The Conservative Legal Roadmap to Disqualify Trump From Office

[robosmith]

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well that's what left wing nutbars claim to scare their children when they won't go to bed at night.  "Be good or the evil republicans  will force you to say the lords prayer!"  "Nooo mommy, NOOOOOOOO"

 

Of course it's largely buillshit. 

Whereas the left thinks freedom means the right for them to destroy the lives of anyone who dares to disagree with them, and to be racist bigots as long as it's towards white or jewish people.

Yes, ^this post is BULLSHIT. But that's the best you got.

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Nothing "amazing" about you having BUPKIS. It's quite pedestrian, and USUAL.

Wow - still fantasizing about it are you?  Well - we're not here to judge you

Quote

But you MAGA CULTISTS are denying "rule of law," for Trump. LMAO

Isn't the rule of law that someone is innocent until found guilty?      Sounds like you're the one struggling with the rule of law

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Yes, ^this post is BULLSHIT. But that's the best you got.

LOL - so you agree with what i said and have no rebuttal - but you're angry about it

Well fair enough. It must get a little frustrating to be wrong ALL the time like that  

[herbie]

[CdnFox]

Number of days Left has been insisting Trump will be in jail shortly = 2,555

Number of days Trump has actually spent in jail = 0

 

 

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Number of days Left has been insisting Trump will be in jail shortly = 2,555

Number of days Trump has actually spent in jail = 0

 

 

Meh, to paraphrase the Devil in one of my favourite films:

Ain't nothing ever as good as we want it to be.  But that ain't no reason not to have some fun.

[robosmith]

14th Amendment, Section 3: A new legal battle against Trump takes shape

Quote

Separate from the criminal cases, over the past few weeks a growing body of conservative scholars have raised the constitutional argument that Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election make him ineligible to hold federal office ever again.

That disqualification argument boils down to Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which says that a public official is not eligible to assume public office if they ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion against’ the United States, or had ‘given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,’ unless they are granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress.

Advocacy groups have long argued that Trump’s behavior after the 2020 election fits those criteria.  

 

Florida lawyer files challenge to disqualify Trump from 2024 race, citing 14th Amendment

Quote

A Florida lawyer is challenging former President Trump’s ability to run for president in 2024 under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, citing the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

Lawrence Caplan, a tax attorney in Palm Beach County, filed the challenge in federal court Thursday, pointing to a clause in the amendment that says those who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the government cannot hold office.

The bottom line here is that President Trump both engaged in an insurrection and also gave aid and comfort to other individuals who were engaging in such actions, within the clear meaning of those terms as defined in Section Three of the 14th Amendment, Caplan wrote in the filing. Assuming that the public record to date is accurate, and we have no evidence to the contrary, Trump is no longer eligible to seek the office of the President of the United States, or of any other state of the Union.

Caplan’s challenge is one of the first questioning the legality of Trump’s 2024 bid, though Trump is also facing criminal charges at both the state and federal level over his actions to undo the results of the 2020 vote. 

 

[robosmith]

State election officials prepare for efforts to disqualify Trump under 14th Amendment

Quote

Efforts to keep former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot under the 14th Amendment are gaining momentum as election officials in key states are preparing for or starting to respond to legal challenges to Trump's candidacy.

The argument to disqualify Trump from appearing on primary or general election ballots in 2024 boils down to Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which states that an elected official is not eligible to assume public office if that person "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States, or had "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," unless they are granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress.

Several advocacy groups have said that Trump's actions on Jan. 6, 2021, fit that criteria -- that he directly engaged in an insurrection. The legal theory has been pursued, unsuccessfully, against a few other elected Republicans; arguing their actions around Jan. 6 and support for overturning the 2020 election results amounted to the disqualifying behavior.

Trump has denied any involvement in the attack on the Capitol.

"Joe Biden, Democrats, and Never Trumpers are scared to death because they see polls showing President Trump winning in the general election," Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Chung told ABC News in a statement. "The people who are pursuing this absurd conspiracy theory and political attack on President Trump are stretching the law beyond recognition much like the political prosecutors in New York, Georgia, and DC. There is no legal basis for this effort ... "

The push to disqualify Trump under this constitutional clause gained more traction when two members of the conservative Federalist Society, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, recently supported the idea in the pages of the Pennsylvania Law Review. Following the Baude and Paulsen article, retired conservative federal appeals judge J. Michael Luttig and Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe made the same argument in The Atlantic.

It ain't over until the fat Trump sings. LMAO

 

[robosmith]

Maine officials are reviewing Donald Trump’s eligibility for 2024 ballot

Quote

Maine’s secretary of state and attorney general said Thursday they are reviewing state statutes to determine if former President Donald Trump is eligible to appear on the 2024 ballot amid calls in various states for the Republican to be disqualified for stoking the violent Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

 

Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and Attorney General Aaron Frey, both Democrats, said in a statement regarding “14th Amendment election law questions” that they are “working together to research and analyze the legal requirements for ballot access, including presidential ballot access, as we do prior to every major election.”

“Any decisions about ballot access will be made dispassionately at the proper time in accordance with the laws and the Constitution, which will be our sole consideration,” the two officials said, without mentioning Trump.

Of course no Republican SoS will obey the 14th Amendment prohibition against Trump on their ballot.

[CdnFox]

21 hours ago, robosmith said:

Maine officials are reviewing Donald Trump’s eligibility for 2024 ballot

Of course no Republican SoS will obey the 14th Amendment prohibition against Trump on their ballot.

Nobody with half a brain anywhere should without a conviction,

What you're suggesting is that  it should not be necessary for someone to have been convicted of having participated in an insurrection to enforce this - that if any legal official decides someone is gulity of what they perceive as an offense or insurrection or similar action against the constitution then that official should be allowed to bar that person for running for office.

Even you have to see what a frikkin' disaster that would be.  It would be insane. Democrats were involved in bailing out some of the BLM rioters who got arrested for vandalism and burning and looking -  INSURRECTON I SAY - they can't run.

It would be the end of democracy.  It's the height of stupidity to even put it forward - it would be beyond re tarded to accept it.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Nobody with half a brain anywhere should without a conviction,

What you're suggesting is that  it should not be necessary for someone to have been convicted of having participated in an insurrection to enforce this - that if any legal official decides someone is gulity of what they perceive as an offense or insurrection or similar action against the constitution then that official should be allowed to bar that person for running for office.

Even you have to see what a frikkin' disaster that would be.  It would be insane. Democrats were involved in bailing out some of the BLM rioters who got arrested for vandalism and burning and looking -  INSURRECTON I SAY - they can't run.

It would be the end of democracy.  It's the height of stupidity to even put it forward - it would be beyond re tarded to accept it.

Bail is completely LEGAL. That's why it WAS ACCEPTED.

Sending a mob to disrupt an official Federal government proceeding is NOT legal.

Election committees decide whether the petitioner is qualified, and if they are wrong, the denial can be disputed IN COURT. EZPZ

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Bail is completely LEGAL. That's why it WAS ACCEPTED.

Nope - it's aiding and abetting terrorists, ban the dems from running.  Remember - it doesn't have to reach a legal bar in your world, no judgement or even CHARGES need be put forward.

You don't get a say in it remember? - there's no requirement for a trial or conviction in your world. 

Quote

Sending a mob to disrupt an official Federal government proceeding is NOT legal.

Perfectly legal - according to some.  The law doesn't matter any more because you don't require a legal conviction for this - just any officials opinion. So there you go.

 

Quote

Election committees decide whether the petitioner is qualified, and if they are wrong, the denial can be disputed IN COURT. EZPZ

Not at all . Not according to you.  Officials at any state or fed level can deny them from running in your world.

THINK about it. Think about how the system ACTUALLY works, and  on what legal grounds a dispute could be filed based on your premise that you don't need a conviction to decide someone is an insurgent.

I know you're not very bright. And i know you don't understand the legal system very well.  But give it a little thought... see if you can work it out on your own without my help. Honestly even you should.

[Rebound]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nobody with half a brain anywhere should without a conviction,

What you're suggesting is that  it should not be necessary for someone to have been convicted of having participated in an insurrection to enforce this - that if any legal official decides someone is gulity of what they perceive as an offense or insurrection or similar action against the constitution then that official should be allowed to bar that person for running for office.

Even you have to see what a frikkin' disaster that would be.  It would be insane. Democrats were involved in bailing out some of the BLM rioters who got arrested for vandalism and burning and looking -  INSURRECTON I SAY - they can't run.

It would be the end of democracy.  It's the height of stupidity to even put it forward - it would be beyond re tarded to accept it.

Correct. 
The Constitution is the most supreme law of the United States, and it says that participation in an insurrection is the disqualification, NOT conviction. 
 

I am fairly certain that this issue will go to the courts. If he’s listed on a ballot, someone will sue and if he is rejected from a ballot, someone will sue. And that means it will ultimately be decided by 9 men and women of the Supreme Court. But I doubt very much there will be a trial pertaining to this.  

[robosmith]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nope - it's aiding and abetting terrorists, ban the dems from running.  Remember - it doesn't have to reach a legal bar in your world, no judgement or even CHARGES need be put forward.

You don't get a say in it remember? - there's no requirement for a trial or conviction in your world. 

Perfectly legal - according to some.  The law doesn't matter any more because you don't require a legal conviction for this - just any officials opinion. So there you go.

 

Not at all . Not according to you.  Officials at any state or fed level can deny them from running in your world.

THINK about it. Think about how the system ACTUALLY works, and  on what legal grounds a dispute could be filed based on your premise that you don't need a conviction to decide someone is an insurgent.

I know you're not very bright. And i know you don't understand the legal system very well.  But give it a little thought... see if you can work it out on your own without my help. Honestly even you should.

"According to ^you" you're FOS. LMAO

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Rebound said:

Correct. 
The Constitution is the most supreme law of the United States, and it says that participation in an insurrection is the disqualification, NOT conviction.

Without a conviction who's to say that it was an insurrection?  Can't have it both ways

A court is the legal  body that decides such things.  An insurrection or the like is a criminal offense and to demonstrate someone participated in one would require a conviction.

Sorry - but it would be patently insane to suggest that it was ok to bar people from running for public office without such a conviction for that clause

[robosmith]

On 9/3/2023 at 5:03 PM, CdnFox said:

Without a conviction who's to say that it was an insurrection?  Can't have it both ways 

The election committee for the State. Anyone (who is not blind) can see that Trump participated in an insurrection.

The EVIDENCE is overwhelming, despite your refusal to believe SWORN TESTIMONY by WH INSIDERS. 

On 9/3/2023 at 5:03 PM, CdnFox said:

A court is the legal  body that decides such things.  An insurrection or the like is a criminal offense and to demonstrate someone participated in one would require a conviction.

Sorry - but it would be patently insane to suggest that it was ok to bar people from running for public office without such a conviction for that clause

Sorry but you have NO QUALIFICATIONS to make judgements about US LAW.

State election committee decisions on candidate qualifications are subject to legal challenges AND a judge recently declared a participant in the Jan 6th insurrection was disqualified from holding an office to which he was elected.

Maybe he'll appeal and win, but I doubt it.

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, robosmith said:

The election committee for the State.

Is not authorized to rule on matters of criminal conduct.  Sorry but "insurrection' Is not a civil matter.

Swing and  a miss kiddo

Quote

Anyone (who is not blind) can see that Trump participated in an insurrection.

Ahh so you're just doing away with the whole legal process and jurisprudence and trials by twelve good men and true and all that -  go back to a time where the local lords decide who's guilty?    LOLOL

My how fast you lefties give up on the law when it's in your way   hope you are still ok with it when trump wins office again and decides it's payback time and that 'courts' are just not necessary to decide guilt   LOL

 

Quote

Sorry but you have NO QUALIFICATIONS to make judgements about US LAW.

Says the guy who just claimed it's not necessary to have a trial to decide if someone is criminally guilty of something

 Sorry kiddo - your credibility went out the window at that point. Barring something completely unforseen like a heart attack, trump will be running in the next election, he's got a reasonable chance of winning, and if he does you can bet he'll be looking to pay back all the people who came after him and their supporters.

 

[Rebound]

On 9/3/2023 at 8:03 PM, CdnFox said:

Without a conviction who's to say that it was an insurrection?  Can't have it both ways

A court is the legal  body that decides such things.  An insurrection or the like is a criminal offense and to demonstrate someone participated in one would require a conviction.

Sorry - but it would be patently insane to suggest that it was ok to bar people from running for public office without such a conviction for that clause

Thank you for asking that question. 
 

According to Federal Law, on January 6 there was an insurrection. Passed the House and Passed the Senate unanimously and was signed into law. You can see it for yourself in this law, it’s in the 2nd or 3rd sentence:

https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ32/PLAW-117publ32.pdf

The Civil War was also an insurrection and people were not tried as insurrectionists… but they were barred from Federal office if they were former insurrectionists who had previously sworn an oath to the Constitution.  No trial, just as there is no trial to determine whether you’re 35 years old. 
 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Rebound

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Is not authorized to rule on matters of criminal conduct.  Sorry but "insurrection' Is not a civil matter.

Swing and  a miss kiddo

Ahh so you're just doing away with the whole legal process and jurisprudence and trials by twelve good men and true and all that -  go back to a time where the local lords decide who's guilty?    LOLOL

My how fast you lefties give up on the law when it's in your way   hope you are still ok with it when trump wins office again and decides it's payback time and that 'courts' are just not necessary to decide guilt   LOL

 

Says the guy who just claimed it's not necessary to have a trial to decide if someone is criminally guilty of something

 Sorry kiddo - your credibility went out the window at that point. Barring something completely unforseen like a heart attack, trump will be running in the next election, he's got a reasonable chance of winning, and if he does you can bet he'll be looking to pay back all the people who came after him and their supporters.

 

Whether qualifications for running for office are met, ARE NOT CRIMINAL MATTERS. They are decided by states' election committees.

Their decisions MAY BE subject to dispute IN COURT. Duh

You're the one who KEEPS missing. Strike THREE and you're OUT. LMAO

Like said previously, you need to stop PRETENDING you are an expert on US law. You're REALLY BAD at it.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Thank you for asking that question. 
 

According to Federal Law, on January 6 there was an insurrection. Passed the House and Passed the Senate unanimously and was signed into law. You can see it for yourself in this law, it’s in the 2nd or 3rd sentence:

https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ32/PLAW-117publ32.pdf

 

Nope - sorry. LOL - but i appreciate the  rather ... umm.. CREATIVE interpretation   Lets go through it

 

Problem one - there's no claim of insurrection in that law.

Lets look at what it says:

On January 6, 2021, a mob of insurrectionists forced its way into the U.S. Capitol building and congressional office
buildings and engaged in acts of vandalism, looting, and vio-lently attacked Capitol Police officers.

Sooooo  it says the people were 'insurrectionists'.  That's not actually a crime in and of itself.  But - did they launch an insurrection?  Well no - it doesn't say they did. Just that they enganged in acts of vandalism, looting and violently attacked people.

Do you see it say 'engaged in an insurrection' anywhere in there?

So it would be a pretty blatant lie to say that it was an 'insurrection by law'.  

So you lose out there. It does not call the actions of these people an insurrection.

 

Second problem - you can't actually pass a law that just decides someone is guilty of a crime.  You couldn't pass a law for example that said "trump is guilty of russian collusion" and then arrrest him for russian collusion.  You would STILL need to go through the courts.  That's what's called 'due process' and people's right to it is guaranteed under the constitution.

So your premise is nuts from the get go.

And of course finally - no trump.  Even if a court found that this WAS an insurrection by legal standards, noting in that document in any way ties the events to trump and until you showed in a court of law that trump participated in the "Insurrection" in a way that legally met the definition you'd still have no lawful grounds to say trump was guilty.

 SO - utter failure on your part.  Seriously -don't bring me !diotc drivel like that.

 

As to the civil war  - no.   Just no.  For god's sake are you honestly suggesting that every soldier on the south's side was banned for life from holding office?

For a BRIEF period after the war there was a law requiring RECONSTRUCTION - and which VERY temporarily banned some people from voting or holding office till that was complete Which happened very fast and they were allowed to vote as normal again.  It was an extraordinary short term temporary circumstance due to having to rebuild states after a war.

 

Yeash - fail across the board.

 

[Rebound]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nope - sorry. LOL - but i appreciate the  rather ... umm.. CREATIVE interpretation   Lets go through it

 

Problem one - there's no claim of insurrection in that law.

Lets look at what it says:

On January 6, 2021, a mob of insurrectionists forced its way into the U.S. Capitol building and congressional office
buildings and engaged in acts of vandalism, looting, and vio-lently attacked Capitol Police officers.

Sooooo  it says the people were 'insurrectionists'.  That's not actually a crime in and of itself.  But - did they launch an insurrection?  Well no - it doesn't say they did. Just that they enganged in acts of vandalism, looting and violently attacked people.

Do you see it say 'engaged in an insurrection' anywhere in there?

So it would be a pretty blatant lie to say that it was an 'insurrection by law'.  

So you lose out there. It does not call the actions of these people an insurrection.

 

Second problem - you can't actually pass a law that just decides someone is guilty of a crime.  You couldn't pass a law for example that said "trump is guilty of russian collusion" and then arrrest him for russian collusion.  You would STILL need to go through the courts.  That's what's called 'due process' and people's right to it is guaranteed under the constitution.

So your premise is nuts from the get go.

And of course finally - no trump.  Even if a court found that this WAS an insurrection by legal standards, noting in that document in any way ties the events to trump and until you showed in a court of law that trump participated in the "Insurrection" in a way that legally met the definition you'd still have no lawful grounds to say trump was guilty.

 SO - utter failure on your part.  Seriously -don't bring me !diotc drivel like that.

 

As to the civil war  - no.   Just no.  For god's sake are you honestly suggesting that every soldier on the south's side was banned for life from holding office?

For a BRIEF period after the war there was a law requiring RECONSTRUCTION - and which VERY temporarily banned some people from voting or holding office till that was complete Which happened very fast and they were allowed to vote as normal again.  It was an extraordinary short term temporary circumstance due to having to rebuild states after a war.

 

Yeash - fail across the board.

 

The prohibition is a Constitutional prohibition. It supersedes Federal law.  
 

And, yes, every Southern soldier in the Civil War was banned for life from Federal office… IF they had previously sworn an oath to defend the United States Constitution. Donald Trump swore such an oath when he took office as President in 2017.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

11 hours ago, Rebound said:

The prohibition is a Constitutional prohibition. It supersedes Federal law.  
 

 

Dumbest comment ever.   The federal courts are the ONLY body empowered to interpret the constitution.  Perhaps you heard about the constitutional abortion debate?

The very fact it's constitutional makes it a federal legal issue.  Read a book.

Quote

And, yes, every Southern soldier in the Civil War was banned for life from Federal office…

Nope.  Never happened.  Show me where the solders were banned for life from holding office. Now you're just lying to try to prop up your failed argument.

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Dumbest comment ever.   The federal courts are the ONLY body empowered to interpret the constitution.  Perhaps you heard about the constitutional abortion debate?

The very fact it's constitutional makes it a federal legal issue.  Read a book.

Nope.  Never happened.  Show me where the solders were banned for life from holding office. Now you're just lying to try to prop up your failed argument.

Dude, do you what the word AND means? 
Your reading comprehensive is abhorrent. 
 

Someone who participated in insurrection

AND

Had previously taken an oath to defend the Constitution. 
 

Therefore, former US Military officers who were Confederate officers were ineligible to serve in Congress or any Federal office, because they had previously taken an oath to defend the Constitution.

You really can’t read well, can you? 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Rebound

[robosmith]

The sleeper legal fight that could define 2024: Is Trump even eligible to run?

Quote

There are two ways the theory might be tested. One strategy is for politicians, advocacy groups or even ordinary voters to file lawsuits seeking judicial declarations that Trump is ineligible to run. This strategy is already in its infant stages, with two obscure plaintiffs filing lawsuits in New Hampshire and Florida in recent days.

The other, more politically perilous option would be for one or more states to embrace the theory outright and simply refuse to list Trump on their ballots. That might force Trump to file his own lawsuits asking courts to order his candidacy restored in those states. So far, no state has moved to bar Trump from the ballot, though secretaries of state around the nation are discussing the issue among themselves.

Either scenario could thrust the courts, and likely the Supreme Court, into an unsettled debate over the meaning of the insurrection clause, a long-winded 110-word provision that was ratified in 1868 and has rarely been interpreted — or even invoked — since then. 

As of now, no consideration of conviction being required.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

The sleeper legal fight that could define 2024: Is Trump even eligible to run?

As of now, no consideration of conviction being required.

Sure there is.  If they try without it goes to court and they lose. And then that opens the door to trump and the republicans doing that with many dems in teh future forcing them to jump through the hoops.

Sigh. You're so mentally deficient, you're practically a walking billboard for putting an end to democracy. "THAT is a voter".