Then who does? If the states don't keep an individual off the ballot, and the individual wins, does some federal agency say 'fakesies! they can't be pres! who's your number 2?'? there'd be riots in the streets. SOMEONE has to be the arbiter of who can legitimately be on the ballot, if it's not the states running the ballot, who is it?SCOTUS in a unanimous ruling stated that States cannot make this determination.
So, yes or no, pretty simple. 14th requires a conviction?
More than a few perps from Jan. 6 have been charged with seditious conspiracy. Maybe you should bone up on what that is.
An attempt to overthrow our government happened, there’s no denying that, textbook insurrection. You voted for the guy who led the attempt, twice. And here you are still shilling for him.
Section 3.
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.
That's some dry reading, and I admit to skimming. But it appears that a single judge at a hearing found that Trump did indeed commit insurrection, but there was no consequence beyond being removed from the Colorado ballot. That about right? Then the Supremes said nope, he stays on the ballot. I didn't note that they reversed the finding of guilt, but didn't look all that hard as they removed any consequence.This is 100% false.
In case you would like to read the legal reasoning here you go:
Here's the district court ruling finding that Trump engaged in insurrection and the evidence used to support this finding:
So now that you know they DID have legal reasoning, do you want to revise your position?
Not particularly right, no. A judge found Trump engaged in insurrection and therefore was constitutionally ineligible to be president again. Because the Constitution barred Trump from being president he could not be on the Colorado ballot. This also means that had Trump somehow won Colorado anyway it would have been unconstitutional to award him the state’s electoral votes.That's some dry reading, and I admit to skimming. But it appears that a single judge at a hearing found that Trump did indeed commit insurrection, but there was no consequence beyond being removed from the Colorado ballot. That about right?
Yes, then SCOTUS Calvinballed their way to saying that states are not permitted to run their own elections and determine if federal candidates meet this eligibility requirement.Then the Supremes said nope, he stays on the ballot. I didn't note that they reversed the finding of guilt, but didn't look all that hard as they removed any consequence.
We end up at the same place, Trump is on the ballot, he faces no consequences for the finding of guilt (which appears to be different than a conviction), and the republican's attempted to pull off something similar with the same predictable result.
To which again, I'll ask, who is authorized to determine eligibility of candidates? So far the SCOTUS has just said 'no, not them either' without offering an alternative. That's tacitly choosing to hamstring or outright nullify an amendment.Yes, then SCOTUS Calvinballed their way to saying that states are not permitted to run their own elections and determine if federal candidates meet this eligibility requirement.
Then who does? If the states don't keep an individual off the ballot, and the individual wins, does some federal agency say 'fakesies! they can't be pres! who's your number 2?'? there'd be riots in the streets. SOMEONE has to be the arbiter of who can legitimately be on the ballot, if it's not the states running the ballot, who is it?
So, yes or no, pretty simple. 14th requires a conviction?
More than a few perps from Jan. 6 have been charged with seditious conspiracy. Maybe you should bone up on what that is.
An attempt to overthrow our government happened, there’s no denying that, textbook insurrection. You voted for the guy who led the attempt, twice. And here you are still shilling for him.
Thank you for again confirming that you believe Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were eligible to become president in 1868 despite repeatedly leading an armed invasion into the United States."seditious conspiracy" is not the same thing as insurrection. No One has been charged with Insurrection.
I see you still refuse to read what I've posted.
From the law link above:
The prohibition on rebellion and insurrection arises in federal law at 18 U.S.C. Section 2383. The law prohibits incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws. The punishment for this crime includes a fine, up to 10 years in federal prison, and ineligibility for federal public office.
Rebellion and insurrection refer specifically to acts of violence against the state or its officers. For example, Merriam-Webster defines these terms as follows:
- Rebellion: Opposition to one in authority or dominance; open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government
- Insurrection: An act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
This distinguishes the crime from sedition, which is the organized incitement to rebellion or civil disorder against the authority of the state. It also separates the crime from treason, which is the violation of allegiance owed to one's country by betrayal or acting to aid the country's enemies.
The crimes are easily confused, but if an offender is not acting on behalf of or giving aid to a foreign government, they are unlikely to be charged with treason. Staging non-violent protests and strikes might become seditious if they violate laws relating to these acts. They wouldn't be considered rebellion or insurrection since there is no call for violent acts, such as the destruction of government property or the assault of officers of the state.
It’s your argument, not mine!Thank you for again confirming that you believe Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were eligible to become president in 1868 despite repeatedly leading an armed invasion into the United States.
You’re quoting and arguing with yourself?It’s your argument, not mine!
I know it sounds ridiculous but that’s exactly why you should stop believing it!
He ‘laughed’ at my post, implying I was saying something ridiculous.You’re quoting and arguing with yourself?
He ‘laughed’ at my post, implying I was saying something ridiculous.
But Congress does not approve of candidates, does not hold, enforce, or audit elections, nor can they impeach someone who doesn't hold office. How exactly are they to enforce that amendment when they have no authority over the process it affects?IF you would read what SCOTUS said you would know that it is Congress. They also passed a law specifically for Insurrection. I posted it above.
I imagine a scenario of Congress doing something after the election to stop someone ineligible from assuming the office of the president going over like a lead balloon.But Congress does not approve of candidates, does not hold, enforce, or audit elections, nor can they impeach someone who doesn't hold office. How exactly are they to enforce that amendment when they have no authority over the process it affects?
Exactly, then Congress is just deciding who the president is, may as well just get someone to kill him instead, you'll have less rioting in the streets.I imagine a scenario of Congress doing something after the election to stop someone ineligible from assuming the office of the president going over like a lead balloon.
Depends on the outcome Republicans are trying to achieve. Congress telling states they can’t gerrymander themselves into one party rule? Then Congress has no role in the sovereign right of states to run their own elections. States trying to enforce the 14th amendment in regards to eligibility? States have no role.But Congress does not approve of candidates, does not hold, enforce, or audit elections, nor can they impeach someone who doesn't hold office. How exactly are they to enforce that amendment when they have no authority over the process it affects?
And the President is totally immune if he orders it, or so we've heard from Trump's own lawyers.Exactly, then Congress is just deciding who the president is, may as well just get someone to kill him instead, you'll have less rioting in the streets.
He ‘laughed’ at my post, implying I was saying something ridiculous.
Congress did take needed action for this. They passed a Law against insurrection to allow the DOJ to prosecute people for this. Are you just being obtuse or what?But Congress does not approve of candidates, does not hold, enforce, or audit elections, nor can they impeach someone who doesn't hold office. How exactly are they to enforce that amendment when they have no authority over the process it affects?
Speaking of ridiculousWell you are saying something ridiculous.
Trying to relate Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee and the civil war to Trump and a riot of private citizens at the Capital Building.
No, it is the obvious result of your own logic.Well you are saying something ridiculous.
Trying to relate Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee and the civil war to Trump and a riot of private citizens at the Capital Building.
Ah, the funny thing is even prior to the Harvard ruling on AA, the SC nullified 14th Amendment's equal protection clause by coming up with a compromise of a compelling interest for diversity. And with Harvard which they appeared to move away from the diversity interest, the arguments essentially boiled down to things like "Because blacks don't have as rigorous curriculum in school system, I should be able to discriminate against whites/Asians; because black babies are dying from white doctors, I should be able to discriminate against whites/Asians". It's also quite comical that they just need to state the reason and not have ironclad supporting documentation whatsoever with the claims. There is no reason then why a court then couldn't just twist the dilemma with Trump and say they have to do something else in order to not cause chaos.To which again, I'll ask, who is authorized to determine eligibility of candidates? So far the SCOTUS has just said 'no, not them either' without offering an alternative. That's tacitly choosing to hamstring or outright nullify an amendment.
No, it is the obvious result of your own logic.
I thought it was innocent until proven guilty? Did you change your mind?
No it is not a result of my logic. They are apples and oranges.
It is still innocent until proven guilty. No one has been charged with insurrection.
Great. So neither Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee were ever charged or convicted of insurrection so therefore they were eligible to be president in 1868 under your interpretation of the 14th amendment.No it is not a result of my logic. They are apples and oranges.
It is still innocent until proven guilty. No one has been charged with insurrection.