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

Jarod said:
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.
Click to expand...
we are....we don't share you abstract interpretations that it says "Trump" in secret ink......
 
domer76 said:
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.
Click to expand...

the basic concept in question is, if its about Trump a demmycrat is prepared to pretend absolutely anything....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
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......
Click to expand...

A clause 'not being used' does not mean it cannot be used.

So you are holding to your point that if there was an insurrection tomorrow the 14th amendment would not apply as it has not been used in a long time? Is that your legal reading?
 
QP! said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is still a legal action that is guided by the constitution
 
QP! said:
wait... what?

When did the 12 Amendment get amending after that?

What are you referring to that changed the 12 Amendment?
Click to expand...

The court systems are different and interpretations change. The twelth amendment is about eletions and the electoral college. Much has changed since the civil war. Remember the Democrats voted against the 13th and 14th and 15th and 19th amendments
 
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...

If one is guilty of crimes it would go to the DOJ look at Trump
 
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...

Trump did not engage in insurrection
 
ptif219 said:
There is no proof or reason to think he will go to prison. That is your Democrat hate talking
Click to expand...

Don't you follow the news? He's been indicted and will face trial. It's sad that you care more about the man Trump than about whatever ideals he supposedly stands for. What happens when he dies of old age? Your retarded movement ends because the cult leader is gone?
 
QP! said:
A clause 'not being used' does not mean it cannot be used.

So you are holding to your point that if there was an insurrection tomorrow the 14th amendment would not apply as it has not been used in a long time? Is that your legal reading?
Click to expand...

my reading is that you are desperate.......is that because a recent poll had the twice impeached and 100 indicted Trump led O'Biden by ten points?....
 
ptif219 said:
The law. A person is innocent unless proven guilty. Democrats opinions mean nothing
Click to expand...

Ok so we are done with you and your view that Impeachment, (and other actions) cannot happen and person cannot be found guilty in the Senate without a court ruling.

That you think the Legislative branch requires Courts for enactment of all Constitution clauses, and you do not understand that some are deliberately designed to have sole power within the Legislative branch due to separation of powers, seems beyond you.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
my reading is that you are desperate.......is that because a recent poll had the twice impeached and 100 indicted Trump led O'Biden by ten points?....
Click to expand...

Nobody cares about new Rasmussen type polls, this far out from the election. ZOMG Trump is losing to Hillary by double digits. FLOL.

I do like that you are continuing to own that in your legal reading, the 14th Amendment was a sole use clause for the civil war only and you say it would not apply to any insurrection or anything that came after the civil war.

That you think that is how Constitutional clauses works is just gold. It is very much you and the history of our exchanges over interpretations of the law.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the basic concept in question is, if its about Trump a demmycrat is prepared to pretend absolutely anything....
Click to expand...

You have that precisely backward. Trump is the first defeated Presidential candidate in the history of the republic to permanently persuade his voters he was the one elected. Among the several nail biter elections, which Biden's victory was not, the closest was in 1824 when the incumbent Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but tied in the electoral college with John Quincy Adams. The House of Representatives then gave the Presidency to Adams in a party line vote. That January, before the inauguration, a Washington birthday party was held for the aging Lafayette, who crossed the Atlantic to attend. Both Adams and the soon to be outgoing President were there, their first time in the same room since the election. Jackson walked up to Adams and shook his hand, congratulating him on his victory.

At the party was the artist, Samuel Morse, one day to be inventor of the telegraph, who witnessed the handshake and recounted it in a letter to his wife. Concluded Morse:

"The President takes his defeat like a man"

(Read about this in "The Greater Journey" by David McCullough. Seems a lesson for our time.)
 
martin said:
You have that precisely backward. Trump is the first defeated Presidential candidate in the history of the republic to permanently persuade his voters he was the one elected. Among the several nail biter elections, which Biden's victory was not, the closest was in 1824 when the incumbent Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but tied in the electoral college with John Quincy Adams. The House of Representatives then gave the Presidency to Adams in a party line vote. That January, before the inauguration, a Washington birthday party was held for the aging Lafayette, who crossed the Atlantic to attend. Both Adams and the soon to be outgoing President were there, their first time in the same room since the election. Jackson walked up to Adams and shook his hand, congratulating him on his victory.

At the party was the artist, Samuel Morse, one day to be inventor of the telegraph, who witnessed the handshake and recounted it in a letter to his wife. Concluded Morse:

"The President takes his defeat like a man"

(Read about this in "The Greater Journey" by David McCullough. Seems a lesson for our time.)
Click to expand...

PmP, the claimed lawyer has taken the position that the 14th Amendment was written as a sole use amendment and only applies to the Civil war.

His position is that if the US was to have any insurrection after they could not apply the 14th and would need another (sole use) constitutional amendment.

I want you guys to think about how dumb his position is. Thinking the Framers intended it only for that event, simply because it was drafted in response to the event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top