Is Trump constitutionally barred from being POTUS again?

#176
#176
Sudden Impact said:
J6 probably will be completed with Appeals pending before the Election.
Documents will be after it unless they charge him elsewhere or recuse the Judge. The trial will be started before the election.
GA will be halfway completed clearing out the underlings. Delays but plea outs
NY will be a formality after the election.
Click to expand...
you don’t know.
 
#177
#177
Orangeburst said:
you don’t know.
Click to expand...
you don't either. I just countered your stupid speculation. I do know one thing my speculations Trumps yours. I said the Democrats are going to throw the kitchen sink at Trump over a yr ago and that came true. They are not stopping. You are crazy if you think they are going to stall out for a 1 year, 3 mos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#178
#178
Sudden Impact said:
you don't either. I just countered your stupid speculation. I do know one thing my speculations Trumps yours. I said the Democrats are going to throw the kitchen sink at Trump over a yr ago and that came true. They are not stopping. You are crazy if you think they are going to stall out for a 1 year, 3 mos.
Click to expand...

i said they probably won’t be done by election day..and that is stupid speculation?
 
#179
#179
RockyTop85 said:
There’s no subjective element to those other criteria. Whether Trump is 35 years old is an objective fact. Whether Trump is a natural born citizen is objectively verifiable. Whether Trump’s actions constituted engaging in insurrection is debatable.
Click to expand...

Yet Obama's birthplace was not objectively verifiable, according to some.

It's curious that there are only 3 Constitutional requirements for presidential candidates, yet it appears that there is no actual federal or state agency or commission that actually confirms that these requirements are met (at least as of 2008). And yet this is the "most important job in the world".

Hell, it's harder to get your driver's license than it is to become a US Presidential candidate. ;-)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and AM64
#180
#180
Orangeburst said:
First..Trump has not been proven guilty. Two..these will drag out long past election day
Click to expand...

Orangeburst said:
i said they probably won’t be done by election day..and that is stupid speculation?
Click to expand...

Looks like speculation to me. you forgot to include "probably" in your previous post. What you believe and what you want to believefis the difference.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#183
#183
Leave it to the left to think "accusation" alone equals "Guilt"...... You make such a good Stalinist @evillawyer . I'd be upset by it, except your so cartoonish, as to actually make a beautiful example of obvious propoganda. You do more for proving it's politically motivated than I ever could. Keep it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and AM64
#184
#184
Sgt_Nick_Fury said:
Leave it to the left to think "accusation" alone equals "Guilt"...... You make such a good Stalinist @evillawyer . I'd be upset by it, except your so cartoonish, as to actually make a beautiful example of obvious propoganda. You do more for proving it's politically motivated than I ever could. Keep it up.
Click to expand...

It's "you're" not "your"
And it's "propaganda," not "propoganda"

But thanks for showing what I'm up against with my interlocutor.
 
#186
#186
The people who think Trump acted unlawfully to try to maintain power, or who at best sat back and enjoyed the show to satisfy his ego, aren't voting for him anyway.

Count me in both camps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#187
#187
MontyPython said:
Yet Obama's birthplace was not objectively verifiable, according to some.

It's curious that there are only 3 Constitutional requirements for presidential candidates, yet it appears that there is no actual federal or state agency or commission that actually confirms that these requirements are met (at least as of 2008). And yet this is the "most important job in the world".

Hell, it's harder to get your driver's license than it is to become a US Presidential candidate. ;-)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think the birth certificate thing is a good illustration of how not everything is really subjective. People who went nuts about that looked insane.

I still say at least some states have officials who perform this function. Kanye West failed to get on several ballots last cycle. Somebody had to tell him no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#188
#188
evillawyer said:
This is not hard. Some official says "Mr. Trump, you're not qualified to be on the ballot pursuant to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment." That official doesn't put Trump on the ballot. Trump then needs to sue to get on the ballot (probably through a mandamus action). Alternatively, that official could say "I don't believe Trump is qualified under Section 3, but I need a court to agree with my interpretation. So, I'll file a declaratory judgment action to make sure I'm in the right before I act."

mandamus
declaratory judgment
Click to expand...

Doesn't that presume guilt without due process? I thought we didn't do that kind of stuff here.
 
#189
#189
lawgator1 said:
The people who think Trump acted unlawfully to try to maintain power, or who at best sat back and enjoyed the show to satisfy his ego, aren't voting for him anyway.

Count me in both camps.
Click to expand...
His polling numbers are Bull ****.
The die hard are still in but most of the average people have moved on. If it comes down to Trump Vs Biden I’d say it’s too close to call. Both candidates are absolutely horrible and whoever is worse is a matter of perspective.



I will not vote for either of those two crimina…..I mean candidates
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact, 82_VOL_83, Vol since 77 and 5 others
#191
#191
evillawyer said:
The government tells us you can't vote for someone under 35 or who is not a natural born citizen or who hasn't been a resident for 14 years. Wouldn't this, if the interpretation is correct, just be another one of those qualifications?
Click to expand...

If you can't see the distinction between easily verified proof of age vs assumed guilt for a criminal act that has never been tried or proven, I'd have to question your right to be anywhere near a legal proceeding.

We do need an official and verifiable vetting process for candidates - to include clearly defined process and requirements. Age should be easily verifiable; we do a lot of this kind of thing to get a drivers license or passport; why should the process to apply for a passport be more rigorous than getting on a ballot, and why should it be more tedious to be permitted to buy a weapon than to get on a ballot? Legal disqualifications should be uncovered with adequate screening - which should be in place simply because many positions (legislature and president) involve access to classified information - candidates should be required to pass the same screening that military personnel do. Still every few years someone (usually in a local race) is accused and sometimes found not to actually reside within district bounds.

Whether right or wrong, this paper asks a lot of applicable questions and raises valid points.

Rethinking Presidential Eligibility
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf
#192
#192
AM64 said:
If you can't see the distinction between easily verified proof of age vs assumed guilt for a criminal act that has never been tried or proven, I'd have to question your right to be anywhere near a legal proceeding.

We do need an official and verifiable vetting process for candidates - to include clearly defined process and requirements. Age should be easily verifiable; we do a lot of this kind of thing to get a drivers license or passport; why should the process to apply for a passport be more rigorous than getting on a ballot, and why should it be more tedious to be permitted to buy a weapon than to get on a ballot? Legal disqualifications should be uncovered with adequate screening - which should be in place simply because many positions (legislature and president) involve access to classified information - candidates should be required to pass the same screening that military personnel do. Still every few years someone (usually in a local race) is accused and sometimes found not to actually reside within district bounds.

Whether right or wrong, this paper asks a lot of applicable questions and raises valid points.

Rethinking Presidential Eligibility
Click to expand...
To an extent. We don't want to get to where a candidate can be disqualified through political subterfuge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and AM64
#194
#194
EasternVol said:
To an extent. We don't want to get to where a candidate can be disqualified through political subterfuge.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That's the same kind of argument I have with our legal system. We have legislatures made up of people who are elected by the citizens - supposedly the process means that if they write unpopular legislation they aren't reelected. We know that doesn't work well, but at least there is some recourse. The legal system doesn't really even pretend hard to follow the laws of the country rather than "interpret" the laws and leave the interpretation as new "law". What the courts should do is stick to doing what the legislation says and make a judgement which may be to tell prosecutors they have no case or the law is too vague to prosecute rather than to "fix" it. The only way any of this works is to produce clearly written and understandable criteria so that there is no real judgment other than an official pass or fail that's clear to all. Example: define 35 as either the minimum age either to file, to attain before voting, or to attain before inauguration; once you set the criteria in that manner even a caveman could decide whether a candidate makes the cut or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#195
#195
Sudden Impact said:
Using a crutch to change the narrative. LOL Not sure why the Democrats had to do it but they did and it produced in the end what many knew. 4 Indictments. Mommy they are picking on me. Who ever said politics is dirty was absolutely right. It's been going on for years and the change is the Public Exposure (social media, audiences, theories) on a daily basis with "for & against" opinions from both sides.

Bottom line: Do you think Trump Conspired to Overturn the Election? If you do, then you should not have a problem with this Amendment? If you don't, then you are in the minority with a lot of hopium.
Click to expand...
Half your posts literally make zero sense. It’s like you type your stream of consciousness without organizing your thoughts into any semblance of a point. Sometimes you bring it back around and other times not. Anyway, I think Trump felt like he got cheated, or at least pretended to feel that way, so he did a lot of squawking that got him nowhere. Do I think he should be removed from ballots? No. Let him run. If you’re a Dem you should want that.
 
#197
#197
RockyTop85 said:
I still say at least some states have officials who perform this function. Kanye West failed to get on several ballots last cycle. Somebody had to tell him no.
Click to expand...
Especially with regard to independent candidates, someone has to check to make sure the candidate qualifies.

In West's case it looks like he was kept off some states due to process/paperwork errors. In Arizona he could run because he was a registered Republican.

Kanye West Fails To Qualify For Ohio's Presidential Ballot
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/03/politics/2020-election-kanye-west-virginia-ballot/index.html
Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign - Wikipedia
 
#198
#198
AM64 said:
If you can't see the distinction between easily verified proof of age vs assumed guilt for a criminal act that has never been tried or proven, I'd have to question your right to be anywhere near a legal proceeding.

We do need an official and verifiable vetting process for candidates - to include clearly defined process and requirements. Age should be easily verifiable; we do a lot of this kind of thing to get a drivers license or passport; why should the process to apply for a passport be more rigorous than getting on a ballot, and why should it be more tedious to be permitted to buy a weapon than to get on a ballot? Legal disqualifications should be uncovered with adequate screening - which should be in place simply because many positions (legislature and president) involve access to classified information - candidates should be required to pass the same screening that military personnel do. Still every few years someone (usually in a local race) is accused and sometimes found not to actually reside within district bounds.

Whether right or wrong, this paper asks a lot of applicable questions and raises valid points.

Rethinking Presidential Eligibility
Click to expand...

And while we are at it, “why should the process of getting a passport be any harder than registering to vote?”
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN, Vol since 77 and AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top