Is Trump constitutionally barred from being POTUS again?

#376
#376
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
That's not at all how this country works.

The clowns in Congress could, or might in a different universe, create a law SPECIFICALLY saying Jan 6 wasn't an insurrection "officially" or Trump wasn't involved "officially" or whatever. They can't just overturn a court case. SCOTUS can.

Congress, if you ever think they are useful, probably isn't.
Click to expand...
Bless your heart, I never said Congress was going to do anything. They’ve proven they’re worthless.
I merely pointed out that they have the sole designation of enforcement powers over all of Article 14 as stated in section 5.
That section is one way SCOTUS invalidates the Colorado judiciary decision as those judges had no legal authority to attempt enforcement of article 14 section 3 thus rendering their decision void and without standing. Colorado jumped the shark on that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#378
#378
hog88 said:
In reality there is no such thing as a "federal election". I guess since the abomination called the 17th amendment was enacted the closest thing we have to a "federal election" is senatorial elections.
Click to expand...
The 17th is absolute abomination.

James Madison would be appalled. The Framers envisioned the House & Senate being accountable to different constituencies.

Under direct election, both the House & Senate serve the same master.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, davethevol, hog88 and 3 others
#380
#380
DynaLo said:
Bless your heart, I never said Congress was going to do anything. They’ve proven they’re worthless.
I merely pointed out that they have the sole designation of enforcement powers over all of Article 14 as stated in section 5.
That section is one way SCOTUS invalidates the Colorado judiciary decision as those judges had no legal authority to attempt enforcement of article 14 section 3 thus rendering their decision void and without standing. Colorado jumped the shark on that one.
Click to expand...
DynaLo said:
Don’t be surprised if section 5 is what invalidates the Colorado court decision as it very specifically delegates enforcement powers of Article 14 to Congress and not to the States nor any judiciary entity.
Click to expand...
"Don't be surprised if section 5 (the enforcement clause) invalidates the CO Court decision.

Enforcement can't invalidate a court decision.
 
#385
#385
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
"Don't be surprised if section 5 (the enforcement clause) invalidates the CO Court decision.

Enforcement can't invalidate a court decision.
Click to expand...
Yes, SCOTUS can refer to section 5 (the enforcement clause) to invalidate a lower court decision that attempts to enforce article 14.
Not once did I say Congress would do the invalidation. Duh!
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#387
#387
Vol8188 said:
What Colorado has done is amazing. Now I want to see red states remove Biden from the ballot for giving aid to the enemy (also part of article 3) due to his funding of both Iran and Hamas.
Click to expand...
Well that might be a good way to get the scotus dems onboard to shut all these overreach attempts down.
Unless they’ve already decided it’s a good way to ditch Joe and blame the right.🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#388
#388
Donald Trump is a man who had the agencies inside the government machine turn on him in an effort to thwart and destroy him. That’s what Russiagate was all about. That’s what the Hunter Biden laptop response was all about. And that’s what the characterization of Jan 6th is all about. Outright lies, cover ups, and redefinition.

Trump is not a sympathetic figure. He’s actually very hard to like, in my opinion. But what is frightening is that most people now understand that Russiagate was a lie; that the Hunter Biden laptop was covered up; and that Jan 6 was no “insurrection”. People still don’t care. Injustice is fine so long as it serves the purpose of their agenda.

I’ve seen the rationalizations here for the Colorado decision: things such as “i like seeing Donny getting his comeuppance” or “if it were the other side this would be celebrated” or “Trump did unprecedented things and this is an unprecedented decision” (the ole she shouldn’t have been wearing that dress! argument).

People should look in the mirror and come to terms with their true nature. Crazy times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, SlipKidVol, whodeycin85 and 2 others
#389
#389
DC_Vol said:
Donald Trump is a man who had the agencies inside the government machine turn on him in an effort to thwart and destroy him. That’s what Russiagate was all about. That’s what the Hunter Biden laptop response was all about. And that’s what the characterization of Jan 6th is all about. Outright lies, cover ups, and redefinition.
Click to expand...
Trump is a career con artist. Scandal will follow him until he’s dead, and a for a while after that. It doesn’t take some “deep state” to figure that out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sin City Vol
#392
#392
Vol8188 said:
What Colorado has done is amazing. Now I want to see red states remove Biden from the ballot for giving aid to the enemy (also part of article 3) due to his funding of both Iran and Hamas.
Click to expand...
Any politician that agree and voted for this could and should be challenged under this provision. Obama should.be charged, Hills, pretty much Washington DC..
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#393
#393
evillawyer said:
And where do you see that as a requirement?

There's actually a good podcast where Baude -- the author of the law review article that made this argument -- goes through each objection. I'll link it if I can find it.
Click to expand...
So we offer no due process before we proclaim people guilty? You really want to set that standard going forward?
Post it I’ll read it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and AM64
#395
#395
evillawyer said:
And where do you see that as a requirement?

There's actually a good podcast where Baude -- the author of the law review article that made this argument -- goes through each objection. I'll link it if I can find it.
Click to expand...
isnt the due process clause contingent and did he get such?
 
#396
#396
If Jack Smith appointment is invalid, all this and all his kawsuits go poof. Something to keep an eye on.
 
#397
#397
hog88 said:
It's not a good point because it isn't true.
Click to expand...
I believe several states have agreed to apportionment. But, as I said, contingent upon a certain number of states agreeing likewise. I will try to confirm this later today.
 
#398
#398
hog88 said:
It's not a good point because it isn't true.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is worse than I thought. It does not provide for apportionment. It provides that, if and when it becomes effective, a member state will award all electoral college votes to a candidate who wins the national popular vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#399
#399
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...
This section specifically excludes the President. Article 2 is very clear about the requirements to be President. The Constitution is clear- let the people choose the President.

"Article II of the Constitution lists only three qualifications for the presidency. A president must be "a natural born Citizen," he or she must be at least 35 years old, and he or she must have been a resident of the United States for 14 years. "

www.foxnews.com

What Colorado's Supreme Court refuses to understand about Trump and the 14th Amendment

On Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a decision to block former President Trump from the ballot in the 2024 election.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#400
#400
NurseGoodVol said:
So we offer no due process before we proclaim people guilty? You really want to set that standard going forward?
Post it I’ll read it.
Click to expand...

Orangeburst said:
isnt the due process clause contingent and did he get such?
Click to expand...
There is a section about the it section 5 I posted a twister thread earlier that Grandvol had as well that explains more.. basically only congress can enact this clause and he did get due process for the the insurrection, he wasnt convicted by Congress...I think the SCOTUS will have to make a determination on conviction for this amendment and may even inadvertently define J6 as not an insurrection simply because no one has been convicted of such a charge

 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top