the 14th Amendment case to bar Trump is much stronger than you think!

ptif219 said:
It still goes through a legal process in congress
Click to expand...

It is called a political process as Congress is NOT the judicial branch or Executive branch.

That is why Impeachment can be undertaken WITHOUT any legal findings being required. You can be accused, adjudicated and found in violation all within the political process and they can deliver political consequences, such as ban from holding public office.

The 14th is also written to be handled within the Legislative branch without requiring the Judicial or Executive branch involvement. the only role the Supreme Court would have would be to help set the understood boundaries, which once set, would then never require SC comment after. The boundaries for Impeachment were set clearly between the House and Senate. For the 14th they were not. A first case will establish that.

And Trump seems clearly fucked when that comes to court as there really is no higher bar the SC could set than both the House and Senate leaders painting the POTUS as being responsible for sedition and a clear insurrection and thus going against his oath to 'Protect and follow the Constitution'.

If a POTUS being cited by the House leader and Senate leader are not enough for the political process then the SC might as say they do not think the 14th is a valid Constitutional clause as there is no other higher bar, within politics, they could cite, as the trigger for it.
 
ptif219 said:
So now you think the 14th amendment is not a law. The constitution limits the government not the people
Click to expand...

WTF are you babbling on about?

We have 3 branches of gov't. The Executive, the Judicial and the Legislative.

The Legislative branch, due to separation of powers, does not have to have everything adjudicated in the courts or charged in law, for them to take action and deliver punishment. Impeachment being a prime example of how much power they are granted outside any need to involve the Executive (DoJ in charging) or the Judicial (court finding) and how they hold their own powers. the 14th falls directly in to that Legislative power where no DoJ charges or a Court finding are required.
 
QP! said:
And yet it is not. it very specifically was NEVER bounded only to the civil war and the language very DELIBERATELy speaks to any such similar situations. So while the impetus to create it was to make sure slaves born in the US, etc could stay in America, it was clear by the language that, that was extended to ALL born in the US.

So once again your reading of the law and Constitution, despite being a claimed lawyer is piss poor and again i need to educate you.




So here is the teaching moment i will give you PmP on how to read legal language.

See the bolded above. That is DELIBERATE extension of the rights and prohibitions to OTHERS beyond slavery and the civil war. If they meant to bound it ONLY to the civil war, they would have wrote it to do so.
Click to expand...

/boggle.....section 3 has nothing at all to do with keeping former slaves in this country.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
how does YOUR ignorance show ME wrong?......
Click to expand...

FLOl.

You are even asking me now to break down and explain in more simple terms the 14th amendments as you cannot read it and comprehend it yourself.

Ok I will.

YOu are asserting it is a point in time clause relevant only to the event it was drafted in response to, the Civil war. You are saying no person, outside that would be subject to the Clause, even if they did the same actions (insurrection).

That is what you stated above and which i can see you already slightly understanding you were wrong and thus why you are asking me to clarify for you more. As always you seek to learn from me the law.

So again read what the 14th addresses as it DOES NOT limit itself just to the civil and does cover any and all such similar actions, even if after the Civil war. My last help for you is to pay attention to what i even bolded for you, to help you understand.

And one last thing. Time to start back pedaling and pretending you did not say, what you did above, once again you have learned from me you are wrong.
 
Here it is again.



The Fourteenth Amendment


...Passed by the Senate on June 8, 1866, and ratified two years later, on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States," including formerly enslaved people, and provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws,” extending the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. The amendment authorized the government to punish states that abridged citizens’ right to vote by proportionally reducing their representation in Congress. It banned those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. The amendment prohibited former Confederate states from repaying war debts and compensating former slave owners for the emancipation of their enslaved people. Finally, it granted Congress the power to enforce this amendment, a provision that led to the passage of other landmark legislation in the 20th century, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the above limits is use to 'Civil War' only and thus any attempted insurrection post the civil war would not be subject to the 14th amendment.

I want everyone to understand that is what PmP asserts above. That 'if any insurrection happened after the civil way the 14th could not be used as it was for the civil war only'. That is how the claimed lawyer reads it.
 
QP! said:
Here it is again.




Nothing in the above limits is use to 'Civil War' only and thus any attempted insurrection post the civil war would not be subject to the 14th amendment.

I want everyone to understand that is what PmP asserts above. That 'if any insurrection happened after the civil way the 14th could not be used as it was for the civil war only'. That is how the claimed lawyer reads it.
Click to expand...

Yup, it was intentional set up to apply to situations after the Civil War.

There is precedent for that. A criminal conviction is not required at this point. Wasn’t required when the amendment was added.

I thought Trumppers were strict constructionist.
 
So below you can see the entirety of PmP's legal mind and arguments stating clearly he believes the 14th amendment was crafted for a sole use only, the civil war.

His argument is that after the civil war the 14th amendment has no use even if other insurrections were attempted.

I think i can predict with certainty he will try and deny and spin and back pedal away from what he wrote, quoted below, not that i have educated him, and i can say that, as it is the norm in our discussion when it comes to matters of law or the Constitution. he expresses a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and constitution, i embarrass him and correct him, he corrects and pretends he did not mean what he said prior.

QP! said:
Previously I argued this was very unlikely, not because the 14th Amendment does not lay out grounds for disqualification
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
why do lib'ruls think Trump is old enough to have fought for the Confederate Army?.....
Click to expand...

QP! said:
Is this your great legal mind saying that each and every Constitutional clause is SET only to the original cases it dealt with and the language does not apply outside that?

Is this your legal mind trying to suggest Constitutional clauses are situational only?
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
that clause, yes......just like every other legal mind until this year......"I would like to cite as authority Paragraph 3 of the 14th amendment" said no lawyer since 1880.....
Click to expand...

QP! said:
If you are dealing with a single action, set in a singular point in time set of actions, you do not need a constitution amendment. You just need a law.

The Constitution does not work the way your legal mind thinks it does and use of the 14th amendment over time proves your view wrong.

You are welcome, once again, on yet another education on the law, by me.
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
and yet, that's what they did......apparently they thought it very important at the time......something about a civil war, I believe........
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
odd.....since you know jack-shit about the law, why do pretend to have anything to teach me.......I've never seen you say anything right since you got here......
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
QP! said:
WTF are you babbling on about?

We have 3 branches of gov't. The Executive, the Judicial and the Legislative.

The Legislative branch, due to separation of powers, does not have to have everything adjudicated in the courts or charged in law, for them to take action and deliver punishment. Impeachment being a prime example of how much power they are granted outside any need to involve the Executive (DoJ in charging) or the Judicial (court finding) and how they hold their own powers. the 14th falls directly in to that Legislative power where no DoJ charges or a Court finding are required.
Click to expand...

I started to respond to that same post of his, but stopped short, realizing that we’re dealing with a complete idiot, unable to understand the most basic concepts.
 
QP! said:
WTF are you babbling on about?

We have 3 branches of gov't. The Executive, the Judicial and the Legislative.

The Legislative branch, due to separation of powers, does not have to have everything adjudicated in the courts or charged in law, for them to take action and deliver punishment. Impeachment being a prime example of how much power they are granted outside any need to involve the Executive (DoJ in charging) or the Judicial (court finding) and how they hold their own powers. the 14th falls directly in to that Legislative power where no DoJ charges or a Court finding are required.
Click to expand...

Being ineligible for the presidency is not a punishment. If you are under 35 you are not eligible, if you are not a naturally born citizen you are not eligible, if you have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the state, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof you are not eligible.

These are eligibility questions not punishments.

One does not have to be found “guilty” of being under 35 to be ineligible.
 
QP! said:
And yet it is not. it very specifically was NEVER bounded only to the civil war and the language very DELIBERATELy speaks to any such similar situations. So while the impetus to create it was to make sure slaves born in the US, etc could stay in America, it was clear by the language that, that was extended to ALL born in the US.

So once again your reading of the law and Constitution, despite being a claimed lawyer is piss poor and again i need to educate you.




So here is the teaching moment i will give you PmP on how to read legal language.

See the bolded above. That is DELIBERATE extension of the rights and prohibitions to OTHERS beyond slavery and the civil war. If they meant to bound it ONLY to the civil war, they would have wrote it to do so.
Click to expand...

So Joe Biden is banned from being President.
 
Jarod said:
Being ineligible for the presidency is not a punishment. If you are under 35 you are not eligible, if you are not a naturally born citizen you are not eligible, if you have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the state, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof you are not eligible.

These are eligibility questions not punishments.

One does not have to be found “guilty” of being under 35 to be ineligible.
Click to expand...

So Joe Biden is not eligible.

* He has given aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.
* He has invited open invasion of the United States AND prevented States from securing their own borders.
* He has called for civil war (insurrection).
* He was never elected, but assumed the duties of the President anyway (insurrection).
* He has accepted payments by foreign nations for personal use (corruption).
 
QP! said:
FLOl.

You are even asking me now to break down and explain in more simple terms the 14th amendments as you cannot read it and comprehend it yourself.

Ok I will.

YOu are asserting it is a point in time clause relevant only to the event it was drafted in response to, the Civil war. You are saying no person, outside that would be subject to the Clause, even if they did the same actions (insurrection).

That is what you stated above and which i can see you already slightly understanding you were wrong and thus why you are asking me to clarify for you more. As always you seek to learn from me the law.

So again read what the 14th addresses as it DOES NOT limit itself just to the civil and does cover any and all such similar actions, even if after the Civil war. My last help for you is to pay attention to what i even bolded for you, to help you understand.

And one last thing. Time to start back pedaling and pretending you did not say, what you did above, once again you have learned from me you are wrong.
Click to expand...

but everything you have said is totally wrong......why should I pay any attention to your stupidity.....the third clause hasn't been used for anything since 1870.......until this year everyone knew it had noi meaning beyond the Civil War.....then a demmycrat got a stick up his ass and here you are pretending otherwise......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top