The Trump defenders (some of whom say they aren't Trump defenders) sure show up fast in a thread like this.
MAGA will turn to 'bloodshed' if Trump's crimes exclude him from ballot
- Thread starter TheCainer
- Start date
What caused all those riots in 2020?
Nevermind, I know the answer...POLICE MISCONDUCT
Trying to install fraudulent electors with the intent on casting their vote for Trump rather than the candidate (Biden) who won the state’s electors is a stretch?
70 million plus people... many of whom are true believers... I don't know how many people vote republican or democrat because they've always voted that way or their parents vote that way etc. But I know Trump's base aren't the fringe outsiders to be trifled with.
Should trump be found guilty of crimes that fall under the 14th amendment then he should not be on the ballot, until that time though, we are still a nation where you're innocent until proven guilty and he has every right to be on the ballot in all 50 states.
The Federalist Society, not ever a friend to any liberal agenda, says different.
Then the judicial system needs to hurry its arse up!
Gaetz is a friggin moron. I wonder if he's still banging high school chicks?
Actually you’re wrong because we still don’t have boobs or butts in the other thread.
“Should he be found guilty”?
The 14th has been used in the past for much less. It’s only been a handful.
You just want to feel like you have an informed opinion. Yet apparently have no problem ignoring the historical precedents already set.
You should listen to some informed opinions, and not the bullshit you are currently basing your opinions on.
Personally, I'd like to see a conviction AND a removal from the ballot. ...I like my cake and to eat it too.
The frequency that GOP lawmakers and opinion makers tacitly threaten violence is disturbing.
F@cking whiny losers.
F@cking whiny losers.
That conviction might not come before the election. Just being realistic.Personally, I'd like to see a conviction AND a removal from the ballot. ...I like my cake and to eat it too.
Informed opinions show that a conviction isn’t needed. People have been kept off ballots previously without any convictions. Requiring a 2/3rds vote to keep them on.
Why do they want Americans to kill other Americans SO badly?
Verified:
During his speech, Grant remarked that "if we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason & Dixon . . . but between patriotism & intelligence on the one side & superstition, ambition & ignorance on the other."
I honestly don't believe they want it. I would imagine it's a combo of not believing it could actually happen here, and having ratcheted up the rhetoric so high that there's no where else to go.
WHat do you think the proud boys (stand back and stand by) were convicted of. Tarrio=sedition =violence against a lawful authority=insurrection.
“The precedent likewise confirms that one can “engage” in insurrection without personally committing violent acts. Neither Kenneth Worthy nor Couy Griffin were accused of engaging in violence, yet both were ruled to be disqualified because they knowingly and voluntarily aided violent insurrections. These rulings are consistent with the views of Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who opined in 1867 that when a person has “incited others to engage in [insurrection or] rebellion, he must come under the disqualification.” President Andrew Johnson and his Cabinet approved that interpretation, and Johnson directed officers commanding the Southern military districts to follow it.”
It’s been a while since we have to deal with it. Few have tried.
Trump would have to be charged with and convicted of such offenses before that would apply... I agree Trump didn't have to commit any violent acts, but he would have to be found guilty of a crime in association with an insurrection.
I'm not arguing that Trump can't be put on the ballot for the reasons you cited, I'm arguing you can't put the cart ahead of the horse.
NM county commissioner barred from holding office under the 14th Amendment
A New Mexico judge ordered Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin be removed from office, effective immediately, ruling that the attack on the Capitol was an insurrection and that Griffin’s participation in it disqualified him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This decision marks the first time since 1869 that a court has disqualified a public official under Section 3, and the first time that any court has ruled the events of January 6, 2021 an insurrection.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the Disqualification Clause, bars any person from holding federal or state office who took an “oath…to support the Constitution of the United States” as an “officer of any State” and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or gave “aid or comfort” to insurrectionists. Griffin, as an Otero County Commissioner since January 2019, took an oath to “support and uphold the Constitution and laws of the State of New Mexico, and the Constitution of the United States.”
www.citizensforethics.org
A New Mexico judge ordered Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin be removed from office, effective immediately, ruling that the attack on the Capitol was an insurrection and that Griffin’s participation in it disqualified him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This decision marks the first time since 1869 that a court has disqualified a public official under Section 3, and the first time that any court has ruled the events of January 6, 2021 an insurrection.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the Disqualification Clause, bars any person from holding federal or state office who took an “oath…to support the Constitution of the United States” as an “officer of any State” and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or gave “aid or comfort” to insurrectionists. Griffin, as an Otero County Commissioner since January 2019, took an oath to “support and uphold the Constitution and laws of the State of New Mexico, and the Constitution of the United States.”
Judge removes Griffin from office for engaging in the January 6 insurrection - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
A New Mexico judge ordered Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin be removed from office, effective immediately.
www.citizensforethics.org
Last edited:
If Trump is convicted (and that grows more likely by the minute) he should be disqualified from any public office.NM county commissioner barred from holding office due to Jan 6th conviction under the 14th Amendment
Judge removes Griffin from office for engaging in the January 6 insurrection - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
A New Mexico judge ordered Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin be removed from office, effective immediately.
You bolded conviction which was my description before reading the quote from the judge’s ruling. The judge in his ruling simply cited his participation in Jan 6th
Nope. Conviction is not required. At least insofar as precedents.
That is wrong but in my defense a moderator may make their monthly visit to this board. Can’t risk my HORT membership.
If it helps you sleep better at night keep telling yourself that. Legally. We have the federalist society telling us otherwise.
Well, this Supreme Court has proven precedent doesn't supersede the Constitution. Should this drag out long enough that a conviction isn't reached before the elections, then we could have some fireworks... but I think this will all be put to bed with a conviction and much ado about nothing.
Conviction not required
“They explained that as a self-executing provision, Section 3 doesn’t require any action by Congress—and it doesn’t require a criminal conviction.
No action is necessary to “activate” Section Three as a prerequisite to its application as law by bodies or persons whose responsibilities call for its application. The Constitution’s qualification and disqualification rules exist and possess legal force in their own right, which is what makes them applicable and enforceable by a variety of officials in a variety of contexts.”
www.citizensforethics.org
“They explained that as a self-executing provision, Section 3 doesn’t require any action by Congress—and it doesn’t require a criminal conviction.
No action is necessary to “activate” Section Three as a prerequisite to its application as law by bodies or persons whose responsibilities call for its application. The Constitution’s qualification and disqualification rules exist and possess legal force in their own right, which is what makes them applicable and enforceable by a variety of officials in a variety of contexts.”
Legal experts across the ideological spectrum agree: The 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from holding office - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Experts and academics across the ideological spectrum believe that Donald Trump is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
www.citizensforethics.org
So all it takes is an accusation? Fine I accuse Joe of insurrection too! You're saying it doesn't take any proof, it doesn't take any legal action, it doesn't take a conviction... so...Conviction not required
“They explained that as a self-executing provision, Section 3 doesn’t require any action by Congress—and it doesn’t require a criminal conviction.
No action is necessary to “activate” Section Three as a prerequisite to its application as law by bodies or persons whose responsibilities call for its application. The Constitution’s qualification and disqualification rules exist and possess legal force in their own right, which is what makes them applicable and enforceable by a variety of officials in a variety of contexts.”
Legal experts across the ideological spectrum agree: The 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from holding office - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Experts and academics across the ideological spectrum believe that Donald Trump is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Theres an actual law that covers insurrection.
If you’re gonna keep Orange man off the ballot citing insurrection….might be helpful if someone was actually charged and found guilty of it.
It’d be even more helpful if the guy you were keeping off the ballot was at the very least charged with it.
We’ll see. I’m sure it will be tried in some states if he’s the nominee.
I’d love for him to be kept off the ballot…just don’t think the suggested route is legal given the current situation
oh you don't have to charge him with it... someone just has to make an accusation.
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
According to multiple conservative legal scholars the constitution does NOT require a conviction. Now, as a matter of tamping down inflamed MAGA moron violence I tend to agree this works way better with a conviction of some sort. However, the strict Republican originalists on this Supreme Court should, in theory, be the ones arguing a conviction is unnecessary.
Who knows though…with Trump people seem to go against their ideology on the regular.
Much ado about nothing….
His entire justice department threatened to quit. Every single person surrounding him and his administration has flipped. Including, now, the IT guy. His secretaries. Assistants. His lawyers, and his own Chief of Staff.
Yet your dumb ass is on a message board trying to convince others that you are right. Despite the Everest sized mountain of evidence.
You can think whatever you want. Including that the earth is flat.
Without evidence your thinking means shit.
Go re-read the 14th Amendment then. That's the word used.
Along with upholding Constitutional oaths; very clear that Trump and his Georgia-indicted buddies did NOT do this.
