Amendment 14 article 3

DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Sativied said:
Optimistically put.
Click to expand...
Living by the rule of law means honoring treaties and agreements to us and others too, America has the world's largest military and if they should go off the deep end with another Trump or worse, then it could be bad. Europe is preparing to go it alone and Ukraine has largely defanged and declawed the Russian bear, so they have the time to rearm. Supporting Ukraine is the best defense, and they alone could eliminate the threat if supported. In the future Russia would be up against a rearmed Europe with Ukraine heavily armed and allied with NATO at the doorstep to Moscow.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
So what, you think America is gonna knuckle under to a bunch of outraged magats, they are always aggrieved and outraged, what's new?

Gee, we gotta ignore the constitution and break the rule of law because some delusional magats are unhappy and besides Trump is so popular. It will split the nation, well, elections do that with republicans lying about the results, maybe stop having elections because they divide the country?

www.politico.com

Supreme Court Shocker? Here’s What Happens if Trump Gets Kicked Off the Ballot

Legal scholars, national security experts and political analysts imagine the extraordinary fallout that would ensue.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member

Can MAGA crush High Court? Pressure on Chief Justice Roberts in Trump coup cases
A federal appeals court has rejected Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity in the federal coup case. Trump is expected to file an appeal and the Supreme Court will decide whether to take the case. MSNBC's Ari Melber reports on the high-stakes moment that could hold major political implications.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
The SCOTUS is a body of review and can't overturn a finding of legal fact, and that was an insurrection occurred.


‘Fact-finding on whether Trump engaged in insurrection is done’: Legal expert on Supreme Court case

The Supreme Court's oral arguments over former president Donald Trump's Colorado ballot case will take place on Thursday. Sherrilyn Ifill, former president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Listening to the SCOTUS arguments, it looks like Trump will be disqualified, when is another matter. Trump's lawyer is struggling uphill and against a head wind. The SCOTUS might be doing some reputation repair at Trump's expense.

In the end they are trying to decide if the US constitution is a suicide pact.
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
Ex-federal judge says Supreme Court has no ‘legitimate off ramps’ to avoid Trump decision
Retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig said Thursday the Supreme Court has no “legitimate off ramps” to avoid a decision on whether former President Trump should be kicked off the 2024 presidential ballot, as the court begins oral arguments on the issue.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December that Trump is disqualified from the election because his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot qualifies as inciting insurrection, in violation of the 14th Amendment. Trump appealed the ruling to the high court.

Luttig, a conservative who served on the Fourth Circuit of Appeals for 25 years, predicted that the Supreme Court is likely looking for any way to avoid a substantive ruling on the Trump disqualification case, but that there really isn’t one there.

“The Supreme Court finds itself in a very precarious position today,” Luttig said in an MSNBC interview. “Undoubtedly, it doesn’t want to decide this case, and it will be looking for all legitimate off ramps to decide that the former president is disqualified. But there are no legitimate off ramps to that decision.”

Legal scholars have predicted that the court could rule that the 14th Amendment clause does not apply to the presidency, or that Trump’s speech and actions surrounding Jan. 6 does not qualify as inciting insurrection as possible ways to avoid a complete ruling on the merits of the matter.

Luttig, who previously said that the 14th Amendment should disqualify Trump, said a ruling on a technicality is not likely if the court reads the clause fairly.

“If Section Three doesn’t disqualify the president, then in my view, it would not disqualify any person at all,” he said.

“This case is probably even the most historic constitutional and political case in all of American history,” he continued. “Section Three of the 14th Amendment is the constitutional safety net for American democracy, and it’s as [if] the framers of Section Three for saw Jan. 6, 2021 and they provided in Section Three that America would never experience another Jan. 6.”

Multiple states have halted proceedings to determine Trump’s ballot eligibility until the Supreme Court rules the Colorado case. The oral arguments Thursday could mark clues into whether certain justices are interested in pursuing such “off ramps” to a full ruling.
thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4455753-judge-supreme-court-trump-insurrection/
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
The lawyer needs to tell Roberts that it's his job to set national standards and answer questions about different rules and bogus trials in red states run by fascists. Just because there are problems implementing the constitution, does give them a pass on the hard calls, an insurrection happened, there is a mountain of evidence. They too witnessed it on TV in real time, did they think it was a tourist visit that happened to drive congress from the chamber and try to overturn the constitution. Not dealing with that head on would be a serious mistake.

They are dealing with the defense of the constitution and rule of law, who would enforce section 3, if states can't start the ball rolling? Common sense must come into play here and not play games with semantics and ideology. Officeholder? We can't do anything because lunatics in Red states will bring bogus cases? They need to use their powers to first defend the constitution, then set national standards, in this case the evidence is overwhelming and there have been criminal indictments and likely convictions coming.

If they let him run, they might as well give him immunity too, or delay the trial until after the decision. If they don't hear the immunity case and let him run, it would send a message and if he got elected, they would be among his first victims. If they say he is not disqualified, and later convicted after criminal state and federal trials, it won't do much for their reputation or protecting the constitution. The founders and framers never intended an idiot like Trump to destroy their constitution and build in defenses, it's up to them interpret and enforce them nationally.
 
Last edited:
BudmanTX

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
well that was interesting.......

www.politico.com

Momentum shifts in Trump’s favor as justices seem hostile to disqualification effort

The tenor of the questions suggested the court was leaning heavily against the Colorado voters.
www.politico.com www.politico.com


thehill.com

Supreme Court weighs Trump’s 14th Amendment challenge: Recap

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday over former President Trump’s ballot eligibility under the 14th Amendment, a historic showdown that thrust the justices into the center of the 2024 p…
thehill.com thehill.com
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member

Legal expert predicts how he thinks Supreme Court will rule in Trump case

CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck reacts to arguments before the Supreme Court challenging former President Donald Trump's eligibility to appear on the 2024 presidential ballot.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Looks like the SCOTUS will take a pass on disqualification and want an off ramp, ok. Will they take up the immunity case too, or let it stand and the trial to proceed? After conviction for these crimes, can Jack Smith on behalf of the federal government move to have him disqualified in federal civil court? Who exactly has standing to put Trump on trial for disqualification before the election and if the democrats win, they might refuse to count his electoral votes on the grounds he is disqualified. They will need to revisit disqualification or say an insurrection never happened and was not proven to have happened, will they go that far? Roberts himself might refuse to administer the oath if he were somehow elected.

It is one of many traps the originalists get themselves into when they turned the constitution from a living adaptable document into a dead immutable one where everybody, but the founders or framers is devoid of common sense or awareness of current realities. The founders never imagined someone like Trump would arise, but the framers of the 14th saw it happen and made adjustments to protect and defend the constitution. That IMO takes precedent over other considerations, and it is the one thing the justices swore an oath to do to, protect and defend the constitution from domestic enemies like Trump. The have no problems ruling on gun laws, and the founders never envisioned AR-15s, another fallacy of originalism, especially when it is misconstrued to fit a political agenda.
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
Listened to half of it. Wonder why there is no consequence for an ex-president trying to subvert democracy. It seems like Feb 7 is the only element of the insurrection and all the preceding events are not?
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Brace for the bullshit

www.politico.com

Chief Justice John Roberts asks whether red states would kick Biden off the ballot

He asked about the “plain consequences” of a ruling barring Trump from the presidency.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
Click to expand...
That is his job, when a state disqualifies Biden, the SCOTUS tells them they are full of shit and need a case, such a case exists for Trump.

The elephant in the room is Trump is an insurrectionist who tried to overthrow the US constitution and the whole country witnessed it live on TV, including them. Trump will be tried over the J6 charges before the election, if they allow it and could be in prison by inauguration day, where Roberts would have to swear him in, if he won, or a democratic congress wouldn't count his electoral votes and disqualify him. Let the SCOTUS deal with that, a state can't disqualify him, congress can't disqualify him, and the courts apparently can't disqualify him, who exactly enforces section 3 of the 14th amendment, Jack Smith?

Or do they forget about it, like they did with the 2nd amendment even though their interpretations are unworkable and not in line with the founder's intentions. The 14th covers equal rights for black people, so I can see why they are sensitive about enforcing that part of the constitution, since historically they have failed on the 14th countless times for political expediency and as a compromise with endemic racism and fascism. They failed on the 2nd amendment too and have the body count of children to prove it, that was another amendment that was misinterpreted for political reasons.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
DIY-HP-LED said:
~snip~

Or do they forget about it, like they did with the 2nd amendment even though their interpretations are unworkable and not in line with the founder's intentions. The 14th covers equal rights for black people, so I can see why they are sensitive about enforcing that part of the constitution, since historically they have failed on the 14th countless times for political expediency and as a compromise with endemic racism and fascism. They failed on the 2nd amendment too and have the body count of children to prove it, that was another amendment that was misinterpreted for political reasons.
Click to expand...
I’m duly impressed that you can speak with confidence about the founders’ intentions when there are intelligent, thoughtful and dedicated people who have studied Constitutional law for a lifetime and are still struggling with that question. Move to DC; hold seminars; make serious bank.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I’m duly impressed that you can speak with confidence about the founders’ intentions when there are intelligent, thoughtful and dedicated people who have studied Constitutional law for a lifetime and are still struggling with that question. Move to DC; hold seminars; make serious bank.
Click to expand...
Opinions are like assholes and those guys never saw modern arms and what they can do, they did say for the purposes of a well-ordered militia under the state's control and retired justices have said, the current SCOTUS and the one for the past few years, are full of shit on the 2nd, it is not just my opinion alone.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
That is his job, when a state disqualifies Biden, the SCOTUS tells them they are full of shit and need a case, such a case exists for Trump.

The elephant in the room is Trump is an insurrectionist who tried to overthrow the US constitution and the whole country witnessed it live on TV, including them. Trump will be tried over the J6 charges before the election, if they allow it and could be in prison by inauguration day, where Roberts would have to swear him in, if he won, or a democratic congress wouldn't count his electoral votes and disqualify him. Let the SCOTUS deal with that, a state can't disqualify him, congress can't disqualify him, and the courts apparently can't disqualify him, who exactly enforces section 3 of the 14th amendment, Jack Smith?

Or do they forget about it, like they did with the 2nd amendment even though their interpretations are unworkable and not in line with the founder's intentions. The 14th covers equal rights for black people, so I can see why they are sensitive about enforcing that part of the constitution, since historically they have failed on the 14th countless times for political expediency and as a compromise with endemic racism and fascism. They failed on the 2nd amendment too and have the body count of children to prove it, that was another amendment that was misinterpreted for political reasons.
Click to expand...
If the ruling that comes out of today's hearing is that Colorado or any state doesn't have the authority to decide who may run for president in their primary, I think that might be a good ruling.

It's a can of worms, don't get me wrong. If that's all they rule then it just sets us up for more uncertainty, more court cases and chaos in this year's primaries because ruling without providing clarity on the process for disqualification would only say what can not be done, not what to do. That said, I too think that we don't want fifty states making fifty different decisions regarding who may run for the nomination of a political party. I'd like to see some clarity on the disqualification process but I won't disagree if they rule that Colorado did not have the power to exclude Trump from that state's primary ballot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top