The Supreme Court did not say!!

Damocles said:
On those cases the law codifying and defining Insurrection had not yet been passed, but the Amendment gave them the power to make the decisions to allow or deny ballot access, the congress acted with their authority given in Section 5 of the Amendment. Since that time they have, again within their authority, defined and codified what Insurrection is in the aforementioned USC Section 2383. This makes it so that someone can be convicted of the Federal crime of Insurrection, if they were convicted of this Federal Crime it would meet the aspects of the Amendment 14 Sections 5 and 1 that I have described herein.

All elections are state run elections, not just Primaries, but they do not get to decide who is eligible to run for President, that eligibility is also listed in the Constitution, which gave Congress the authority to act on and to enact laws regarding Amendment 14, which they did later when they codified a definition in law for Insurrection as described in Amendment 14.

Secretaries of State or any authority below the Constitutional guidelines, simply do not have the authority to just "decide" such things. Imagine if they did. The Texas SoS would just decide that allowing border crossing without regard to the law was "Insurrection" as they are trying to "take over the government" by "importing illegal voters"... Suddenly Biden is no longer allowed on their ballot because some partisan hack has decided he just cannot be... Florida follows suit, Alabama, and every state with a republican SoS... magic and feels are simply not due process and they just don't have this authority.
Click to expand...

A federal criminal conviction, would probably be enough To disqualify someone from holding office.

It is not, however, the only way an insurrectionist could be disqualified.

A criminal conviction is not a requirement, but it might be one of the ways. Despite what you said earlier in the week.
 
Jarod said:
A federal criminal conviction, would probably be enough To disqualify someone from holding office.

It is not, however, the only way an insurrectionist could be disqualified.

A criminal conviction is not a requirement, but it might be one of the ways. Despite what you said earlier in the week.
Click to expand...

you are still overlooking the fact that the 14th amendment applies to everyone from the VP on down......
 
Damocles said:
For an attorney you have an amazingly limited understanding of criminal law, how things work, and what Due Process is in criminal law.

Insurrection is a crime, you don't get to just "declare" folks guilty of crime in civil courts and apply criminal penalties, you certainly don't get to do it in a State Court for a Federal Crime.

There is a reason why OJ Simpson didn't serve any time though he was found responsible for the death of his wife and her lover in a civil court... it is because they are not allowed to exact criminal punishment through a "preponderance of the evidence".

If you want him off the ballot, convict him of the Federal Crime of Insurrection. You'll have my support, and likely that of the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Ineligibility for federal office is not a criminal penalty.
 
Jarod said:
It applies to the president on down. Everyone! All people. Words mean things!
Click to expand...

the words don't mean what you pretend they mean........

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.
Click to expand...

if intended, they certainly could have stated "No person shall be a President or Vice President or Senator or Representative in Congress"..........you may pretend that "any office" makes it all inclusive, but if that was intended, why mention four of the six elected offices separately?......
 
Top Gook said:
impeachment is a removal from office. not similar at all. not applicable. you're dumb.
Click to expand...

They are not the same but they are very similar.

One was intended to remove those from office who should not be in office.

The other was intended to block people from getting in to office who should not be there so they would not have to be removed later.

NEITHER was written in to the Constitution to require the courts or conviction.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the words don't mean what you pretend they mean........



if intended, they certainly could have stated "No person shall be a President or Vice President or Senator or Representative in Congress"..........you may pretend that "any office" makes it all inclusive, but if that was intended, why mention four of the six elected offices separately?......
Click to expand...

You do not believe a POTIS is an officer of the United States? He holds office?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the words don't mean what you pretend they mean........



if intended, they certainly could have stated "No person shall be a President or Vice President or Senator or Representative in Congress"..........you may pretend that "any office" makes it all inclusive, but if that was intended, why mention four of the six elected offices separately?......
Click to expand...

FALSE.

It is you who needs to understand the words do not mean what you pretend they mean. These words are crystal clear...

"... or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state,..."

And they ABSOLUTELY speak to every office, including the POTUS.

There is ZERO logic to say, 'but they gave 4 examples but left out others so 'ANY' means '4', when they if they intended 4 they could have simply said 'NO person shall hold any of these 4 offices...'.

In the proper use of language, when an INCLUSIVE statement such as ANY is used, if you then want to provide exceptions they must be explicitly stated. What you do not get to say is 'well they gave 4 examples so ANY means 4', when there are more offices.
 
zymurgy said:
you should save this for the many democrats in Colorado that spend so much time and energy fighting FOR this - and when they lost - went crying to the media about how unfair things are
Click to expand...

You idiot!

The Democrats had nothing- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRYING TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM THE BALLOT!

The Democrats wanted Trump to be primary winner.

So go stink up some other thread with your nonsense idiot!
 
QP! said:
They are not the same but they are very similar.

One was intended to remove those from office who should not be in office.

The other was intended to block people from getting in to office who should not be there so they would not have to be removed later.

NEITHER was written in to the Constitution to require the courts or conviction.
Click to expand...

:chuckle:
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
You idiot!

The Democrats had nothing- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRYING TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM THE BALLOT!

The Democrats wanted Trump to be primary winner.

So go stink up some other thread with your nonsense idiot!
Click to expand...
you really are a fucking retard. :laugh:

liberal advocy groups funded this case. Every one of the retarded Colorado Judges was appointed by a democratic retard

so fuck off shit stain. you are wrong. AGAIN


also - the only people crying about this decision are your retarded peers on the left
 
zymurgy said:
you really are a fucking retard. :laugh:

liberal advocy groups funded this case. Every one of the retarded Colorado Judges was appointed by a democratic retard

so fuck off shit stain. you are wrong. AGAIN


also - the only people crying about this decision are your retarded peers on the left
Click to expand...

You are a scum sucking coward!!

Fuck off!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top