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

ptif219 said:
Yes they are. Even in impeachment the senate must find you guilty of the crimes used
Click to expand...

The SENATE, not the courts.

Which is what i have said, that it is ENTIRELY political.

You keep repeating that a COURT verdict is necessary, and you were proven wrong, as it is not.
 
QP! said:
The SENATE, not the courts.

Which is what i have said, that it is ENTIRELY political.

You keep repeating that a COURT verdict is necessary, and you were proven wrong, as it is not.
Click to expand...

Even then IMPEACHMENT doesn't require a Senate conviction. Trump was impeached twice with no Senate convictions.
 
QP! said:
The SENATE, not the courts.

Which is what i have said, that it is ENTIRELY political.

You keep repeating that a COURT verdict is necessary, and you were proven wrong, as it is not.
Click to expand...

It is still a type of court. You can deny it but it will take legal action
 
ptif219 said:
It is still a type of court. You can deny it but it will take legal action
Click to expand...

Nothing to deny there.

We were not arguing over 'a type of court'. We were arguing as you stated using the 14th would require a Judicial branch conviction FIRST, and i stated it was fact that it would not and it could be entirely done in the Legislative branch.

So now you have acknowledged you are wrong we can move on.


and as is pointed out above Impeachment does not require the Senate court process. It takes place in the House. Only expulsion requires the Senate process but you are already Impeached first. Not that this point is relevant to what we are discussing.
 
ptif219 said:
Without senare conviction it shows nothing other than the other side had enough votes to force it through
Click to expand...

It shows that you were Impeached.

If you launch an Impeachment, and secure the Impeachment in the House, then you are an Impeached POTUS. The goal of the Impeachment is completed.


The Senate not agreeing on the 'removal' does not mean you were not Impeached. Do not conflate the two.
 
QP! said:
Previously I argued this was very unlikely, not because the 14th Amendment does not lay out grounds for disqualification, Trump met, but because i assumed, the SC would require a criminal conviction on insurrection to be the bar for enacting it. To ensure partisan actors in the future could not just use this to block anyone from running they did not like.

Both History and current cases of using this Amendment demonstrate factually that actions can and have been taken without any criminal prosecution for insurrection by the party barred from running.

So i do not think the SC will simply read in a new requirement (thus amending the Constitution by judicial fiat) a new requirement of legal conviction when the founders of that article clearly did not intend that and instead they SC will have to decide what will suffice. And in the terms of what has sufficed for prior people barred from running who were not convicted the case against Trump is far stronger and worse for him.

- Trump had the head of the Senate (republican Mitch McConnell, and the head of the HOuse, Kevin McCarthy) BOTH state an insurrection took place and that Trump had responsible for it and was to blame. This is arguably the strongest non legal government rebuke one could get. So again, if you accept a legal finding (court conviction) is not need, then this is just about the highest bar you can otherwise get.

- In two of Trump's current prosecutions it is alleged Trump tried to overthrow the results of an election (meaning if they let him run and he wins but the conviction follows he would have to be removed via the Constitution)







the challenge the SC will have as avowed Originalists, is that they cannot simply read in a new requirement for 'legal conviction' that the Framers never intended and that has not been required in the past for such removals or disqualifications. And that instead leaves the SC to determine boundaries and thresholds for how this can be bounded outside the law, or in a political arena.

As i see it, there is only one real out they could subscribe that would be a higher threshold than Trump already got in the House and Senate citations stating he was responsible for the insurrection and that would be an impeachment and conviction. The problem that the SC would have with that, is that people who are not in office have been barred via the 14th. Meaning, lets say this was Hillary doing an insurrection after the 2016 loss, they could not impeach her due to her not being the Office holder, but they could still use the 12th bar her from any future runs as there is no requirement the person to be an office holder.

So that means the very highest bar, outside legal prosecution is what Trump already got and thus any boundary ther SC would be below that.

I now move the odds of the SC barring him to 70/30 unless they want to be completely hypocritical and go against their Originalist claimed beliefs and read in to the Constitution a new clause that 'requires conviction'.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks fort posting.
This will surely make MAGA soil their diapers.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
Interesting. Thanks fort posting.
This will surely make MAGA soil their diapers.
Click to expand...

Yup.

This case will lead the way but is only one of many that will seek to get Judges to determine what the boundaries are for the use of the 14th.


Judge rejects Trump attempt to toss Colorado lawsuit seeking to bar him from the ballot
By The Associated Press · Yesterday, 2:24 pm
Click to expand...

Judge hopes to decide by Thanksgiving whether 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from Colorado’s 2024 ballot
Updated 12:15 PM EDT, Tue September 19, 2023
Click to expand...

And then regardless of which way the ruling goes, it will be appealed all the way to the SC where they will then have to set what those boundaries are.
 
QP! said:
Nothing to deny there.

We were not arguing over 'a type of court'. We were arguing as you stated using the 14th would require a Judicial branch conviction FIRST, and i stated it was fact that it would not and it could be entirely done in the Legislative branch.

So now you have acknowledged you are wrong we can move on.


and as is pointed out above Impeachment does not require the Senate court process. It takes place in the House. Only expulsion requires the Senate process but you are already Impeached first. Not that this point is relevant to what we are discussing.
Click to expand...

You can't use it unless you can show guilt
 
QP! said:
It shows that you were Impeached.

If you launch an Impeachment, and secure the Impeachment in the House, then you are an Impeached POTUS. The goal of the Impeachment is completed.


The Senate not agreeing on the 'removal' does not mean you were not Impeached. Do not conflate the two.
Click to expand...


As we saw with Trump it was about Pelosi having enough votes the evidence did not matter. That is why it died in the Senate
 
ptif219 said:
You can't use it unless you can show guilt
Click to expand...

Established already via historical cases that you are factual wrong and just spamming the same stupidity.

I can quote cases, and have, where guilt was not a question and it was used under political considerations only.

Stop lying
 
ptif219 said:
As we saw with Trump it was about Pelosi having enough votes the evidence did not matter. That is why it died in the Senate
Click to expand...

Trump was impeached regardless.

The Senate not removing him does not change the FACT he was impeached.
 
QP! said:
Established already via historical cases that you are factual wrong and just spamming the same stupidity.

I can quote cases, and have, where guilt was not a question and it was used under political considerations only.

Stop lying
Click to expand...

What cases were used against a president? When was the last case a century ago?
 
ptif219 said:
What cases were used against a president? When was the last case a century ago?
Click to expand...

the 14th amendment DOES NOT only apply to a POTUS and it does not have different rules for a POTUS and others seeking elected office. It speaks to ALL who seek elected office, period.

Your question would be like asking 'what murder charge was ever used against a POTUS' as a way to say that means the law does not apply to the POTUS.
 
ptif219 said:
It was a fake proceeding where the evidence meant nothing because Republicans could not stop it
Click to expand...

No it was properly constituted Impeachment proceeding, that was voted and decided by the House and Trump was Impeached, as Bill Clinton was prior. There is no requirement that the other party must be 'allowed to stop it or it does not count'.


That is your stupidity speaking.
 
QP! said:
the 14th amendment DOES NOT only apply to a POTUS and it does not have different rules for a POTUS and others seeking elected office. It speaks to ALL who seek elected office, period.

Your question would be like asking 'what murder charge was ever used against a POTUS' as a way to say that means the law does not apply to the POTUS.
Click to expand...

So you can't answer the question
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top