Is Trump constitutionally barred from being POTUS again?

#551
#551
RockyTop85 said:
I don’t give even a fragment of one **** about anything said on any cable news network.

Who elected the legislators that passed the laws and appointed her? How have you lived here long enough to be so old that you care about cable news and twitter shills but don’t understand how a republic operates?

He probably didn’t get due process, it’s not a court proceeding. He can sue for a writ of mandamus or injunction and get judicial review of the decision where he’ll have notice and an opportunity to present his case to a neutral judge.

And FWIW, it looks like the hearing was conducted with due process. Trump was given notice of the issue and governing law, he was allowed to appear through representatives, and he made argument to the official empowered by the state to make the determination.


Could argue whether 4 days was sufficient and whether the adjudicator was unbiased but the latter has become such a constant refrain that it’s hard to take seriously without compelling evidence.

You are clearly going to provide this quality of shrieking hysteria about made up ******** every time this result is reached, no matter what process is used to reach it.
Click to expand...
She made the decision, not based om any facts, but simply because she hates Trump and wants her 15 minutes of fame with the countries liberal elites...period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Gandalf, NEO and 1 other person
#554
#554
RockyTop85 said:
This is, again, false. She issued a 34 page decision. Over 25 pages of it is explaining her findings of fact and applying state law.
Click to expand...

I have some questions for you.

Is insurrection a state or federal crime?

Does either Maine or CO have statutes on their books covering federal insurrection? Why would they or wouldn't they in your opinion if you don't know the answer to the first question?

I am very much in favor of State's Rights, but I am adamant about Due Process.

How can any state remove a candidate by saying they have committed insurrection without a legal finding of such? Is there any precedent for such action?

She could have written 100 pages about her opinion as to why she believes he committed insurrection. Her findings and opinions do not amount to a legal finding of such no matter how much she wants it to. Now if the state has a statute covering insurrection, the state is more than able to try him of this and then if found guilty remove him from the ballot.

If you want to say the 14th amendment doesn't mention conviction as a requirement as some have, I would be happy to argue that origins of the 14th amendment and how that argument does not hold water. I look forward to your answers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf
#555
#555
825VOL said:
I have some questions for you.

Is insurrection a state or federal crime?

Does either Maine or CO have statutes on their books covering federal insurrection? Why would they or wouldn't they in your opinion if you don't know the answer to the first question?

I am very much in favor of State's Rights, but I am adamant about Due Process.

How can any state remove a candidate by saying they have committed insurrection without a legal finding of such? Is there any precedent for such action?

She could have written 100 pages about her opinion as to why she believes he committed insurrection. Her findings and opinions do not amount to a legal finding of such no matter how much she wants it to. Now if the state has a statute covering insurrection, the state is more than able to try him of this and then if found guilty remove him from the ballot.

If you want to say the 14th amendment doesn't mention conviction as a requirement as some have, I would be happy to argue that origins of the 14th amendment and how that argument does not hold water. I look forward to your answers.
Click to expand...
Tl;dr: There is no established process or procedure for applying section 3. That’s why this is happening. So, discussion of how disqualification under section 3 of the 14th amendment should be handled is valid. Bitching that what has happened thus far violates some norm or precedent for application of Section 3 or fails to meet some existing requirement, like “legal finding of such,” is made up nonsense. Some things are clear, though:

I. “Legal finding of such” is not necessarily required.

There is no requirement for conviction in the 14th amendment. To the extent the states have existing procedures for enforcing other requirements to hold public office, like Maine does, those statutes don’t have to require a “legal finding of such.” Courts have accepted that administrative procedures, like the one conducted here, can provide requisite due process. The Supreme Court held this at least as far back as 1877.

II. It’s not clear that due process is required.

The due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments prohibit deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. It’s not clear that seeking or holding public office is a protected right, as opposed to a privilege.

And even if it were a protected right, do you think Slave owners had to receive due process before being deprived of their property?

III. Assuming, arguendo that those being disqualified must receive due process, it is ambiguous what process should be required.

Considerable historical evidence indicates that “due process of law” merely required executive and judicial actors to comply with legislative enactments and the common law when depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. See, e.g., Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. 591, 623 (2015) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment).
Click to expand...
(From Justice Thomas Concurrence in Dobbs).

That’s exactly what happened here. Maine appears to have followed statutorily prescribed procedures for enforcing qualifications.

In Dobbs, Thomas repeats his common admonition that due process meant the “customary procedures to which freemen were entitled at the old law of England.”

Traditionally, due process was limited to notice and an opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal. Having previously established that “tribunal” does not require a court, this administrative proceeding clearly attempted to respect Trump’s due process rights. They provided him notice and a hearing before the state officer to whom the decision making authority had been delegated by the legislature.

What else might be required is unclear because what process is due to an individual has long been dependent on circumstances and, again, there’s no real guiding precedent, for this situation.
 
#556
#556
825VOL said:
I have some questions for you.

Is insurrection a state or federal crime?

Does either Maine or CO have statutes on their books covering federal insurrection? Why would they or wouldn't they in your opinion if you don't know the answer to the first question?

I am very much in favor of State's Rights, but I am adamant about Due Process.

How can any state remove a candidate by saying they have committed insurrection without a legal finding of such? Is there any precedent for such action?

She could have written 100 pages about her opinion as to why she believes he committed insurrection. Her findings and opinions do not amount to a legal finding of such no matter how much she wants it to. Now if the state has a statute covering insurrection, the state is more than able to try him of this and then if found guilty remove him from the ballot.

If you want to say the 14th amendment doesn't mention conviction as a requirement as some have, I would be happy to argue that origins of the 14th amendment and how that argument does not hold water. I look forward to your answers.
Click to expand...

I am sort of shocked people are actually debating the merits of this as if it is real. I still give some people more credit than they deserve. I thought the Left was just being typically hyperbolic when they claimed they would take Trump off the ballot for insurrection...but, no, they were being serious. Total loons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Ttucke11
#557
#557
RockyTop85 said:
Tl;dr: There is no established process or procedure for applying section 3. That’s why this is happening. So, discussion of how disqualification under section 3 of the 14th amendment should be handled is valid. Bitching that what has happened thus far violates some norm or precedent for application of Section 3 or fails to meet some existing requirement, like “legal finding of such,” is made up nonsense. Some things are clear, though:

I. “Legal finding of such” is not necessarily required.

There is no requirement for conviction in the 14th amendment. To the extent the states have existing procedures for enforcing other requirements to hold public office, like Maine does, those statutes don’t have to require a “legal finding of such.” Courts have accepted that administrative procedures, like the one conducted here, can provide requisite due process. The Supreme Court held this at least as far back as 1877.

II. It’s not clear that due process is required.

The due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments prohibit deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. It’s not clear that seeking or holding public office is a protected right, as opposed to a privilege.

And even if it were a protected right, do you think Slave owners had to receive due process before being deprived of their property?

III. Assuming, arguendo that those being disqualified must receive due process, it is ambiguous what process should be required.

(From Justice Thomas Concurrence in Dobbs).

That’s exactly what happened here. Maine appears to have followed statutorily prescribed procedures for enforcing qualifications.

In Dobbs, Thomas repeats his common admonition that due process meant the “customary procedures to which freemen were entitled at the old law of England.”

Traditionally, due process was limited to notice and an opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal. Having previously established that “tribunal” does not require a court, this administrative proceeding clearly attempted to respect Trump’s due process rights. They provided him notice and a hearing before the state officer to whom the decision making authority had been delegated by the legislature.

What else might be required is unclear because what process is due to an individual has long been dependent on circumstances and, again, there’s no real guiding precedent, for this situation.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the response.

I would disagree with you in the idea that there is no precedent on how section 3 of the 14th amendment can be used. It was used exactly as intended after the Civil War. It barred those who supported or took part in the government of the Confederacy from coming back and rejoining the federal government. It was clear at that time who served in or supported the Confederacy and who did not.

I would also argue with you that the due process you described was not given. He was not given an "opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal" based on the hyper-political world we find ourselves in now and the fact that one person made the decision. I don't think we have many or any of those (impartial people) left anymore. I am sure you and others will disagree about that and that's fine. I would feel the same way regardless of the person's political beliefs or ideology.

Next, in Section 1 it clearly states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". Surely the ability to run for president would fall under the privileges section. You even stated that this was a privilege in you post. So, this would negate the State being able to remove people from the presidential ballot. I know the States have every right to set laws as to whom can serve in their state, but they do not have the right to do that for a federal office.

What is to stop any "Red" state for doing the same thing to Biden? He has NOT been convicted of any crime in regard to "or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.", but that doesn't stop people from believing it or feeling that way.

Again, these hyper partisan actions have done nothing but open another Pandora's box. The States should have been smart enough to see this and either let the Federal government determine if Trump is no longer eligible to run for president or to deny the insurrection claims so that it was left up to the people to decide.

It will be very interesting to see how the S.C. rules and their reasoning behind their ruling. For the sake of the country, I hope it is at least a 6-3 or higher verdict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and davethevol
#558
#558
825VOL said:
I appreciate the response.

I would disagree with you in the idea that there is no precedent on how section 3 of the 14th amendment can be used. It was used exactly as intended after the Civil War. It barred those who supported or took part in the government of the Confederacy from coming back and rejoining the federal government. It was clear at that time who served in or supported the Confederacy and who did not.

I would also argue with you that the due process you described was not given. He was not given an "opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal" based on the hyper-political world we find ourselves in now and the fact that one person made the decision. I don't think we have many or any of those (impartial people) left anymore. I am sure you and others will disagree about that and that's fine. I would feel the same way regardless of the person's political beliefs or ideology.

Next, in Section 1 it clearly states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". Surely the ability to run for president would fall under the privileges section. You even stated that this was a privilege in you post. So, this would negate the State being able to remove people from the presidential ballot. I know the States have every right to set laws as to whom can serve in their state, but they do not have the right to do that for a federal office.

What is to stop any "Red" state for doing the same thing to Biden? He has NOT been convicted of any crime in regard to "or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.", but that doesn't stop people from believing it or feeling that way.

Again, these hyper partisan actions have done nothing but open another Pandora's box. The States should have been smart enough to see this and either let the Federal government determine if Trump is no longer eligible to run for president or to deny the insurrection claims so that it was left up to the people to decide.

It will be very interesting to see how the S.C. rules and their reasoning behind their ruling. For the sake of the country, I hope it is at least a 6-3 or higher verdict.
Click to expand...

Section 1 is and has been completely ignored by SCOTUS in 2nd amendment cases. It cannot be used in order to overrule CO or ME deciding who is allowed on the ballot when a concealed carry permit issued in one state isn't valid in another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and NEO
#559
#559
hog88 said:
Section 1 is and has been completely ignored by SCOTUS in 2nd amendment cases. It cannot be used in order to overrule CO or ME deciding who is allowed on the ballot when a concealed carry permit issued in one state isn't valid in another.
Click to expand...
I was just trying to point out that if people are going to argue that the 14th amendment can be used to throw Trump off the ballot, they can't just look at one part of the amendment. They need to look at the whole thing and the reason it was adopted.

I agree with you that SCOTUS often makes either bad decisions or decisions that do NOT follow the Constitution. I know you are a big 2nd amendment guy but my issue with SCOTUS goes all the way back to McCulloch vs. Maryland. This is where SCOTUS gave the federal government their IMPLIED powers and wrecked the idea of limited government, destroyed the 10th amendment, and set the course for monstrosity we now have in D.C.

Sadly, our Republic as intended and written in the Constitution only lasted 42 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, AM64 and hog88
#560
#560
825VOL said:
I was just trying to point out that if people are going to argue that the 14th amendment can be used to throw Trump off the ballot, they can't just look at one part of the amendment. They need to look at the whole thing and the reason it was adopted.

I agree with you that SCOTUS often makes either bad decisions or decisions that do NOT follow the Constitution. I know you are a big 2nd amendment guy but my issue with SCOTUS goes all the way back to McCulloch vs. Maryland. This is where SCOTUS gave the federal government their IMPLIED powers and wrecked the idea of limited government, destroyed the 10th amendment, and set the course for monstrosity we now have in D.C.

Sadly, our Republic as intended and written in the Constitution only lasted 42 years.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has gotten way too many things wrong and you are correct about the abomination of McCullch vs Maryland ruling. That is one of the reasons I think this SCOTUS will stay the hell out of this.
 
#561
#561
hog88 said:
SCOTUS has gotten way too many things wrong and you are correct about the abomination of McCullch vs Maryland ruling. That is one of the reasons I think this SCOTUS will stay the hell out of this.
Click to expand...

They could just say that States are within their rights to remove people form the state primary but not the Federal election. Then the Republicans would have to change their party by-laws to match the democrats so they could use super delegates to select their candidate. Might be the best way but it is a mess that never should have happened.

I just don't think any branch of the federal government will not take the opportunity to make the federal government stronger, so I see them stepping in.
 
#562
#562
825VOL said:
They could just say that States are within their rights to remove people form the state primary but not the Federal election. Then the Republicans would have to change their party by-laws to match the democrats so they could use super delegates to select their candidate. Might be the best way but it is a mess that never should have happened.

I just don't think any branch of the federal government will not take the opportunity to make the federal government stronger, so I see them stepping in.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a federal election. The only federal office we directly vote for is our senators (thanks to the stupidity of the 17th amendment).

I’m really hoping SCOTUS stays out of this because any ruling they make will be bastardized to strip more rights from us and power from the states.
 
#563
#563
hog88 said:
There is no such thing as a federal election. The only federal office we directly vote for is our senators (thanks to the stupidity of the 17th amendment).

I’m really hoping SCOTUS stays out of this because any ruling they make will be bastardized to strip more rights from us and power from the states.
Click to expand...
You knew what I meant. I just see SCOTUS adding more federal power if they have the chance. The states that have acted so childishly have done nothing but invite the federal government to take more power from them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and AM64
#565
#565
This idiocy has to stop or there will be no longer even the semblance of elections to rig.

Cant be throwing candidates off the ballots because you feel like it or this will get way out of control really fast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#566
#566
825VOL said:
I appreciate the response.

I would disagree with you in the idea that there is no precedent on how section 3 of the 14th amendment can be used. It was used exactly as intended after the Civil War. It barred those who supported or took part in the government of the Confederacy from coming back and rejoining the federal government. It was clear at that time who served in or supported the Confederacy and who did not.

I would also argue with you that the due process you described was not given. He was not given an "opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal" based on the hyper-political world we find ourselves in now and the fact that one person made the decision. I don't think we have many or any of those (impartial people) left anymore. I am sure you and others will disagree about that and that's fine. I would feel the same way regardless of the person's political beliefs or ideology.

Next, in Section 1 it clearly states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". Surely the ability to run for president would fall under the privileges section. You even stated that this was a privilege in you post. So, this would negate the State being able to remove people from the presidential ballot. I know the States have every right to set laws as to whom can serve in their state, but they do not have the right to do that for a federal office.

What is to stop any "Red" state for doing the same thing to Biden? He has NOT been convicted of any crime in regard to "or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.", but that doesn't stop people from believing it or feeling that way.

Again, these hyper partisan actions have done nothing but open another Pandora's box. The States should have been smart enough to see this and either let the Federal government determine if Trump is no longer eligible to run for president or to deny the insurrection claims so that it was left up to the people to decide.

It will be very interesting to see how the S.C. rules and their reasoning behind their ruling. For the sake of the country, I hope it is at least a 6-3 or higher verdict.
Click to expand...

It isn’t even clear what “supported the confederacy” would mean. What level of support or what specific activities were deemed to meet the “engaged in insurrection” standard? Who made that determination? What kind of proceeding was offered? There weren’t any trials or convictions. There is no precedent.

Due process does not create a presumption of bias that has to be refuted by the fact finder. Complaining about the Secretary of State at this stage is just a tacit admission that no process that reaches this outcome will suffice. Everybody who has ever decided against, investigated, accused, or even criticized Trump has been biased or a part of the conspiracy. It was never persuasive and it has become less so with overuse. We’re at “judges can’t sentence child molesters unless they prove they aren’t disgusted by them” levels of persuasiveness, at this point.

The privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States is a term of art, just like “the freedom of speech.” “Congress shall make no law respecting… the freedom of speech” doesn’t invalidate defamation law or criminal conspiracy. Interpretation of the privileges and immunities clause has been fairly narrow and the court has never considered whether being placed on a presidential ballot would be included. The fact that this reading would cause the first section of the amendment to essentially eliminate the third is a pretty good indication that it wasn’t intended that way.

There’s nothing stopping red states except the fact that being batshit crazy got Republicans underwater with moderates and they know that democrats have the better argument on this issue. There’s nothing stopping them because there is no precedent.
 
#567
#567
RockyTop85 said:
It isn’t even clear what “supported the confederacy” would mean. What level of support or what specific activities were deemed to meet the “engaged in insurrection” standard? Who made that determination? What kind of proceeding was offered? There weren’t any trials or convictions. There is no precedent.

Due process does not create a presumption of bias that has to be refuted by the fact finder. Complaining about the Secretary of State at this stage is just a tacit admission that no process that reaches this outcome will suffice. Everybody who has ever decided against, investigated, accused, or even criticized Trump has been biased or a part of the conspiracy. It was never persuasive and it has become less so with overuse. We’re at “judges can’t sentence child molesters unless they prove they aren’t disgusted by them” levels of persuasiveness, at this point.

The privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States is a term of art, just like “the freedom of speech.” “Congress shall make no law respecting… the freedom of speech” doesn’t invalidate defamation law or criminal conspiracy. Interpretation of the privileges and immunities clause has been fairly narrow and the court has never considered whether being placed on a presidential ballot would be included. The fact that this reading would cause the first section of the amendment to essentially eliminate the third is a pretty good indication that it wasn’t intended that way.

There’s nothing stopping red states except the fact that being batshit crazy got Republicans underwater with moderates and they know that democrats have the better argument on this issue. There’s nothing stopping them because there is no precedent.
Click to expand...


There were plenty of examples of those that left the Union and joined the government of the Confederacy or took up arms against the Union. These people were not allowed to rejoin the military or government once the Civil war ended.

Your second paragraph is laughable. Since insurgency is a federal crime according to 18 U.S.C. 2383, the States need to stay out of it. If the Federal government wants to charge him for it, by all means go for it. Either charge him and let a jury decide, or let the people decide with their votes.

The third paragraph is a perfect example of why people dislike lawyers, Lawyers will argue over what the word "is" is. Neither defamation law nor criminal law restricts speech. Those laws only give consequences for the speech that does harm to others, they do not prevent the speech.

My entire point was/is that these democrats are acting like petulant children and should stop. Thiis is not good for the country, and it will only lead to the republicans acting more childish.

I actually expected a better response from you. Guess I know better now.
 
#571
#571
Rule 14A doesn't apply to DJT due to his washing out of the CSA during Basic. Bone spurs are the pits.

He didn't even last long enough to learn the lyrics to "I'm a Good Ole Rebel."
 
#572
#572
FLVOL_79 said:
Only chickensh!ts think Jan 6 was an insurrection. The same people believe deeply in participation trophies and victim culture.
Click to expand...
Too rich coming from the party that loves em some participation trophies (i.e., confederate monuments and statues).
 
#573
#573
evillawyer said:
Too rich coming from the party that loves em some participation trophies (i.e., confederate monuments and statues).
Click to expand...
Totally agree that we should dismantle the Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial, and blow up Mt. RT Rushmore. And rename the capital as FoxxMabley, D.C.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top