nothing Can Stop What Is Coming and The Best is Yet to Come and Checkmate and then, as Q said, "Game over".
Dayom, it feels good. How are you feeling, bud?
Do you feel good like you know you should? I do.
I feel like Q gave me a clue. I feel like you people are stupid. How about you?
Hey Jell-O and Gayghost and Lostinhell and Calledumb and Houston_2, it's amazing isn't it, how you can only eat so much lying MSM Bull Schiett before it turns on you and gives you the schietts.
I love it. Pure freaking comedy.
I'm loving this movie. Trump is the greatest actor in the world.
Jell-O, I'm getting that "Special Feeling", like Nothing Can Stop What Is Coming and The Best is Yet to Come and Checkmate and then, as Q said, "Game over".
Dayom, it feels good. How are you feeling, bud?
Do you feel good like you know you should? I do.
I feel like Q gave me a clue. I feel like you people are stupid. How about you?
All those dudes are to involved in their sweaty gay dog pile to listen to you.
Hey Jell-O and Gayghost and Lostinhell and Calledumb and Houston_2, it's amazing isn't it, how you can only eat so much lying MSM Bull Schiett before it turns on you and gives you the schietts.
I love it. Pure freaking comedy.
I'm loving this movie. Trump is the greatest actor in the world.
Jell-O, I'm getting that "Special Feeling", like Nothing Can Stop What Is Coming and The Best is Yet to Come and Checkmate and then, as Q said, "Game over".
Dayom, it feels good. How are you feeling, bud?
Do you feel good like you know you should? I do.
I feel like Q gave me a clue. I feel like you people are stupid. How about you?
All those dudes are to involved in their sweaty gay dog pile to listen to you.
Hahaha, too true, for a bit, until the Scare Event hits. Then even the dumbfughks will give a shiett. They are why it's a necessary event.
This could actually play to Trump’s advantage, and I’m surprised jag and his ilk haven’t seized on this yet.
This one is headed to SCOTUS and it’ll happen quickly. Otherwise the whole primary is going to be horked by administrators taking Trump off the ballot in jurisdictions all across America.
SCOTUS is good at narrowing decisions as much as possible, but, it seems like their presumed ruling on this will by necessity be a ruling on whether what Trump did was or was not an insurrection. That, in turn, could bear directly on Jack Smith’s indictments around the election aftermath. In other words, if SCOTUS ruled even tangentially that Trump did not engage in “insurrection”, it would weaken Smith’s case… I think. The law doesn’t always work the way it seems like it should.
Lawyers? Even “Brilliant” ones like JoeBob? Your thoughts?
The REAL "insurrection" is PedoBiden sitting in the Oval Office after STEALING the 2020 election. Everybody knows that, even you.
Excuse me?
The 2020 election was not stolen. It was free and fair. Trump TRIED, but his Clown Coup fizzled out when the popular uprising he hoped to provoke didn’t happen.
Here it comes. There will be many, many more of these, all around America, because frankly, any reasonable reading of the 14th Sec3 leads to the conclusion that Trump is DQ’d.
But, of course, it remains to be seen what SCOTUS thinks, and they do bat last on this one. It’ll be relatively soon (for a SCOTUS ruling) because otherwise Trump won’t be on primary ballots.
A lawyer from Palm Beach County has filed one of the first legal challenges to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential race under a clause in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Boynton Beach tax attorney Lawrence Caplan filed the challenge in federal court in the Southern District of Florida citing the amendment's "disqualification clause" for those who engage in insurrections and rebellion against the United States. The amendment was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, and also addressed the citizenship status of freed slaves and the re-integration of the defeated Confederate states back into the Union.
Has anybody tried to explain to the OP that nobody running for the WH has been charged with insurrection much less been found guilty of it. And you cannot have an unarmed insurrection. No such thing as an unarmed insurrection in accordance with the govt's definition of the offense.
I know the OP is braindead but even an idiot can grasp those points.
Here it comes. There will be many, many more of these, all around America, because frankly, any reasonable reading of the 14th Sec3 leads to the conclusion that Trump is DQ’d.
But, of course, it remains to be seen what SCOTUS thinks, and they do bat last on this one. It’ll be relatively soon (for a SCOTUS ruling) because otherwise Trump won’t be on primary ballots.
A lawyer from Palm Beach County has filed one of the first legal challenges to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential race under a clause in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Boynton Beach tax attorney Lawrence Caplan filed the challenge in federal court in the Southern District of Florida citing the amendment's "disqualification clause" for those who engage in insurrections and rebellion against the United States. The amendment was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, and also addressed the citizenship status of freed slaves and the re-integration of the defeated Confederate states back into the Union.
Here it comes. There will be many, many more of these, all around America, because frankly, any reasonable reading of the 14th Sec3 leads to the conclusion that Trump is DQ’d.
But, of course, it remains to be seen what SCOTUS thinks, and they do bat last on this one. It’ll be relatively soon (for a SCOTUS ruling) because otherwise Trump won’t be on primary ballots.
A lawyer from Palm Beach County has filed one of the first legal challenges to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential race under a clause in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Boynton Beach tax attorney Lawrence Caplan filed the challenge in federal court in the Southern District of Florida citing the amendment's "disqualification clause" for those who engage in insurrections and rebellion against the United States. The amendment was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, and also addressed the citizenship status of freed slaves and the re-integration of the defeated Confederate states back into the Union.
Has anybody tried to explain to the OP that nobody running for the WH has been charged with insurrection much less been found guilty of it. And you cannot have an unarmed insurrection. No such thing as an unarmed insurrection in accordance with the govt's definition of the offense.
I know the OP is braindead but even an idiot can grasp those points.
Sec 3 of Amendment 14 does not require that anyone be charged much less found guilty. It’s self-executing and literally required, similar to say an election administrator not putting someone on the POTUS ballot who’s under 30 years old. An unarmed insurrection is still an insurrection by common legal definition. I haven’t seen the “govt’s definition”, but I’d like to. Got a link?
Has anybody tried to explain to the OP that nobody running for the WH has been charged with insurrection much less been found guilty of it. And you cannot have an unarmed insurrection. No such thing as an unarmed insurrection in accordance with the govt's definition of the offense.
I know the OP is braindead but even an idiot can grasp those points.
Sec 3 of Amendment 14 does not require that anyone be charged much less found guilty. It’s self-executing and literally required, similar to say an election administrator not putting someone on the POTUS ballot who’s under 30 years old. An unarmed insurrection is still an insurrection by common legal definition. I haven’t seen the “govt’s definition”, but I’d like to. Got a link?
Forgetting a little detail in US law called presumption of innocence, eh?
Here it comes. There will be many, many more of these, all around America, because frankly, any reasonable reading of the 14th Sec3 leads to the conclusion that Trump is DQ’d.
But, of course, it remains to be seen what SCOTUS thinks, and they do bat last on this one. It’ll be relatively soon (for a SCOTUS ruling) because otherwise Trump won’t be on primary ballots.
A lawyer from Palm Beach County has filed one of the first legal challenges to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential race under a clause in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Boynton Beach tax attorney Lawrence Caplan filed the challenge in federal court in the Southern District of Florida citing the amendment's "disqualification clause" for those who engage in insurrections and rebellion against the United States. The amendment was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, and also addressed the citizenship status of freed slaves and the re-integration of the defeated Confederate states back into the Union.
Trump has not been charged with insurrection or rebellion. Try again.
Here it comes. There will be many, many more of these, all around America, because frankly, any reasonable reading of the 14th Sec3 leads to the conclusion that Trump is DQ’d.
But, of course, it remains to be seen what SCOTUS thinks, and they do bat last on this one. It’ll be relatively soon (for a SCOTUS ruling) because otherwise Trump won’t be on primary ballots.
A lawyer from Palm Beach County has filed one of the first legal challenges to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential race under a clause in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Boynton Beach tax attorney Lawrence Caplan filed the challenge in federal court in the Southern District of Florida citing the amendment's "disqualification clause" for those who engage in insurrections and rebellion against the United States. The amendment was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, and also addressed the citizenship status of freed slaves and the re-integration of the defeated Confederate states back into the Union.
Trump has not been charged with insurrection or rebellion. Try again.
Yep. I wonder how big the Patriots gun was who told Smith and Fani not to go there? Sounds like they will railroad Trump on the trumped up charges. Qs Shot Heard Round The World? Is that when the left has Antifa and BLM start the riots while wearing face masks and MAGA gear and National Guard is sent to 14 major cities? Do they round up the pukes and hand out LEGAL BALLOTS? Is that how Trump wins? What is meant by, "All assets will be deployed"?
Does Trump win the election from prison and then pardon himself?
This movie is getting good. I'm glad we know how it ends. The left cant win.
Has anybody tried to explain to the OP that nobody running for the WH has been charged with insurrection much less been found guilty of it. And you cannot have an unarmed insurrection. No such thing as an unarmed insurrection in accordance with the govt's definition of the offense.
I know the OP is braindead but even an idiot can grasp those points.
Sec 3 of Amendment 14 does not require that anyone be charged much less found guilty. It’s self-executing and literally required, similar to say an election administrator not putting someone on the POTUS ballot who’s under 30 years old. An unarmed insurrection is still an insurrection by common legal definition. I haven’t seen the “govt’s definition”, but I’d like to. Got a link?
But then you moron if you don't need to be charged or found guilty then you have committed no crime. In that case anyone could be found unable to run for office. As for election interference you could easily charge the FBI, suppressing political speech and important voter information, Crossfire Hurricane, Russia Hoax (attempted coup) pick one. I didn't see any of these things happen on J6 so why are you bringing it up?
insurrection ĭn″sə-rĕk′shən noun
The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.A rising up; uprising.The act of rising against civil authority or governmental restraint; specifically, the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state; incipient or limited rebellion.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
Interesting that Florida has chosen to be the litmus test, as to whether this is a legally sound theory.
I have no idea how this will play out but the "House" did issue criminal referrals, one of those criminal referrals was for "aiding an insurrection". This might come down to who has the best lawyers and their legal arguments.
The committee alleged violations of four criminal statutes by Trump, in both the run-up to the riot and during the insurrection itself, as it recommended the former president for prosecution to the Justice Department. The charges recommended by the committee are conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress, conspiracy to make a false statement and aiding an insurrection.
Has anybody tried to explain to the OP that nobody running for the WH has been charged with insurrection much less been found guilty of it. And you cannot have an unarmed insurrection. No such thing as an unarmed insurrection in accordance with the govt's definition of the offense.
I know the OP is braindead but even an idiot can grasp those points.
It's just the usual.
Liberal morons see a stupid post on DU, and bring it over ta the 'fire.
Here it comes. There will be many, many more of these, all around America, because frankly, any reasonable reading of the 14th Sec3 leads to the conclusion that Trump is DQ’d.
But, of course, it remains to be seen what SCOTUS thinks, and they do bat last on this one. It’ll be relatively soon (for a SCOTUS ruling) because otherwise Trump won’t be on primary ballots.
A lawyer from Palm Beach County has filed one of the first legal challenges to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential race under a clause in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Boynton Beach tax attorney Lawrence Caplan filed the challenge in federal court in the Southern District of Florida citing the amendment's "disqualification clause" for those who engage in insurrections and rebellion against the United States. The amendment was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, and also addressed the citizenship status of freed slaves and the re-integration of the defeated Confederate states back into the Union.
Is it possible for the OP to get any stupider..........
I am about to blow some big holes in the idiotic rant of the OP. Buckle up Boys:
1) Nobody, including Trump, has been charged with insurrection. Not one. That means nobody, including Trump, will face trial for insurrection which in turn means that nobody, including Trump, can be found guilty of insurrection. Since nobody, including Trump, can be found guilty of insurrection by a jury of his peers then nobody, including Trump, can be prevented from running for office due to insurrection.
2) Insurrection is, by U.S. statute, a 2 part offense and it must begin by an act of rebellion. Per U.S. statute, rebellions must include the use of arms. Not one of the protesters was armed in any way. The only bullets fired that day were by the Capital Hill police and the only person shot was an unarmed woman. Since there was no ARMED REBELLION, there can be no, per U.S. statute, insurrection.
3) Trump has been accused of "inciting" the violent protest but the actual words of Trump, which were not included in the grand jury evidence, show him (on video and per transcript) calling for peaceful protest in accordance with the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. At no time did he call for violence or illegal actions on the part of anybody.
4) There were numerous reports that the FBI and other govt agencies were informed that there were agitators from outside DC coming to cause mayhem. The FBI even arrested several such cells in NYC prior to Jan 6. Because of these reports Trump offered the Natl Guard to Washington DC and the Capital Hill police to help keep order. The mayor of DC and the Capital Hill police (who report to the speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi) turned him down. Additionally, extra forces for the Washington DC police dept and the Capital Hill police were not prepared to be mobilized on short notice, despite the warning of trouble. This is a leadership failure of both law enforcement entities and is not the fault of Trump who offered forces to be at their call if needed and they ended up being needed. The offer of troops renders the accusation of insurrection invalid because the troops were offered to strengthen the govt and not weaken it. Insurrections by their very definition are done to weaken, or negate, a govt's hold on power.
5) There are numerous videos of the Capital Hill police opening the doors to the capital building and allowing people in. The doors of the capital are magnetically sealed and can only be opened from the inside. While there was some breaking into the building via windows (remember the outside agitators) many of the people that ended up being arrested were allowed into the building, and even escorted around by uniformed officers of the Capital Hill police. This is all on video. Additionally there was a news crew (headed by Nancy Pelosi's niece) that just happened to be in the building when it was "breached" through doors held open by the Capital Hill police, who report to Nancy Pelosi. Convenient right?
6) In order for there to be a rebellion and an insurrection it had to be done with the intention of overthrowing the sitting govt. Trump was president on Jan 6 and he was president on Jan 7. Was he trying to overthrow himself? All the members of congress that held office on Jan 6 also held office on Jan 7. There was NO attempt to overthrow the govt. The only day that could have happened was on Jan 20 when the office of POTUS was to be turned over and it was turned over in full accordance with U.S. Law. Since Trump did not attempt to stop the lawful transfer of power, on Jan 20, 2021, legally there was no insurrection.
I am about to blow some big holes in the idiotic rant of the OP. Buckle up Boys:
1) Nobody, including Trump, has been charged with insurrection. Not one. That means nobody, including Trump, will face trial for insurrection which in turn means that nobody, including Trump, can be found guilty of insurrection. Since nobody, including Trump, can be found guilty of insurrection by a jury of his peers then nobody, including Trump, can be prevented for running for office due to insurrection.
2) Insurrection is, by U.S. statute, a 2 part offense and it must begin by an act of rebellion. Per U.S. statute, rebellions must include the use of arms. Not one of the protesters was armed in any way. The only bullets fired that day were by the Capital Hill police and the only person shot was an unarmed woman. Since there was no ARMED REBELLION, there can be no, per U.S. statute, insurrection.
3) Trump has been accused of "inciting" the violent protest but the actual words of Trump, which were not included in the grand jury evidence, show him (on video and per transcript) calling for peaceful protest in accordance with the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. At no time did he call for violence or illegal actions on the part of anybody.
4) There were numerous reports that the FBI and other govt agencies were informed that there were agitators from outside DC coming to cause mayhem. The FBI even arrested several such cells in NYC prior to Jan 6. Because of these reports Trump offered the Natl Guard to Washington DC and the Capital Hill police to help keep order. The mayor of DC and the Capital Hill police (who report to the speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi) turned him down. Additionally, extra forces for the Washington DC police dept and the Capital Hill police were not prepared to be mobilized on short notice, despite the warning of trouble. This is a leadership failure of both law enforcement entities and is not the fault of Trump who offered forces to be at their call if needed and they ended up being needed. The offer of troops renders the accusation of insurrection invalid because the troops were offered to strengthen the govt and not weaken it. Insurrections by their very definition are done to weaken, or negate, a govt's hold on power.
5) There are numerous videos of the Capital Hill police opening the doors to the capital building and allowing people in. The doors of the capital are magnetically sealed and can only be opened from the inside. While there was some breaking into the building via windows (remember the outside agitators) many of the people that ended up being arrested were allowed into the building, and even escorted around by uniformed officers of the Capital Hill police. This is all on video. Additionally there was a news crew (headed by Nancy Pelosi's niece) that just happened to be in the building when it was "breached" through doors held open by the Capital Hill police, who report to Nancy Pelosi. Convenient right?
6) Lastly in order for there the be a rebellion and an insurrection it had to be done with the intention of overthrowing the sitting govt. Trump was president on Jan 6 and he was president on Jan 7. Was he trying to overthrow himself? All the members of congress that held office on Jan 6 also held office on Jan 7. There was NO attempt to overthrow the govt. The only day that could have happened was on Jan 20 when the office of POTUS was to be turned over and it was turned over in full accordance with U.S. Law. Since Trump did not attempt to stop the lawful transfer of power, on Jan 20, 2021, legally there was no insurrection.
The 14th Sec 3 also lists “rebellion” as cause. Is that a statute? Or a description of action(s)? I don’t know, that’s an honest question. If the latter…. then he’s not gonna be on the ballot.
Regardless, this one is heating up, as predicted, and will be tested in the courts. I’m guessing- could be wrong- that there’s precedent for this being used in cases where the person(s) it was used against were never convicted of insurrection.
SCOTUS will be the decider. As I already said, that could actually work to Trumps advantage beyond just the question of whether he can Constitutionally be allowed on ballots because it might amount to a finding of whether fücknut did or did not engage in insurrection/rebellion which in turn could effect Smith’s case. Or not. As I said earlier SCOTUS are masters of very carefully narrowing the scope of their decisions.
But know this. Trump is, at the end of the day, a bullshitter. Courts are pretty much designed to cut through bullshit. Judges are human beings wired to despise bullshit. I don’t think SCOTUS is gonna go out of their way to rescue one Donald J. Trump from the consequences of his bullshit. Could be wrong. We’ll see. Soon!
Is it possible for the OP to get any stupider..........
It's what happens when the thinking faculties are entirely corrupted with the disease of leftism.
That’s exactly what seems to happen anymore. Once they’ve made their pledge or oath or fealty to their democrat overlords they stop using logic and critical thinking and go straight to emotionally, often violently, repeating the party mantra.
The 14th Sec 3 also lists “rebellion” as cause. Is that a statute? Or a description of action(s)? I don’t know, that’s an honest question. If the latter…. then he’s not gonna be on the ballot.
Regardless, this one is heating up, as predicted, and will be tested in the courts. I’m guessing- could be wrong- that there’s precedent for this being used in cases where the person(s) it was used against were never convicted of insurrection.
SCOTUS will be the decider. As I already said, that could actually work to Trumps advantage beyond just the question of whether he can Constitutionally be allowed on ballots because it might amount to a finding of whether fücknut did or did not engage in insurrection/rebellion which in turn could effect Smith’s case. Or not. As I said earlier SCOTUS are masters of very carefully narrowing the scope of their decisions.
But know this. Trump is, at the end of the day, a bullshitter. Courts are pretty much designed to cut through bullshit. Judges are human beings wired to despise bullshit. I don’t think SCOTUS is gonna go out of their way to rescue one Donald J. Trump from the consequences of his bullshit. Could be wrong. We’ll see. Soon!
Yesterday we got news that an Obama-appointed judge had dismissed a 14th-Amendment-based disqualification lawsuit brought by a plaintiff (is that the right word? JoeBrilliant?) due to lack of standing.
That was a nothingburger. Lawsuits from plaintiffs WITH standing will soon be filed. Two obvious ones are Christie and Hutchinson, but state Secretary of State’s also certainly qualify, and several are deep in the weeds exploring how to proceed. Stay tuned. It’s coming.
In my opinion, the 14th Sec 3 very clearly DQ’s Trump from holding any elected office ever again, minus a 2/3 vote from both Houses to reinstate him. But this being the legal system, who knows. We’ll find out sooner than later; this one plays out on a much faster timeline than his trials for over 90 felonies will.
Yesterday we got news that an Obama-appointed judge had dismissed a 14th-Amendment-based disqualification lawsuit brought by a plaintiff (is that the right word? JoeBrilliant?) due to lack of standing.
That was a nothingburger. Lawsuits from plaintiffs WITH standing will soon be filed. Two obvious ones are Christie and Hutchinson, but state Secretary of State’s also certainly qualify, and several are deep in the weeds exploring how to proceed. Stay tuned. It’s coming.
In my opinion, the 14th Sec 3 very clearly DQ’s Trump from holding any elected office ever again, minus a 2/3 vote from both Houses to reinstate him. But this being the legal system, who knows. We’ll find out sooner than later; this one plays out on a much faster timeline than his trials for over 90 felonies will.
in your opinion.. LMAO and the world's opinion you're still a dumbass
It's amazing that there is a percentage of Americans who actually fall for this crap. 100% brainwashed.
They fall for the crap Bidet got 81 million votes and open borders and fentanyl trafficking and illegal importation of middle eastern muzzies and destruction of the US Oil Industry is good for America.
“This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress,” [Barr] said. “The allegation, essentially, by the government is that at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme, that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.”
What do you expect the Bolsheviks to put in the charges? It's total BS. Anyone with half a brain sees right through it. I think even they know it's BS. That you don't is pretty sad.
What Pinocchio does not realize is that the Dems are playing a game of election interference. Damn is he slow witted.
Just as Trump and the Patriots suckered them into doing so Trump could, as he's now doing, educate the People as to what treasonous Election Interference is.
Trump is leading the people from Dark to Light and we are privileged to watch the Great Awakening that will lead the people out of the Swamps Matrix box.
You are more of an optimist than I am. I think it's going to be close but could go either way. I am not convinced that democrats will ever not vote democrat. We could have $12 gas and they still will go straight blue.
Here it comes. There will be many, many more of these, all around America, because frankly, any reasonable reading of the 14th Sec3 leads to the conclusion that Trump is DQ’d.
But, of course, it remains to be seen what SCOTUS thinks, and they do bat last on this one. It’ll be relatively soon (for a SCOTUS ruling) because otherwise Trump won’t be on primary ballots.
A lawyer from Palm Beach County has filed one of the first legal challenges to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential race under a clause in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Boynton Beach tax attorney Lawrence Caplan filed the challenge in federal court in the Southern District of Florida citing the amendment's "disqualification clause" for those who engage in insurrections and rebellion against the United States. The amendment was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, and also addressed the citizenship status of freed slaves and the re-integration of the defeated Confederate states back into the Union.
Trump has not been charged with insurrection or rebellion. Try again.
And Jell-O is too stupid to figure out why.
Patriots Are In Control and running the show. The people are learning the truth about the POS dimocraps and their traitorus DNC. What's coming? Voter ID.
As Q said, "Trust the Plan". "The left can't win", and NothingCanStopWhatIsComing. .
“This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress,” [Barr] said. “The allegation, essentially, by the government is that at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme, that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.”
What do you expect the Bolsheviks to put in the charges? It's total BS. Anyone with half a brain sees right through it. I think even they know it's BS. That you don't is pretty sad.
What Pinocchio does not realize is that the Dems are playing a game of election interference. Damn is he slow witted.
Just as Trump and the Patriots suckered them into doing so Trump could, as he's now doing, educate the People as to what treasonous Election Interference is.
Trump is leading the people from Dark to Light and we are privileged to watch the Great Awakening that will lead the people out of the Swamps Matrix box.
Friend Jag, if he can show PROOF that there was the massive, top-down, multistate election fraud that he alleges (aka “releasing the kraken”) then what you want to happen could in fact happen.
The problem is he can’t. Because it didn’t happen. So he won’t. And so, friend Jag, he will very likely be convicted by multiple juries comprised of citizens, like any other American, and sent to prison for his crimes, along with a whole bunch of his cronies.
We do agree, you and I, that’s it’s awesome that he will get his chance to prove what he says in court. I’m trying to help you understand that things have not, and will not, go the way you think they will. I worry for your and many other’s mental health in the coming months. I do believe I’m actually helping you, and them, by forcing you to water, whether you choose to drink or not.
As pertains to this particular thread, we will find out sooner rather than later if he can even run for so much as dogcatcher again. The 14th Section 3 is right there in the Constitution. Remember that? Y’all used to call yourself Constitutional originalists. The text is plain as can be. We shall see.
Trump won in 2020. Working in concert with foreign actors to overthrow the US Govt or head of the US Govt is Subversion and perpetrators of such are, according to Trump, guilty of treason which carries the death penalty.
That means trial in GITMO since Trump declared war against those who perpetrated the Insurrection on Nov 3rd 2020 after our country was attacked. Trump had already switched the US to Maritime Law on Sept 12, 2018 and Federalized the National Guard and put them to work around the world.
Trump declared war on Dec 8, 2020.
On Jan 7 after Pence did as directed and did not send the swing states fraudulent election results back to their respective State Republican House legislators he Instituted the Insurrection Act since all 3 branches had failed in their Constitutional Duty.
As Trump told in a live interview we almost lost the country and would have if he had not enacted some Constitutional legalities on January 18, 2020. What he did was Instituted Devolution of Power to the Military after a successful coup for Continuance of Governance under belligerent enemy actors.
There is a reason a stand in for Biden took the oath of office illegally before 12 noon as required by law. There is a reason the coronation of the fake Joe Biden got a 3 canon 12 or so gun slow fire salute with the Canon at Arlington Cemetery and didn't get Hail to the Chief played for him.
Go to C- span or CNN and watch the Military play out the funeral ceremony for the real Joe Biden.
There is a reason none of the Residents appointments have not taken the federally required oath of office.
There is a reason Trump says Joe Biden is a different guy and that Joe Biden doesn't know if he's alive or dead and why a few days ago Killery was ugly but now she's beautiful.
There’s a reason you think all that crazy stuff, jag. It has to do with the avoidance of cognitive dissonance. I honestly would not have DREAMED that a contingent of the USA could go so deeply down rabbit-holes to avoid a reality that was unpleasant to them, but here we are.
Trump lost. Then he tried to steal it. Now he goes on trial. Those are some hard truths, Friend Jag.
You're too stupid to talk to but I'll give you some clues as to what's coming. Didn't your bud Jack Smith set precedent by investigating Trumps tweets, etc. Why did Trump sucker the left into doing that? Here's a clue.
When your guy is making the distinction that he never swore to “support” the Constitution… yeah. There’s a Patriot for ya.
Insert eye-roll emoji here.
Given that the Colorado judge’s “finding of fact” is that he did in fact engage in insurrection, and findings of fact are highly unlikely to be overturned on appeal, what remains is only that she wasn’t sure the 14th Sec 3 applies to POTUS. That, and essentially only that, is what’s being judged on appeal. Hint: it ain’t over.
When your guy is making the distinction that he never swore to “support” the Constitution… yeah. There’s a Patriot for ya.
Insert eye-roll emoji here.
Given that the Colorado judge’s “finding of fact” is that he did in fact engage in insurrection, and findings of fact are highly unlikely to be overturned on appeal, what remains is only that she wasn’t sure the 14th Sec 3 applies to POTUS. That, and essentially only that, is what’s being judged on appeal. Hint: it ain’t over.
Shove a compensated Glock up your azz, Jeffy. Hope you get an infection .
What’s fascinating about this one is that it will likely force SCOTUS to rule on whether what Trump attempted was or was not an insurrection as defined in the Constitution.
Your thoughts?
Why do you even ask “your thoughts?” As if you’re some open minded seeker of truth?
I’ve attempted to engage with you through honest questions for months and you NEVER even respond much less give honest and clear answers to the questions.
Last time.
What EXACTLY (I want a direct quote from the Pres, in context, on video) did he do that justifies “insurrection”.
Hint: as much as you hate it, stating an opinion you don’t agree with isn’t insurrection, but 1A protected speech.
When your guy is making the distinction that he never swore to “support” the Constitution… yeah. There’s a Patriot for ya.
Insert eye-roll emoji here.
Given that the Colorado judge’s “finding of fact” is that he did in fact engage in insurrection, and findings of fact are highly unlikely to be overturned on appeal, what remains is only that she wasn’t sure the 14th Sec 3 applies to POTUS. That, and essentially only that, is what’s being judged on appeal. Hint: it ain’t over.
That judge had not heard evidence on her “finding of fact”. She wasn’t holding court to discuss that matter.
For that “finding of fact” to carry any legal weight would mean you support suspending individuals right to a fair trial based upon the fact that you disagree with their politics.
Which, obviously, is the reason why intellectually honest liberals are disavowing the Left and attempting to make distinctions between themselves and those they consider “too far left”.
Sounds like we will be talking about this a bunch in the upcoming months so we might as well get that ball rolling. From what I’m reading this very likely will be used to keep Trump off primary ballots unless the SCOTUS intervenes.
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.
A group of conservative lawyers wrote a long opinion piece after researching this extensively and to hear them tell it, it’s pretty straightforward and conclusive. Here’s the abstract:
The Sweep and Force of Section Three University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, Forthcoming 126 Pages Posted: 14 Aug 2023 William Baude University of Chicago - Law School
Michael Stokes Paulsen University of St. Thomas School of Law
Date Written: August 9, 2023
Abstract Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
And here’s a link to the paper, so that the brilliant (sic) legal minds of the Fire can parse it:
Every time, since the Brandon steal, that allegations of voter fraud have actually been heard by a court that received evidence of voter fraud, that court has decided that voter fraud occurred.
Every time, since the Brandon steal, that allegations of voter fraud have actually been heard by a court that received evidence of voter fraud, that court has decided that voter fraud occurred.
Correct; those events cited by lefties have been when suits were tossed based up standing with no evidence presented.
What’s fascinating about this one is that it will likely force SCOTUS to rule on whether what Trump attempted was or was not an insurrection as defined in the Constitution.
Your thoughts?
Why do you even ask “your thoughts?” As if you’re some open minded seeker of truth?
I’ve attempted to engage with you through honest questions for months and you NEVER even respond much less give honest and clear answers to the questions.
Last time.
What EXACTLY (I want a direct quote from the Pres, in context, on video) did he do that justifies “insurrection”.
Hint: as much as you hate it, stating an opinion you don’t agree with isn’t insurrection, but 1A protected speech.
I will answer it for him
President Trump said in his speech to the crowd ( after they started entering the Capital because he delayed his speech)
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
One question. Why haven't all of the responders here to jeffy simply " brushed the dirt off their sandals" on him by now? Trolls only do what trolls do. Simple...
I hardly consider any events around Jan 6 to be considered an "insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof". If it does, then any protest could be considered the same.
Colorado’s highest court Thursday knocked former President Trump off the state’s Republican primary ballot under the 14th Amendment in a 4-3 ruling, making it the first state to block him from seeking the presidency because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.
The court put its ruling on hold until Jan. 4, so Trump can first seek review from the Supreme Court. Assuming he does, Trump’s name automatically remains on the ballot until the justices resolve the appeal.
Colorado Supreme Court just ruled him ineligible to be on the Colorado primary ballot via the 14th Sec 3.
I hate to tell you I told you so, but I told you so.
Just stop with the “it wasn’t an insurrection” bullcrap. Play stupid if you want; act like the stuff being said HERE prior to and immediately after J6 never happened. Gaslight yourselves all you want; just don’t piss on MY boots and expect me to agree it’s raining. You know, and I know, what Trump tried to do, and it went far beyond the events of J6. And we know many here were more than ok with it. Still are! So just cut the crap.
EFW, there’s your answer: I reject your premise, because it’s bullshit and we both know it.
Obviously this ain’t over. To SCOTUS it goes. I have a sneaking suspicion SCOTUS ain’t gonna rescue Trump, from this or from Jack Smith, because to do so is to essentially cut off their own nuts. But we’ll see. I haven’t been wrong about any of this yet… but it’s still possible.
Colorado Supreme Court just ruled him ineligible to be on the Colorado primary ballot via the 14th Sec 3.
I hate to tell you I told you so, but I told you so.
Just stop with the “it wasn’t an insurrection” bullcrap. Play stupid if you want; act like the stuff being said HERE prior to and immediately after J6 never happened. Gaslight yourselves all you want; just don’t piss on MY boots and expect me to agree it’s raining. You know, and I know, what Trump tried to do, and it went far beyond the events of J6. And we know many here were more than ok with it. Still are! So just cut the crap.
EFW, there’s your answer: I reject your premise, because it’s bullshit and we both know it.
Obviously this ain’t over. To SCOTUS it goes. I have a sneaking suspicion SCOTUS ain’t gonna rescue Trump, from this or from Jack Smith, because to do so is to essentially cut off their own nuts. But we’ll see. I haven’t been wrong about any of this yet… but it’s still possible.
You reject my premise that “insurrection” has a legal definition, and that for J6 to have been one, that definition would have had to have been met?
Those judges aren’t fit to hold office. Trump has not been convicted of insurrection by any court of competent jurisdiction, so there is absolutely zero basis to this finding.
This is a statement of plain fact, from the CO SC.
"President Trump did not merely incite the insurrection," the unsigned opinion from the majority said. "Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling Senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes. These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection."
This is a statement of plain fact, from the CO SC.
"President Trump did not merely incite the insurrection," the unsigned opinion from the majority said. "Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling Senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes. These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection."
The problem with that assertion is that there is a valid Constitutional argument that the Vice President is in fact empowered to decline to count or accept electoral votes when there is evidence of fraud. Most importantly, All Trump was asking Pence to do was delay counting until the fraud claims could either be verified or disproven. The opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court is ridiculously impotent and entirely one-sided.
Colorado Supreme Court just ruled him ineligible to be on the Colorado primary ballot via the 14th Sec 3.
I hate to tell you I told you so, but I told you so.
Just stop with the “it wasn’t an insurrection” bullcrap. Play stupid if you want; act like the stuff being said HERE prior to and immediately after J6 never happened. Gaslight yourselves all you want; just don’t piss on MY boots and expect me to agree it’s raining. You know, and I know, what Trump tried to do, and it went far beyond the events of J6. And we know many here were more than ok with it. Still are! So just cut the crap.
EFW, there’s your answer: I reject your premise, because it’s bullshit and we both know it.
Obviously this ain’t over. To SCOTUS it goes. I have a sneaking suspicion SCOTUS ain’t gonna rescue Trump, from this or from Jack Smith, because to do so is to essentially cut off their own nuts. But we’ll see. I haven’t been wrong about any of this yet… but it’s still possible.
Jeffy tell us again what a weak lazy coward you were when you abandoned your special draw mule deer tag with your daughter
You’ve always been a liar and posses a weak character
This is a statement of plain fact, from the CO SC.
"President Trump did not merely incite the insurrection," the unsigned opinion from the majority said. "Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling Senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes. These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection."
The Colorado SC doesn’t get to make a legal statement on a case that isn’t before them. I’d be insulting your intelligence if I assumed you thought otherwise.
The question before the court was whether the Presidents name ought to be on the ballot if he was under indictment for a crime that would disqualify him.
Of course they ignored the fact that even Orange Man has due process rights and he hasn’t been convicted of anything at all, so their stumbling over themselves to disqualify him in the name of “our sacred democracy “ seemed to be practicing the old “we have to destroy the village to save the village” mentality.
Again, what PRECISELY was it that was done that is so self evidently insurrectionist? If it’s as obvious as you continuously claim it ought to be easy to post up clear and EXPLICIT explanation. Maybe even a video clip?
Oh the irony…. for the ‘tards, the irony is that this is exactly what Trump tried to do, is being prosecuted for, and as it stands won’t be on the CO ballot for attempting.
Trump’s legal team has argued the challenge and others like it are an antidemocratic attempt to prevent voters from deciding the next occupant of the White House.
In exactly which court is President Trump being tried for 'insurrection'?
And in case you missed the year it was taught[or were stoned outta your goard for the year], for the thousandth time; The USofA is NOT a 'democracy', look it up.
Oh the irony…. for the ‘tards, the irony is that this is exactly what Trump tried to do, is being prosecuted for, and as it stands won’t be on the CO ballot for attempting.
Trump’s legal team has argued the challenge and others like it are an antidemocratic attempt to prevent voters from deciding the next occupant of the White House.
So in your world just saying stuff makes it so?
There is no due process.
Vivek is spot on with this, and even never Trumper Justin Amash nailed it.
Oh the irony…. for the ‘tards, the irony is that this is exactly what Trump tried to do, is being prosecuted for, and as it stands won’t be on the CO ballot for attempting.
Trump’s legal team has argued the challenge and others like it are an antidemocratic attempt to prevent voters from deciding the next occupant of the White House.
this idiot and drug addicted liar has over 100 posts claiming Trump colluded with Russia.
Of course his misinformation was exposed like here
Colorado Supreme Court just ruled him ineligible to be on the Colorado primary ballot via the 14th Sec 3.
I hate to tell you I told you so, but I told you so.
Just stop with the “it wasn’t an insurrection” bullcrap. Play stupid if you want; act like the stuff being said HERE prior to and immediately after J6 never happened. Gaslight yourselves all you want; just don’t piss on MY boots and expect me to agree it’s raining. You know, and I know, what Trump tried to do, and it went far beyond the events of J6. And we know many here were more than ok with it. Still are! So just cut the crap.
EFW, there’s your answer: I reject your premise, because it’s bullshit and we both know it.
Obviously this ain’t over. To SCOTUS it goes. I have a sneaking suspicion SCOTUS ain’t gonna rescue Trump, from this or from Jack Smith, because to do so is to essentially cut off their own nuts. But we’ll see. I haven’t been wrong about any of this yet… but it’s still possible.
Gotta give you an "E" for effort... But you're gonna eat a LOT of your words, pal...
Jeffo- must really suck to hate America and its system as much as you do. And before you respond just know that all of this is way bigger than just Trump. You wish for stuff whereby you assume dot gov always knows best for you and you’ll sacrifice your very rights for any/all of it. Again, this requires you to think before you answer.
But sadly your view is severely compromised, pretty sad actually.
Please just go away, everyone except greyghost agrees with me. But I know, you have to be right. This is what we get when we have an atheist with no moral compass (that’s you).
27 pages here. Have we even discussed the definition of an insurrection? I'd like to think that we have, but if not, I'll offer Websters.
"act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government."
Under that definition, I suppose what took place in the Capitol on January 6 meets the definition.
If that's the case, then so too did the anti-cop riots of the summer of 2019. BLM organized, funded and supported those riots. Let's examine that against the language of 14A ...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Oh my. BLM is an insurrectionist organization. So too are those who financially aided them. Donated to BLM, sorry, you may not go on a ballot.
Kamala certainly provided them comfort when she said they shouldn't stop and when she encouraged donating to their bail fund so they could get back out and get their insurrection on.
Colorado Supreme Court just ruled him ineligible to be on the Colorado primary ballot via the 14th Sec 3.
I hate to tell you I told you so, but I told you so.
Just stop with the “it wasn’t an insurrection” bullcrap. Play stupid if you want; act like the stuff being said HERE prior to and immediately after J6 never happened. Gaslight yourselves all you want; just don’t piss on MY boots and expect me to agree it’s raining. You know, and I know, what Trump tried to do, and it went far beyond the events of J6. And we know many here were more than ok with it. Still are! So just cut the crap.
EFW, there’s your answer: I reject your premise, because it’s bullshit and we both know it.
Obviously this ain’t over. To SCOTUS it goes. I have a sneaking suspicion SCOTUS ain’t gonna rescue Trump, from this or from Jack Smith, because to do so is to essentially cut off their own nuts. But we’ll see. I haven’t been wrong about any of this yet… but it’s still possible.
Gotta give you an "E" for effort... But you're gonna eat a LOT of your words, pal...
Colorado Supreme Court just ruled him ineligible to be on the Colorado primary ballot via the 14th Sec 3.
I hate to tell you I told you so, but I told you so.
Just stop with the “it wasn’t an insurrection” bullcrap. Play stupid if you want; act like the stuff being said HERE prior to and immediately after J6 never happened. Gaslight yourselves all you want; just don’t piss on MY boots and expect me to agree it’s raining. You know, and I know, what Trump tried to do, and it went far beyond the events of J6. And we know many here were more than ok with it. Still are! So just cut the crap.
EFW, there’s your answer: I reject your premise, because it’s bullshit and we both know it.
Obviously this ain’t over. To SCOTUS it goes. I have a sneaking suspicion SCOTUS ain’t gonna rescue Trump, from this or from Jack Smith, because to do so is to essentially cut off their own nuts. But we’ll see. I haven’t been wrong about any of this yet… but it’s still possible.
Colorado Supreme Court just ruled him ineligible to be on the Colorado primary ballot via the 14th Sec 3.
I hate to tell you I told you so, but I told you so.
Just stop with the “it wasn’t an insurrection” bullcrap. Play stupid if you want; act like the stuff being said HERE prior to and immediately after J6 never happened. Gaslight yourselves all you want; just don’t piss on MY boots and expect me to agree it’s raining. You know, and I know, what Trump tried to do, and it went far beyond the events of J6. And we know many here were more than ok with it. Still are! So just cut the crap.
EFW, there’s your answer: I reject your premise, because it’s bullshit and we both know it.
Obviously this ain’t over. To SCOTUS it goes. I have a sneaking suspicion SCOTUS ain’t gonna rescue Trump, from this or from Jack Smith, because to do so is to essentially cut off their own nuts. But we’ll see. I haven’t been wrong about any of this yet… but it’s still possible.
Gotta give you an "E" for effort... But you're gonna eat a LOT of your words, pal...
And it'll be sweet to see.
You'll have to wait for months to see it, just like his last delusional rants. He'll be in hiding again. Pure puuzzzey!
And if anybody places any bets with him, he's sure to welch on those too.
I think by December next year there are going to be a lot surprised Democrats that get to learn what an insurrection is first hand. At some point enough is enough.
Decision found that trump had committed insurrection. But the judge refused to keep him off the ballot without further judicial action (last 3 or 4 pages...
In other words, nothing was going to be done about it.
Decision found that trump had committed insurrection. But the judge refused to keep him off the ballot without further judicial action (last 3 or 4 pages...
In other words, nothing was going to be done about it.
But, both parties appealed the action.
And you know what the appeal's decision was...
Phil
Not even close.
The court found that the 14th doesn’t apply to the offices of Pres & VP.
”Writing for a three-judge panel in 2012, Gorsuch dismissed the idea that Colorado was required to place Abdul Karim Hassan’s name on the presidential ballot even if he was ineligible to assume the presidency. A state’s “legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process,” Gorsuch wrote, “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” What Gorsuch was saying, in other words, is states are empowered to assess a candidate’s eligibility for an office and strike them from the ballot if they don’t meet the criteria for holding office.
With that being said, I’m guessing our supposedly “originalist, textualist, Constitutionalist” SCOTUS will weasel out of this one somehow, thus utterly diminishing their credibility as such, which ain’t gonna help gun rights any down the road. But we’ll see.
On some level, I gotta say, it’s morbidly amusing watching Trumpy folks tie themselves into absurd knots defending the [bleep] clown in direct contraction to supposed prior “principles”. Present company most definitely included. But this is the world we live in.
Colorado Supreme Court just ruled him ineligible to be on the Colorado primary ballot via the 14th Sec 3.
I hate to tell you I told you so, but I told you so.
Just stop with the “it wasn’t an insurrection” bullcrap. Play stupid if you want; act like the stuff being said HERE prior to and immediately after J6 never happened. Gaslight yourselves all you want; just don’t piss on MY boots and expect me to agree it’s raining. You know, and I know, what Trump tried to do, and it went far beyond the events of J6. And we know many here were more than ok with it. Still are! So just cut the crap.
EFW, there’s your answer: I reject your premise, because it’s bullshit and we both know it.
Obviously this ain’t over. To SCOTUS it goes. I have a sneaking suspicion SCOTUS ain’t gonna rescue Trump, from this or from Jack Smith, because to do so is to essentially cut off their own nuts. But we’ll see. I haven’t been wrong about any of this yet… but it’s still possible.
Jeffy tell us again what a weak lazy coward you were when you abandoned your special draw mule deer tag with your daughter
You’ve always been a liar and posses a weak character
”Writing for a three-judge panel in 2012, Gorsuch dismissed the idea that Colorado was required to place Abdul Karim Hassan’s name on the presidential ballot even if he was ineligible to assume the presidency. A state’s “legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process,” Gorsuch wrote, “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” What Gorsuch was saying, in other words, is states are empowered to assess a candidate’s eligibility for an office and strike them from the ballot if they don’t meet the criteria for holding office.
With that being said, I’m guessing our supposedly “originalist, textualist, Constitutionalist” SCOTUS will weasel out of this one somehow, thus utterly diminishing their credibility as such, which ain’t gonna help gun rights any down the road. But we’ll see.
On some level, I gotta say, it’s morbidly amusing watching Trumpy folks tie themselves into absurd knots defending the [bleep] clown in direct contraction to supposed prior “principles”. Present company most definitely included. But this is the world we live in.
Jeff tell us again why you pussed out of your Oregon deer hunt? lmao. what a weak coward
Sounds like we will be talking about this a bunch in the upcoming months so we might as well get that ball rolling. From what I’m reading this very likely will be used to keep Trump off primary ballots unless the SCOTUS intervenes.
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.
A group of conservative lawyers wrote a long opinion piece after researching this extensively and to hear them tell it, it’s pretty straightforward and conclusive. Here’s the abstract:
The Sweep and Force of Section Three University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, Forthcoming 126 Pages Posted: 14 Aug 2023 William Baude University of Chicago - Law School
Michael Stokes Paulsen University of St. Thomas School of Law
Date Written: August 9, 2023
Abstract Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
And here’s a link to the paper, so that the brilliant (sic) legal minds of the Fire can parse it:
”Writing for a three-judge panel in 2012, Gorsuch dismissed the idea that Colorado was required to place Abdul Karim Hassan’s name on the presidential ballot even if he was ineligible to assume the presidency. A state’s “legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process,” Gorsuch wrote, “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” What Gorsuch was saying, in other words, is states are empowered to assess a candidate’s eligibility for an office and strike them from the ballot if they don’t meet the criteria for holding office.
With that being said, I’m guessing our supposedly “originalist, textualist, Constitutionalist” SCOTUS will weasel out of this one somehow, thus utterly diminishing their credibility as such, which ain’t gonna help gun rights any down the road. But we’ll see.
On some level, I gotta say, it’s morbidly amusing watching Trumpy folks tie themselves into absurd knots defending the [bleep] clown in direct contraction to supposed prior “principles”. Present company most definitely included. But this is the world we live in.
When you die I hope it's in the worst conceivable way.
People will swallow horseshit to stop Trump. TDS is a real thing. First, you need a congressional full vote to charge with sedition. Then you need to hold a congressional trial and convict of sedition. That is nowhere to be found in any of these radical, unfounded rulings.
For all the real dumbasses, last I recall Trump left office the day he was supposed to and without incident.
Questioning election results in an unprecedented time with questionable voting practices is not sedition.
Supporting such state rulings make you anything but constitutional. The Dems and FBI orchestrated most of Jan 6, then their propagandist DNC news media made the phony stacked J6 committee sound is if Trump committed insurrection, which he didn’t and was never charged with. But the dumbass, unlawful sheep go hook, line and sinker into the abyss of stupidity.
BTW where does it say Trump is constitutionally prohibited to run, having a political hack state supreme court judge(s) deem so doesn’t make it constitutional at all.
With that being said, I’m guessing our supposedly “originalist, textualist, Constitutionalist” SCOTUS will weasel out of this one somehow, thus utterly diminishing their credibility as such, which ain’t gonna help gun rights any down the road. But we’ll see.
On some level, I gotta say, it’s morbidly amusing watching Trumpy folks tie themselves into absurd knots defending the [bleep] clown in direct contraction to supposed prior “principles”.
I swear Jeff0 is a walking contradiction of unintentionally hilarious proportions. He’s been kissing SCOTUS’ ass all year thinking that they were “in his corner” when the reality is that Jeff0 doesn’t have a “corner”. Jeff0 stands for nothing while hiding behind the Constitution, a document that he has repeatedly had no use for and in fact he seems to loathe our Constitution unless it benefits him. His platitudes for SCOTUS this past year were, like everything in his worthless life, empty and meaningless because he’s the antithesis of a patriot.
Now that SCOTUS will likely be the determining factor Jeff0 is setting the table for him to belittle and besmirch the SCOTUS in case they rule based on the rule of LAW….something Jeff0 has continuously supported so long as they ruled in the way HE wants them to rule. If SCOTUS returns the decision that we ALL know they’ll return and Trump is eligible for the Colorado ballot Jeff will excoriate the SCOTUS….
Jeff0 is a lying POS….that much has been proven here beyond a shadow of a doubt over the past decade++ so any decision that doesn’t violate the law in order to gain an illegal and unconstitutional conviction against President Trump will be met with vitriol, lies and assorted anti-American comments by Jeff0.
He loved and trusted SCOTUS right up until they ruled in favor of the Constitution. If a liberal hates anything more than President Trump it’s our Constitution that they abhor and Jeff0 is the personification of the wild-eyed, crazy ass liberal that thinks throwing a temper tantrum will cause adults to change their minds….it won’t. 😉
Jeff0 will be in for a rude awakening soon as all these bullshit, banana republic, politically motivated cases brought by barely literate affirmative action losers…..reverse racism is still racism. Poke the hornets nest at your own risk…
I’m about to become somewhat guilty, of what I’m about to accuse you guys of doing,
Ignore this fugstick troll…….Don’t reply….
Jeffy drops non-factual innuendo and sits back and beats off from the attention you guys give him.
He hated Trump wayyyyyyyyy before T took office, He continues to hate him all based on personal emotion, envy would be my guess,
There’s no facts here, ever, from the idiot……..
You really think you’re going to reason with this idiot?
I agree with you that, in general, ignoring the dumbfuck is the best course of action but in this case I think that it will be fun watching Jeff0 get thumped here when his prognostications and guesses about President Trump’s legal peril all fall flat. Jeffo was so giddy initially when the affirmative action negro DA’s brought bullshit charges against President Trump…..Jeff0 was willing to forgo the trial and all the “unnecessary” legal proceedings, minutiae that would only delay the “inevitable” outcome, at least according to Jeff0. Jeff0 was a “staunch” supporter of the “rule of law” and he placed all of his faith, trust and support in the infallible justice system…..knowing that should the rulings not go Jeff0’s way he still had the SCOTUS to weigh in and since SCOTUS is….uhh, well it’s SCOTUS…since in Jeff0’s empty noodle he has full faith that the SCOTUS knows that an insurrection is whatever a democrat says it is and that our Founders never intended for the citizens to vote for their leader instead preferring the appointment process and the courts to decide for us.
Let Jeff0 have this moment….. I don’t think it’s gonna turn out the way she thinks and hopes it’s gonna turn out! Yes the SCOTUS will rule and YES the SCOTUS will use the Constitution as its guide but NO Jeff0 won’t accept the outcomes of any/all of the cases that don’t turn out the way she wants it to.
Hey dumbass. I’ve been saying all along this one lands with SCOTUS, and “who knows”… bet I’ve said that 20 times on this thread.
As far as his other legal “issues”, yes indeed I’m thrilled that the rule of law is dragging the lying POS that is Donald Trump into a venue where his lies won’t wash. He’s being tried for, in a nutshell, trying to subvert democracy and steal an election. Since he, uh, actually DID this, in front of all of our eyes, and with the enthusiastic support of many here, you’re damn tootin’ I’m glad he gets his day in court, and by extension, so do you. And I do in fact like my odds of coming away smiling on that one.
As for the 14th Sec 3, I’ll say it yet again just for you: we’ll see. My guess is SCOTUS uses some rhetorical trick to find a way out of ruling on its merits… but we’ll see.
————-
Boy, Jack Smith sure has a way with words, huh. Very direct, very concise, and very true. In fact, he deserves his own thread… hmmm. Do I care enough? 😂 Anyway:
The defendant asserts (Br.1) that this prosecution ‘threatens … to shatter the very bedrock of our Republic.’ To the contrary: it is the defendant’s claim that he cannot be held to answer for the charges that he engaged in an unprecedented effort to retain power through criminal means, despite having lost the election, that threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation of our Republic,” Smith wrote in the new filing. “This Court should affirm and issue the mandate expeditiously to further the public’s — and the defendant’s — compelling interest in a prompt resolution of this case,” he added.
Could not agree more, Mr. Smith. Take it to the lying sack of shït. Quickly.
Hey dumbass. I’ve been saying all along this one lands with SCOTUS, and “who knows”… bet I’ve said that 20 times on this thread.
As far as his other legal “issues”, yes indeed I’m thrilled that the rule of law is dragging the lying POS that is Donald Trump into a venue where his lies won’t wash. He’s being tried for, in a nutshell, trying to subvert democracy and steal an election. Since he, uh, actually DID this, in front of all of our eyes, and with the enthusiastic support of many here, you’re damn tootin’ I’m glad he gets his day in court, and by extension, so do you. And I do in fact like my odds of coming away smiling on that one.
As for the 14th Sec 3, I’ll say it yet again just for you: we’ll see. My guess is SCOTUS uses some rhetorical trick to find a way out of ruling on its merits… but we’ll see.
————-
Boy, Jack Smith sure has a way with words, huh. Very direct, very concise, and very true. In fact, he deserves his own thread… hmmm. Do I care enough? 😂 Anyway:
The defendant asserts (Br.1) that this prosecution ‘threatens … to shatter the very bedrock of our Republic.’ To the contrary: it is the defendant’s claim that he cannot be held to answer for the charges that he engaged in an unprecedented effort to retain power through criminal means, despite having lost the election, that threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation of our Republic,” Smith wrote in the new filing. “This Court should affirm and issue the mandate expeditiously to further the public’s — and the defendant’s — compelling interest in a prompt resolution of this case,” he added.
Could not agree more, Mr. Smith. Take it to the lying sack of shït. Quickly.
Must suck to go through life with “TDS”, such a sad little mind you have.
Colorado Supreme Court just ruled him ineligible to be on the Colorado primary ballot via the 14th Sec 3.
I hate to tell you I told you so, but I told you so.
Just stop with the “it wasn’t an insurrection” bullcrap. Play stupid if you want; act like the stuff being said HERE prior to and immediately after J6 never happened. Gaslight yourselves all you want; just don’t piss on MY boots and expect me to agree it’s raining. You know, and I know, what Trump tried to do, and it went far beyond the events of J6. And we know many here were more than ok with it. Still are! So just cut the crap.
EFW, there’s your answer: I reject your premise, because it’s bullshit and we both know it.
Obviously this ain’t over. To SCOTUS it goes. I have a sneaking suspicion SCOTUS ain’t gonna rescue Trump, from this or from Jack Smith, because to do so is to essentially cut off their own nuts. But we’ll see. I haven’t been wrong about any of this yet… but it’s still possible.
I guess you didn't see where on Twitter/X Trump told folks to peacefully protest and let your voices be heard.
So why after Trump authorized the NG to have 10,000 troops there did Nancy Piglosi (head of capital security) and the mayor of DC turn it down? Because it was planned to do what they did. That was not hear the objections from several members of the House/Senate as to election irregularities. How convenient isn't it?
I don't know how you like your crow, grilled, bbq'd, roasted??? But you'd better decide cuz you're going to eat a ton of it dude.
SCOTUS will be hearing oral arguments soon. It’ll be illustrative. My guess is they’ll ignore that they are supposedly originalists and weasel out of this one on a technicality…. One of those “it depended on what the meaning of “is” is” type things. We shall see.
The appeals panel swatted down Trumps immunity claims, very clearly and decisively, which was predictable. Their language is quoted below because it’s good stuff.
On the subject of SCOTUS, on the immunity issue I predict they will simply decline to hear Trump’s appeal, thus letting the appeal court verdict stand. Bookmark it!
”We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”
SCOTUS will be hearing oral arguments soon. It’ll be illustrative. My guess is they’ll ignore that they are supposedly originalists and weasel out of this one on a technicality…. One of those “it depended on what the meaning of “is” is” type things. We shall see.
The appeals panel swatted down Trumps immunity claims, very clearly and decisively, which was predictable. Their language is quoted below because it’s good stuff.
On the subject of SCOTUS, on the immunity issue I predict they will simply decline to hear Trump’s appeal, thus letting the appeal court verdict stand. Bookmark it!
”We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”
SCOTUS will be hearing oral arguments soon. It’ll be illustrative. My guess is they’ll ignore that they are supposedly originalists and weasel out of this one on a technicality…. One of those “it depended on what the meaning of “is” is” type things. We shall see.
The appeals panel swatted down Trumps immunity claims, very clearly and decisively, which was predictable. Their language is quoted below because it’s good stuff.
On the subject of SCOTUS, on the immunity issue I predict they will simply decline to hear Trump’s appeal, thus letting the appeal court verdict stand. Bookmark it!
”We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”
^^ a little sumptin’ called the truth! ^^
So apparently, it's illegal to question the vote? Seems that it is, at least for Trump.
SCOTUS will be hearing oral arguments soon. It’ll be illustrative. My guess is they’ll ignore that they are supposedly originalists and weasel out of this one on a technicality…. One of those “it depended on what the meaning of “is” is” type things. We shall see.
The appeals panel swatted down Trumps immunity claims, very clearly and decisively, which was predictable. Their language is quoted below because it’s good stuff.
On the subject of SCOTUS, on the immunity issue I predict they will simply decline to hear Trump’s appeal, thus letting the appeal court verdict stand. Bookmark it!
”We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”
^^ a little sumptin’ called the truth! ^^
So apparently, it's illegal to question the vote? Seems that it is, at least for Trump.
For dang sure it shows that liberals are commie sympathizers. This is so far from the normal word of democracy or the ability to at least fairly question and its so far down the dictator line that everyone said is what Trump was that its pathetic.
We should have ran these idiots off by vote long ago. Yet we, including me, gave in. Said oh we will let that and this slide... we got what we asked for so to speak. We should have stood our ground firm and hard and accepted no infringements. No lies. No cheating etc....
I was even naive enough to think you could let people like Jeff see the light eventually. I was wrong.
SCOTUS will be hearing oral arguments soon. It’ll be illustrative. My guess is they’ll ignore that they are supposedly originalists and weasel out of this one on a technicality…. One of those “it depended on what the meaning of “is” is” type things. We shall see.
The appeals panel swatted down Trumps immunity claims, very clearly and decisively, which was predictable. Their language is quoted below because it’s good stuff.
On the subject of SCOTUS, on the immunity issue I predict they will simply decline to hear Trump’s appeal, thus letting the appeal court verdict stand. Bookmark it!
”We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”
^^ a little sumptin’ called the truth! ^^
You really are incapable of logical thought aren’t you?
He left office on the day appointed, so obviously he did not “neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power”.
Are you against due process? Shouldn’t he have to be convicted of insurrection… he hasn’t even been charged for it… before being eliminated from a ballot under the 14th?
Serious question.
You really ought to consider your answer given that Conservatives have as many reasons or more to credibly do the same to Biden.
In the final analysis President Trump will be elected for the THIRD time and none of these anti-American actions by liberals using the bastardized liberal courts for their lawfare will be overturned. Jeff0 will still be a pathetic piece of dogshit and the coming storm will not shine favorably upon Jeff0 and his ilk. It’s gonna be epic…
Stay tuned for more of Jeff’s cherry picking liberal court decisions before they’re overturned. All of these cases were ones that made him giddy when they were first brought but virtually everyone of these bullshit abuses by a banana republic party replete with the affirmative action promoted ass monkeys that brought them have fallen apart.
1 ass monkey in Georgia is banging another ass monkey 🙊 and lying about Trump while the ass monkeys 🙊 are stealing money from grants and destroying our Constitution yet Jeff0 is deafeningly quiet. He claims to be a fan of the law yet, like everything in his miserable life, that’s a LIE. Jeff0 hasn’t said a word about the obviously illegal bullshit being done by his justice warrior negress and her jug eared beau.
Jeff0 is the epitome of the lying liberal dipshit and I hope that when the bell tolls he’s begging for the pain to end….
I’ll say it again. My opinion is that SCOTUS will decline to review this appellate court opinion.
Trump is going to trial for trying to steal it. Soon.
The quadrennial Presidential election is a crucial check on executive power because a President who adopts unpopular policies or violates the law can be voted out of office. Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President has no role—the counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes—thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of Congress …
We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power—the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.
At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.”
In the final analysis President Trump will be elected for the THIRD time and none of these anti-American actions by liberals using the bastardized liberal courts for their lawfare will be overturned. Jeff0 will still be a pathetic piece of dogshit and the coming storm will not shine favorably upon Jeff0 and his ilk. It’s gonna be epic…
Stay tuned for more of Jeff’s cherry picking liberal court decisions before they’re overturned. All of these cases were ones that made him giddy when they were first brought but virtually everyone of these bullshit abuses by a banana republic party replete with the affirmative action promoted ass monkeys that brought them have fallen apart.
1 ass monkey in Georgia is banging another ass monkey 🙊 and lying about Trump while the ass monkeys 🙊 are stealing money from grants and destroying our Constitution yet Jeff0 is deafeningly quiet. He claims to be a fan of the law yet, like everything in his miserable life, that’s a LIE. Jeff0 hasn’t said a word about the obviously illegal bullshit being done by his justice warrior negress and her jug eared beau.
Jeff0 is the epitome of the lying liberal dipshit and I hope that when the bell tolls he’s begging for the pain to end….
In the final analysis President Trump will be elected for the THIRD time and none of these anti-American actions by liberals using the bastardized liberal courts for their lawfare will be overturned. Jeff0 will still be a pathetic piece of dogshit and the coming storm will not shine favorably upon Jeff0 and his ilk. It’s gonna be epic…
Stay tuned for more of Jeff’s cherry picking liberal court decisions before they’re overturned. All of these cases were ones that made him giddy when they were first brought but virtually everyone of these bullshit abuses by a banana republic party replete with the affirmative action promoted ass monkeys that brought them have fallen apart.
1 ass monkey in Georgia is banging another ass monkey 🙊 and lying about Trump while the ass monkeys 🙊 are stealing money from grants and destroying our Constitution yet Jeff0 is deafeningly quiet. He claims to be a fan of the law yet, like everything in his miserable life, that’s a LIE. Jeff0 hasn’t said a word about the obviously illegal bullshit being done by his justice warrior negress and her jug eared beau.
Jeff0 is the epitome of the lying liberal dipshit and I hope that when the bell tolls he’s begging for the pain to end….
Yeah, yall got him now.
Your stupidity will soon be proved so astoundingly even you will see. Trump and the Patriots in Control are playing with your treasonous pukes while showing the people what scum your scum buds are.
I’ll say it again. My opinion is that SCOTUS will decline to review this appellate court opinion.
Trump is going to trial for trying to steal it. Soon.
The quadrennial Presidential election is a crucial check on executive power because a President who adopts unpopular policies or violates the law can be voted out of office. Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President has no role—the counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes—thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of Congress …
We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power—the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.
At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.”
Boom.
Man you really have gone off the liberal deep end.
SCOTUS will be hearing oral arguments soon. It’ll be illustrative. My guess is they’ll ignore that they are supposedly originalists and weasel out of this one on a technicality…. One of those “it depended on what the meaning of “is” is” type things. We shall see.
The appeals panel swatted down Trumps immunity claims, very clearly and decisively, which was predictable. Their language is quoted below because it’s good stuff.
On the subject of SCOTUS, on the immunity issue I predict they will simply decline to hear Trump’s appeal, thus letting the appeal court verdict stand. Bookmark it!
”We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”
^^ a little sumptin’ called the truth! ^^
You really are incapable of logical thought aren’t you?
He left office on the day appointed, so obviously he did not “neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power”.
Are you against due process? Shouldn’t he have to be convicted of insurrection… he hasn’t even been charged for it… before being eliminated from a ballot under the 14th?
Serious question.
You really ought to consider your answer given that Conservatives have as many reasons or more to credibly do the same to Biden.
So that’s a “yes”.
Gotcha.
The rule of law is nothing but a slogan to be used in propagandistic brainwashing sessions with you people.
SCOTUS will be hearing oral arguments soon. It’ll be illustrative. My guess is they’ll ignore that they are supposedly originalists and weasel out of this one on a technicality…. One of those “it depended on what the meaning of “is” is” type things. We shall see.
The appeals panel swatted down Trumps immunity claims, very clearly and decisively, which was predictable. Their language is quoted below because it’s good stuff.
On the subject of SCOTUS, on the immunity issue I predict they will simply decline to hear Trump’s appeal, thus letting the appeal court verdict stand. Bookmark it!
”We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”
^^ a little sumptin’ called the truth! ^^
You really are incapable of logical thought aren’t you?
He left office on the day appointed, so obviously he did not “neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power”.
Are you against due process? Shouldn’t he have to be convicted of insurrection… he hasn’t even been charged for it… before being eliminated from a ballot under the 14th?
Serious question.
You really ought to consider your answer given that Conservatives have as many reasons or more to credibly do the same to Biden.
So that’s a “yes”.
Gotcha.
The rule of law is nothing but a slogan to be used in propagandistic brainwashing sessions with you people.
Amazing.
Laws for thee but not for we, for we are the dimocommies.
SCOTUS will be hearing oral arguments soon. It’ll be illustrative. My guess is they’ll ignore that they are supposedly originalists and weasel out of this one on a technicality…. One of those “it depended on what the meaning of “is” is” type things. We shall see.
The appeals panel swatted down Trumps immunity claims, very clearly and decisively, which was predictable. Their language is quoted below because it’s good stuff.
On the subject of SCOTUS, on the immunity issue I predict they will simply decline to hear Trump’s appeal, thus letting the appeal court verdict stand. Bookmark it!
”We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”
^^ a little sumptin’ called the truth! ^^
So apparently, it's illegal to question the vote? Seems that it is, at least for Trump.
For dang sure it shows that liberals are commie sympathizers. This is so far from the normal word of democracy or the ability to at least fairly question and its so far down the dictator line that everyone said is what Trump was that its pathetic.
We should have ran these idiots off by vote long ago. Yet we, including me, gave in. Said oh we will let that and this slide... we got what we asked for so to speak. We should have stood our ground firm and hard and accepted no infringements. No lies. No cheating etc....
I was even naive enough to think you could let people like Jeff see the light eventually. I was wrong.
rost, liberal brainwashed fools never see the light. Fact is, their brains just won't allow them to accept and process new information that challenges what's constantly being driven into their skulls in the liberal echo chambers.
SCOTUS will be hearing oral arguments soon. It’ll be illustrative. My guess is they’ll ignore that they are supposedly originalists and weasel out of this one on a technicality…. One of those “it depended on what the meaning of “is” is” type things. We shall see.
The appeals panel swatted down Trumps immunity claims, very clearly and decisively, which was predictable. Their language is quoted below because it’s good stuff.
On the subject of SCOTUS, on the immunity issue I predict they will simply decline to hear Trump’s appeal, thus letting the appeal court verdict stand. Bookmark it!
”We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”
^^ a little sumptin’ called the truth! ^^
So apparently, it's illegal to question the vote? Seems that it is, at least for Trump.
For dang sure it shows that liberals are commie sympathizers. This is so far from the normal word of democracy or the ability to at least fairly question and its so far down the dictator line that everyone said is what Trump was that its pathetic.
We should have ran these idiots off by vote long ago. Yet we, including me, gave in. Said oh we will let that and this slide... we got what we asked for so to speak. We should have stood our ground firm and hard and accepted no infringements. No lies. No cheating etc....
I was even naive enough to think you could let people like Jeff see the light eventually. I was wrong.
rost, liberal brainwashed fools never see the light. Fact is, their brains just won't allow them to accept and process new information that challenges what's constantly being driven into their skulls in the liberal echo chambers.
There is the fact that those pukes blinded by the Lord have a tendency to fall into their own pitfalls.
SCOTUS will be hearing oral arguments soon. It’ll be illustrative. My guess is they’ll ignore that they are supposedly originalists and weasel out of this one on a technicality…. One of those “it depended on what the meaning of “is” is” type things. We shall see.
The appeals panel swatted down Trumps immunity claims, very clearly and decisively, which was predictable. Their language is quoted below because it’s good stuff.
On the subject of SCOTUS, on the immunity issue I predict they will simply decline to hear Trump’s appeal, thus letting the appeal court verdict stand. Bookmark it!
”We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”
^^ a little sumptin’ called the truth! ^^
So apparently, it's illegal to question the vote? Seems that it is, at least for Trump.
For dang sure it shows that liberals are commie sympathizers. This is so far from the normal word of democracy or the ability to at least fairly question and its so far down the dictator line that everyone said is what Trump was that its pathetic.
We should have ran these idiots off by vote long ago. Yet we, including me, gave in. Said oh we will let that and this slide... we got what we asked for so to speak. We should have stood our ground firm and hard and accepted no infringements. No lies. No cheating etc....
I was even naive enough to think you could let people like Jeff see the light eventually. I was wrong.
rost, liberal brainwashed fools never see the light. Fact is, their brains just won't allow them to accept and process new information that challenges what's constantly being driven into their skulls in the liberal echo chambers.
The anger on this site is palpable. The reason for the anger is the deep seated fear that their Great Leader will soon be in prison, let alone not be president.
They can’t even address, let alone comprehend that scrotus is going to be deciding Trump’s fate. Apparently, this causes so much angst, that the cultists have to lash out with this vitriolic
The anger on this site is palpable. The reason for the anger is the deep seated fear that their Great Leader will soon be in prison, let alone not be president.
They can’t even address, let alone comprehend that scrotus is going to be deciding Trump’s fate. Apparently, this causes so much angst, that the cultists have to lash out with this vitriolic
Lieberals are liars. Your too stupid to see Trump setting precedent for hanging your buds in GITMO.
I know you don't believe me because you corksuckers only believe lies, like Bidet got 81 million votes. Tff.
I only tell you this because I'd like you to remember when you stupidly dismissed the truth. Why didn't your buds Fani Willis and Jack Smith not file insurrection or Treason charges against Trump? Because he's going to be found guilty and that would prevent him from being POTUS.
Here's a clue you should have listened to Q. Like Q said, We have it all. It's being gradually leaked out by the Military Patriots in Control.
Jell-O, you know why Willis and Smith didn't file treason charges?
The Military COG told them not to.
They want Trump found guilty. Trump has already told us he will be found guilty just as he told us in September 2020,he was not going to be in the White House after the Election. Being found guilty will buy him millions more brown and bleck votes.He will be cleared on appeal.
As Q said, Trust the Plan. Trust Trump. Trust the Military.
He wants his day in court for the Trial of the Century. Why? Trump is going to prove to the world your treasonous dimocommie buds are guilty of the Crime of The Century.
The Election fraud that stole the US Presidency is a crime of treason. The US pukes declared no war and claimed no affiliation with a foreign enemy and wore no enemy uniform in their attacks.
Remember Trump reporting several times that we had been attacked more viciously than at Pearl Harbor?
That was a declaration of war acceptable under the new US DOD Law of War Manual.
Trump wants to prove their treason to the world for good reason. Trump demands that he justify to the World their Military Tribunals and Death Penalty and Hanging.
As Q said, "The Best is Yet To Come."
You don't believe me because you are a fool. You're too stupid to Connect the Dots.
You will. It's coming. Your biotch told you the truth one time. As usual, you didn't believe the truth.
The anger on this site is palpable. The reason for the anger is the deep seated fear that their Great Leader will soon be in prison, let alone not be president.
They can’t even address, let alone comprehend that scrotus is going to be deciding Trump’s fate. Apparently, this causes so much angst, that the cultists have to lash out with this vitriolic
There are NO Liberals
Only Marxist/Maoist and your Next Door Neighbor Marxist Sympathizers…
I’d like to know how you keep somebody off the ballot for something they have never been charged with?
Texas might as well take Biden off the ballot because they believe Joe took bribes. Never been proven, never been charged? Doesn’t matter, we think he did it.
SCOTUS will be hearing oral arguments soon. It’ll be illustrative. My guess is they’ll ignore that they are supposedly originalists and weasel out of this one on a technicality…. One of those “it depended on what the meaning of “is” is” type things. We shall see.
The appeals panel swatted down Trumps immunity claims, very clearly and decisively, which was predictable. Their language is quoted below because it’s good stuff.
On the subject of SCOTUS, on the immunity issue I predict they will simply decline to hear Trump’s appeal, thus letting the appeal court verdict stand. Bookmark it!
”We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”
^^ a little sumptin’ called the truth! ^^
So apparently, it's illegal to question the vote? Seems that it is, at least for Trump.
For dang sure it shows that liberals are commie sympathizers. This is so far from the normal word of democracy or the ability to at least fairly question and its so far down the dictator line that everyone said is what Trump was that its pathetic.
We should have ran these idiots off by vote long ago. Yet we, including me, gave in. Said oh we will let that and this slide... we got what we asked for so to speak. We should have stood our ground firm and hard and accepted no infringements. No lies. No cheating etc....
I was even naive enough to think you could let people like Jeff see the light eventually. I was wrong.
rost, liberal brainwashed fools never see the light. Fact is, their brains just won't allow them to accept and process new information that challenges what's constantly being driven into their skulls in the liberal echo chambers.
I’d like to know how you keep somebody off the ballot for something they have never been charged with?
Texas might as well take Biden off the ballot because they believe Joe took bribes. Never been proven, never been charged? Doesn’t matter, we think he did it.
In the final analysis President Trump will be elected for the THIRD time and none of these anti-American actions by liberals using the bastardized liberal courts for their lawfare will be overturned. Jeff0 will still be a pathetic piece of dogshit and the coming storm will not shine favorably upon Jeff0 and his ilk. It’s gonna be epic…
Stay tuned for more of Jeff’s cherry picking liberal court decisions before they’re overturned. All of these cases were ones that made him giddy when they were first brought but virtually everyone of these bullshit abuses by a banana republic party replete with the affirmative action promoted ass monkeys that brought them have fallen apart.
1 ass monkey in Georgia is banging another ass monkey 🙊 and lying about Trump while the ass monkeys 🙊 are stealing money from grants and destroying our Constitution yet Jeff0 is deafeningly quiet. He claims to be a fan of the law yet, like everything in his miserable life, that’s a LIE. Jeff0 hasn’t said a word about the obviously illegal bullshit being done by his justice warrior negress and her jug eared beau.
Jeff0 is the epitome of the lying liberal dipshit and I hope that when the bell tolls he’s begging for the pain to end….
Well, that’s settled. The outcome isn’t surprising.
Two noteworthy things. First, SCOTUS did not contest the lower court’s finding of fact that Trump was, in fact, an insurrectionist. This is potentially huge. Second, if I’m understanding their ruling correctly, Congress could refuse to seat Trump on those grounds if he were to win in November (hint: he won’t). I believe it would require a simple majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate.
Well, that’s settled. The outcome isn’t surprising.
Two noteworthy things. First, SCOTUS did not contest the lower court’s finding of fact that Trump was, in fact, an insurrectionist. This is potentially huge. Second, if I’m understanding their ruling correctly, Congress could refuse to seat Trump on those grounds if he were to win in November (hint: he won’t). I believe it would require a simple majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate.
Well, that’s settled. The outcome isn’t surprising.
Two noteworthy things. First, SCOTUS did not contest the lower court’s finding of fact that Trump was, in fact, an insurrectionist. This is potentially huge. Second, if I’m understanding their ruling correctly, Congress could refuse to seat Trump on those grounds if he were to win in November (hint: he won’t). I believe it would require a simple majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate.
So, you're hope is that the Congress challenges the results of the election, and refuses to seat the legitimate winner? And the basis for this is that he is ineligible because he challenged the results of an election?
Well, that’s settled. The outcome isn’t surprising.
Two noteworthy things. First, SCOTUS did not contest the lower court’s finding of fact that Trump was, in fact, an insurrectionist. This is potentially huge. Second, if I’m understanding their ruling correctly, Congress could refuse to seat Trump on those grounds if he were to win in November (hint: he won’t). I believe it would require a simple majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate.
Jeffy got in early for damage control and bugged out. TFF
Well, that’s settled. The outcome isn’t surprising.
Two noteworthy things. First, SCOTUS did not contest the lower court’s finding of fact that Trump was, in fact, an insurrectionist. This is potentially huge. Second, if I’m understanding their ruling correctly, Congress could refuse to seat Trump on those grounds if he were to win in November (hint: he won’t). I believe it would require a simple majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate.
Jeff, you're delusional. There is no "fact that Trump was, in fact, an insurrectionist". There has been no charge of insurrection let alone a conviction of insurrection with regards to Trump because there was no insurrection. Period. You continue to make a complete ass of yourself like all the other dems. There is a reason why the term Trump Derangement Syndrome is used to describe useful idiots like you.
You said a long time ago you would leave the 24Hour forums if Trump won the first time. But like so many other dems. you're a liar. You have no effect on members here, Its not even funny anymore, you're just a pathetic loser. Just leave and quit wasting our time.
So, you're hope is that the Congress challenges the results of the election, and refuses to seat the legitimate winner? And the basis for this is that he is ineligible because he challenged the results of an election?
Well, that’s settled. The outcome isn’t surprising.
Two noteworthy things. First, SCOTUS did not contest the lower court’s finding of fact that Trump was, in fact, an insurrectionist. This is potentially huge. Second, if I’m understanding their ruling correctly, Congress could refuse to seat Trump on those grounds if he were to win in November (hint: he won’t). I believe it would require a simple majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate.
And he continues to live in your head rent free. Even when you are loosing you are too stupid to realize it, that’s funny. Now you have more predictions that will also be wrong.
Sadly for you your world is collapsing around you, but I do enjoy the whine of an unpatriotic, liberal atheist. 😄
Well, that’s settled. The outcome isn’t surprising.
Two noteworthy things. First, SCOTUS did not contest the lower court’s finding of fact that Trump was, in fact, an insurrectionist. This is potentially huge. Second, if I’m understanding their ruling correctly, Congress could refuse to seat Trump on those grounds if he were to win in November (hint: he won’t). I believe it would require a simple majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate.
Well, that’s settled. The outcome isn’t surprising.
Two noteworthy things. First, SCOTUS did not contest the lower court’s finding of fact that Trump was, in fact, an insurrectionist. This is potentially huge. Second, if I’m understanding their ruling correctly, Congress could refuse to seat Trump on those grounds if he were to win in November (hint: he won’t). I believe it would require a simple majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate.
Very disappointed in you. Even I figured you can see that what Trump said and the supposed J6 stuff, that Trump incited nothing but peaceful protest.. Vs what was allowed with all the BLM riots etc...
You have lost what little mind you had left.. Left. Hmm.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/05Gf4GhQ/Insurrection-meme.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/024nJr0x/Screenshot-20230817-055050-Brave.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/sDWQwXR3/Screenshot-20230818-054935-Brave.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/8PWQyFPk/Screenshot-20230818-055739-Brave.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/9XLjR3gV/Screenshot-20230817-054337-Brave.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/X7D3hM9x/Screenshot-20230818-054515-Brave.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/ttTnbUM.png)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/231104.jpeg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/wv63L03S/Screenshot-20230818-150725-Photos.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/TenzAFs.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/FR3HS3dB/Screenshot-20230818-055739-Brave.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/Gm9ZBR6B/Screenshot-20230819-134854-Photos.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/Njv6WkYd/Screenshot-20230819-050311-Photos.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/WzhBGSm.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/qANlKIx.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/vBtpdBDn/Screenshot-2023-08-19-at-14-01-35-Capitol-Protest-January-6th-Here-Is-The-Evidence.png)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/0QT8nfJs/Screenshot-20230819-050103-Photos.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/fJOxx5c.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/SjeWzRx.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/xFRVD54.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/9z5FBPJp/CCB5-F1-A8-1-DEA-4-B6-C-978-A-75731-D7-F85-B5.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/1fB0jf4/GOT-TRUMP.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/6qnkCCwT/Screenshot-20230813-202430-Photos.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/KvBR9WQs/Screenshot-20230817-053552-Brave.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/F1ty4dXw/Screenshot-20230821-163531-Photos.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/vmdGVQGM/Screenshot-20230821-163506-Photos.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/bwMMWLZv/Screenshot-20230821-051554-Brave.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/Kvj0bBS3/Screenshot-20230818-073017-Brave.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/q7Wt5tVK/Screenshot-20230821-062031-Brave.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/y871BxJw/Screenshot-20230822-061029-Brave.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/vTsq3VB4/Special-kind-of-stupid.png)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/YSxSS1j5/patriot.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/nztw3Dkh/upload-2021-5-16-17-7-49.gif)
![[Linked Image from media.tenor.com]](https://media.tenor.com/Pbyo1JV09BcAAAAC/crickets-crickets-chirping.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/sfPBT67R/Screenshot-20230824-164434-Photos.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/25Byh2rM/Screenshot-20230824-164027-Photos.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/0jZyP40M/Screenshot-20230822-222426-Brave.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/8PKzYqCx/Screenshot-20230814-171619-Photos.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/wBn7dxCD/Screenshot-20230917-125718-Photos-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/GmgJthXH/Screenshot-20230813-125627-Photos-3.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/TPC8pbZn/Screenshot-20230918-163724-Photos.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/VNdy0v1T/Screenshot-20230918-163258-Photos.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/760WSTRB/Screenshot-20230907-222455-Photos-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/Y28xZ3Q6/Screenshot-20230918-163037-Photos.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/2SxvLjT4/Screenshot-20230918-163008-Photos.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/BbtPdxGp/Screenshot-20230918-162926-Photos.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/y6SZXyv6/Screenshot-20230902-211455-Photos-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/1X14S1HC/0-D18-D382-B16-E-4-A66-80-AE-D73-D03-B71-F3-C.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/ncDrzz5d/F87-E761-A-1-E06-4031-82-AF-FE79-ABD63-A16.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/ntF55fg.jpg)
[/video]
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/FMPID24.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/y6jqk5P9/Screenshot-20231225-150015-Photos-3.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/0NC3bXRr/Screenshot-20240207-021917-Brave-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/02TFxWjT/Screenshot-20230317-055324-Photos-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/RCKXKcRm/Screenshot-20230316-223802-Photos-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/C5YV4wns/Screenshot-20230319-220551-Photos-4.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/4Nfg7NgJ/Screenshot-20230320-224329-Brave-3.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/g2hNG8Tr/Screenshot-20230511-041957-Brave-3.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/8CQHncwW/Screenshot-20230512-052123-Brave-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/wTRD8H1k/Screenshot-20230511-100346-Chrome-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/BQFP7gzY/Screenshot-20230511-091514-Photos-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/13Sq2jbC/Screenshot-20230514-125824-Photos-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/MZjfTwS3/Screenshot-20230514-002719-Brave-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/L63XY60D/Screenshot-20230514-124033-Photos-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/y86NF4MH/Screenshot-20240207-224628-Brave-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/4NV8pjzB/Screenshot-20240130-224411-Photos-3.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/BQ9pZNdD/Screenshot-20240130-224357-Photos-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/85g38DBJ/Screenshot-20240131-102738-Chrome-4.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/ZqtjnH9X/Screenshot-20240202-065500-Brave-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/8z8Lm516/Screenshot-20240207-231045-Brave-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/gcT4pJ1k/jeff0pipe.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/sxBg7VkY/200.gif)