Is Trump constitutionally barred from being POTUS again?

#251
#251
lawgator1 said:
The Supreme Court will likely hold that the clause at issue does not apply to POTUS. Hopefully they emphasize that they do not need to reach, and are not commenting on, whether Trump.actually did engage in unlawful behavior.
Click to expand...

ClearwaterVol said:
Just because an argument can be made doesn’t mean it should. This win at all costs bs is damaging our country irreparably.
Click to expand...
2 things..First, I applauded you 2 for your take. I believe this is the closest we will ever see the left to admitting political prosecution although I'm sure the response against will argue that.
SECOND, I hope Septic and other see that due process and rule of law doesn't change just cuz your name is Trump and he hurt people your feelings with mean tweets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, davethevol and norrislakevol
#252
#252
In light of the Colorado Supreme Court decision, review of early posts to this thread is prudent.
evillawyer said:
Section 3 of 14th Amendment

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.
Click to expand...

evillawyer said:
The article that's getting so much attention was written by a bunch of federalist society legal scholars. This is not a liberal hit job.

"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.”"
Click to expand...

evillawyer said:
Reading is your friend. I've linked both the Atlantic article and the preprint of the Penn Law Review article on which the Atlantic article is based.

Throwing you a bone. Cut and pasted from the UPenn article

Second. Section Three is legally self-executing. That is, Section Three’s disqualification is constitutionally automatic whenever its terms are satisfied. Section Three requires no legislation or adjudication to be legally effective. It is enacted by the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment. Its disqualification, where triggered, just is. It follows that Section Three’s disqualification may and should be followed and carried out by all whose duties are affected by it. In many cases, Section Three will give rise to judiciable controversies in the courts. In others it will be enforceable by state and federal officials. But no prior judicial decision, and no implementing legislation, is required for Section Three to be carried out by officials sworn to uphold the Constitution whose duties present the occasion for applying Section Three’s commands. Section Three is ready for use.
Click to expand...
 
#253
#253
Key to the issue of Trump standing for election and appearing on ballots is the interpretation of the amendment. The third clause doesn’t require conviction by court or Congress. Appeal of the Colorado ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States is inevitable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newyorkvol and Orangeslice13
#256
#256
Orangeslice13 said:
Why, what exactly do you mean, Rusty?
Click to expand...
Early posters were trying to illuminate critical components of the amendment and citing scholarly articles on the matter, excerpting pertinent paragraphs in their posts. In my opinion, these support my following post that interpretation of the amendment is key.
 
#260
#260
whodeycin85 said:
2 things..First, I applauded you 2 for your take. I believe this is the closest we will ever see the left to admitting political prosecution although I'm sure the response against will argue that.
SECOND, I hope Septic and other see that due process and rule of law doesn't change just cuz your name is Trump and he hurt people your feelings with mean tweets.
Click to expand...

Reasonable people can disagree whether Trump engaged in or supported insurrection. That's why I think SCOTUS will dodge that part of the question altogether.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf, whodeycin85 and Orangeslice13
#261
#261
In August, members of VN were engaging in thoughtful discourse on this matter, citing legal scholars from the Federalist Society. I am hoping that the Colorado court decision will spark more of the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#262
#262
The Trump campaign has declared that they will appeal the Colorado decision to the SCOTUS. First, will they accept the appeal and deliberate upon it?
 
#263
#263
For those advancing the argument that the the presidency isn't an "office" under the United States, please remember the presidential "oath of office," which is in the constitution as well:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–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.
 
#267
#267
whodeycin85 said:
2 things..First, I applauded you 2 for your take. I believe this is the closest we will ever see the left to admitting political prosecution although I'm sure the response against will argue that.
SECOND, I hope Septic and other see that due process and rule of law doesn't change just cuz your name is Trump and he hurt people your feelings with mean tweets.
Click to expand...

Where are you on Trump's election attacks?
 
#270
#270
ClearwaterVol said:
Where are you on Trump's election attacks?
Click to expand...
I dont believe he can be directly tied to the riot of J6. Calling j6 an insurrection is propaganda at best especially given the involvement and video proof of the Capitol police. Now do I believe Trump seeded the grass...yes..does that make him liable for insurrection..not in my opinion.
Just like Joe knowly help grift with his son but with out direct "joe did this for Hunters company" type evidence it's all propaganda
 
#271
#271
whodeycin85 said:
I dont believe he can be directly tied to the riot of J6. Calling j6 an insurrection is propaganda at best especially given the involvement and video proof of the Capitol police. Now do I believe Trump seeded the grass...yes..does that make him liable for insurrection..not in my opinion.
Just like Joe knowly help grift with his son but with out direct "joe did this for Hunters company" type evidence it's all propaganda
Click to expand...

I am talking about all the fake elector, calls to election officials etc.
 
#272
#272
ClearwaterVol said:
I am talking about all the fake elector, calls to election officials etc.
Click to expand...
The calls to election officials are in poor taste but nothing illegal. The fake electors on the other hand are an issue if and I stress if the letters explaining don't include that the alternative electors were submitted in case the court cases rules in thier favor. If they dont they those that can be directly linked should be charged.
 
#273
#273
evillawyer said:
Section 3 of 14th Amendment

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.
Click to expand...
He hasn’t been charged or convicted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#274
#274
The left just can’t help themselves, did it in ‘16 and doing it again in ‘24 . Making a folk hero out of Trump and proving him right when he talks about the corruption and them trying to railroad him . I thought the left is supposed to be the highly educated ones . 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and whodeycin85
#275
#275
evillawyer said:
Section 3 of 14th Amendment

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.
Click to expand...

What about someone in congress who has given aid or comfort to a terrorist organization who is an enemy of the United States ... like hamas?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and whodeycin85
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top