Trump Is Constitutionally Barred From Holding Office.

Into the Night said:
An officer in a republic is elected according the constitution of that republic. The Supreme Court cannot change the Constitution. They don't have authority to redefine words either.

The Court has no authority to change the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Again, cuntface, they did not change the constitution. The President is not an Officer of the United States. You're just mad because I called you out and you didn't have a fucking clue what you were talking about. AGAIN, SCOTUS has already ruled on this. Whether you fucking like it or not, cumstain.
 
Into the Night said:
No. It only requires reading it. You do not need to interpret anything.

No. It only requires reading it.

Read it. The Constitution is plainly written. No 'interpretation' is necessary. Democrats use 'interpretation' to try to change meaning all the time. They try to nullify the meaning of words this way.
Click to expand...

"I didnt say Biden was a jerk."

Tell me what I intended to communicate in that sentence.
 
Gondwanaland said:
Again, cuntface, they did not change the constitution. The President is not an Officer of the United States.
Click to expand...
Such a ruling is a change in the Constitution. The President is an officer of the United States.
Gondwanaland said:
You're just mad because I called you out and you didn't have a fucking clue what you were talking about. AGAIN, SCOTUS has already ruled on this.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS has no authority to change the Constitution.
Gondwanaland said:
Whether you fucking like it or not, cumstain.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what I like. SCOTUS has no authority to change the Constitution.
 
Into the Night said:
Such a ruling is a change in the Constitution. The President is an officer of the United States.

SCOTUS has no authority to change the Constitution.

It doesn't matter what I like. SCOTUS has no authority to change the Constitution.
Click to expand...

They are rubbing out the rule of law, with both haste and purpose.

Wake the fuck up.

Stupid Hurts.
 
Into the Night said:
No, they don't. The only thing they interpret is the law in question. They have no authority to interpret the Constitution. They MUST conform to the Constitution. They have NO authority over it. They MUST operate UNDER it. Only the States have the authority to interpret the Constitution itself.
Click to expand...

Yes, states have the authority to interpret the constitution. If a state interprets it to say Trump is ineligible to serve and will therefore not appear on their ballot that is their right.
 
Port Tack said:
Yes, states have the authority to interpret the constitution. If a state interprets it to say Trump is ineligible to serve and will therefore not appear on their ballot that is their right.
Click to expand...

Not a lawyer, but I'm not sure that's true. What states can certainly do is apply the Constitution to themselves such as applying the 14th Amendment to Donald J. Trump.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-section-3-new-legal-battle-trump/story?id=102547316
14th Amendment, Section 3: A new legal battle against Trump takes shape
Efforts to disqualify Trump from state ballots are starting to materialize.
Former President Donald Trump's legal battles are piling up: in Washington, Georgia, New York -- the list goes on.

But even if all of those cases work out in his favor, advocates say a new legal challenge could still sideline him.

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. The argument gained new life earlier this month when two members of the conservative Federalist Society, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, endorsed it in the pages of the Pennsylvania Law Review....
 
Into the Night said:
Such a ruling is a change in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
No, it is not.
The President is an officer of the United States.
Click to expand...
No, he is not, officers of the United States are not elected, cum-for-brains.
SCOTUS has no authority to change the Constitution.
Click to expand...
And they didn't, shitstain.

It doesn't matter what I like. SCOTUS has no authority to change the Constitution.
Click to expand...

And they didn't, you just don't like that you were full of shit.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Not a lawyer, but I'm not sure that's true. What states can certainly do is apply the Constitution to themselves such as applying the 14th Amendment to Donald J. Trump.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-section-3-new-legal-battle-trump/story?id=102547316
14th Amendment, Section 3: A new legal battle against Trump takes shape
Efforts to disqualify Trump from state ballots are starting to materialize.
Former President Donald Trump's legal battles are piling up: in Washington, Georgia, New York -- the list goes on.

But even if all of those cases work out in his favor, advocates say a new legal challenge could still sideline him.

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. The argument gained new life earlier this month when two members of the conservative Federalist Society, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, endorsed it in the pages of the Pennsylvania Law Review....
Click to expand...

It's not applicable to the President.
 
Port Tack said:
Yes, states have the authority to interpret the constitution. If a state interprets it to say Trump is ineligible to serve and will therefore not appear on their ballot that is their right.
Click to expand...

Collectively, ya dumb dog. Nothing in the Constitution says Trump is ineligible to serve. It is unconstitutional for a State to lock out a candidate for political reasons.

There was in insurrection by Trump. Insurrection is by DEMOCRATS.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Not a lawyer, but I'm not sure that's true. What states can certainly do is apply the Constitution to themselves such as applying the 14th Amendment to Donald J. Trump.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-section-3-new-legal-battle-trump/story?id=102547316
14th Amendment, Section 3: A new legal battle against Trump takes shape
Efforts to disqualify Trump from state ballots are starting to materialize.
Former President Donald Trump's legal battles are piling up: in Washington, Georgia, New York -- the list goes on.

But even if all of those cases work out in his favor, advocates say a new legal challenge could still sideline him.

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. The argument gained new life earlier this month when two members of the conservative Federalist Society, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, endorsed it in the pages of the Pennsylvania Law Review....
Click to expand...

This clause should be applied to Biden, who HAS given aid and comfort to enemies of the United States.
Democrats are also engaged in insurrection and rebellion of the United States.

Trump has done neither, Sock.
 
Gondwanaland said:
It's not applicable to the President.
Click to expand...

It is applicable to all officers of the United States, including the President.
This includes Biden, who HAS given comfort and aid to the enemy in time of war (treason), and Democrats, who burn and loot and pillage cities, and who organized the Jan 6th riots.
 
Into the Night said:
It is applicable to all officers of the United States, including the President.
This includes Biden, who HAS given comfort and aid to the enemy in time of war (treason), and Democrats, who burn and loot and pillage cities, and who organized the Jan 6th riots.
Click to expand...

Presidents are not officers of the United States. This is already settled law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top