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

QP! said:
and yet the examples given in the article of the 14th Amendment being used successful in history did not require a court ruling.

Just like with Impeachment, where a legal verdict is not needed and the accusations and a decision via a vote is enough, the 14th Amendment was also FRAMED to be a political punishment and that is clear.

The question the SC would answer is what POLITICAL mechanisms are sufficient for it to be triggered a Secretary of State.

Both the Senate Head and the House Head, cited Trump with responsible for the Insurrection, so is that enough in a political arena? If not what would be? What could be a higher standard in the political arena?
Click to expand...

How can one be found guilty without a legal action?
 
QP! said:
Nothing screams 'I hate America" like saying the Constitution should be ignored for Trump.

This just the Trumptards constant schtick where in one breath they pretend to be pro America and the Constitution and then in the next prove there is nothing about America they would not destroy for Trump.
Click to expand...

I've heard it said the constitution is a living breathing organism........why do you insist that organism should be a fungus?......
 
ptif219 said:
How can one be found guilty without a legal action?
Click to expand...

Really?

You ask this question in the POLITICAL arena?

Have you never heard of an Impeachment, as just one example?

Not everything in the Constitution is meant to be adjudicated in the Judicial branch. Certain things CLEARLY are meant to be adjudicated in the Legislative branch such as Impeachment and also the 14th Amendment. We know that as BOTH have been adjudicated in the Legislative Branch in the past, and the rulings have stood, with bans from public office.

So again the question here, in the Trump case, for the Supreme Court to adjudicate is 'what are the required boundaries in the Legislative branch that are necessary', and NOT whether they can do it or not. They can. They have.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why do lib'ruls think Trump is old enough to have fought for the Confederate Army?.....
Click to expand...

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?
 
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...

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.....
 
America said:
You don't. Civil War Confederates were forbidden from holding office in the US even without the courts finding them guilty. It isn't feasible to wait until someone is declared guilty in this isntance.
Click to expand...

in the opinion of lib'ruls, it isn't feasible to find a law that actually applies.......
 
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...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

You are welcome, once again, on yet another education on the law, by me.
Click to expand...
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......
 
QP! said:
Really?

You ask this question in the POLITICAL arena?

Have you never heard of an Impeachment, as just one example?

Not everything in the Constitution is meant to be adjudicated in the Judicial branch. Certain things CLEARLY are meant to be adjudicated in the Legislative branch such as Impeachment and also the 14th Amendment. We know that as BOTH have been adjudicated in the Legislative Branch in the past, and the rulings have stood, with bans from public office.

So again the question here, in the Trump case, for the Supreme Court to adjudicate is 'what are the required boundaries in the Legislative branch that are necessary', and NOT whether they can do it or not. They can. They have.
Click to expand...

It still goes through a legal process in congress
 
America said:
You don't. Civil War Confederates were forbidden from holding office in the US even without the courts finding them guilty. It isn't feasible to wait until someone is declared guilty in this isntance.
Click to expand...

You do know laws have changed since then
 
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...

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.


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...

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.
 
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...

And yet you are shown wrong in the post written right above.

You take the position that the 14th amendment was written as a sole action Constitution amendment applicable to the Civil War and not applicable to any other insurrections that might follow that period or to any other person born in the US after that period, to parents who were not American.


Your understanding of the law above, is proven factually wrong. Insurrections post the civil war can trigger the 14th amendment and children born in America, post slavery do get birthright citizenship.,


That you contest the above, is just yet another example of you not understanding the application of the law or the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top