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

QP! said:
Says the guy who believes a good defense argument is 'that law or the Constitution clause is old and has not been used in a long time... thus it no longer applies'.


FLOL.
Click to expand...

it applied to those it was intended to apply to......not to every Don, Dick and Harry you want to pretend are treasonous.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it applied to those it was intended to apply to......not to every Don, Dick and Harry you want to pretend are treasonous.....
Click to expand...

Exactly the people who engage in Insurrection, Sedition and break their oaths of office, like the one Trump was a lead organizer of and did.
 
QP! said:
Exactly the people who engage in Insurrection, Sedition and break their oaths of office, like the one Trump was a lead organizer of and did.
Click to expand...

and you want that to be a political issue rather than a legal one......you DO prefer banana republics don't you......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and you want that to be a political issue rather than a legal one......you DO prefer banana republics don't you......
Click to expand...

I believe in the US Constitution and the Separation of Powers, which you clearly do not.

The Legislative branch was given separate and distinct powers that are seperate from the Judicial one, which clearly you do not know,

If you think Impeachment and the 14th being handled in the Legislative branch is wrong you need to leave America as you do not support the Constitution at all. Separation of powers is a key tenet.


As a claimed lawyer you should know that but then you are... you.
 
The case for Trump being barred by the 14th only gets stronger.

So lets check the boxes:

- Leader of the House, The SPeaker McCarthy, blamed Trump for Jan6th insurrection
- Leader of Senate,McConnell, blamed Trump for Jan6th insurrection
- Trump was Impeached in part for his part in Jan6th Insurrection
- and NOW we have a Federal Judge FINDING that Trump engaged in Insurrection

Colorado judge finds Trump engaged in 'insurrection' but allows him on ballot
Click to expand...

And while the Judge ruled they were not certain the Office of the President is actually an 'Office' within the United States, and thus they would not preclude Trump from running, that will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Even the Judge cited that it seemed absurd that the Office of the President is not an 'Office', so the Supreme COurt will have to decide that.

And i say again, if the SC decides the Presidents office is subject to the 14th, S3, and that it is Constitutionally something that resides within the Legislative Branch (like Impeachment) and not in the Judicial Branch to determine, and the SC then sets the bar of what must be established (such as exists with Impeachment in the House and Senate), it is very hard, to see any bar higher than what Trump has already faced, with the bullet points above. Leader of BOTH House and Senate, Impeachment and Federal court ruling ALL denoting his responsibility for Jan6th Insurrection.

"It is unfathomable as a matter of constitutional interpretation that the Presidency of the United States is not an 'office under the United States,'" Luttig, an adviser to Trump's former Vice President Mike Pence, wrote Friday. "It is even more constitutionally unfathomable, if that's possible, that the former president did not take an oath 'to support the Constitution of the United States' within the meaning of Section 3 when he took the presidential oath 'to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'"

Later he ) Judge J. Michael Luttig leading Conservative Constitutional Lawyer/Judge) added: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact with America's democracy. Indeed, it is the very contrary in this instance. It is plain that the entire purpose of Section 3, confirmed by its literal text, is to disqualify any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution, engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution. The former president did exactly that when he attempted to overturn the 2020 election and remain in office in rebellious violation of the Constitution's Executive Vesting Clause, which prescribes the four-year term of the presidency."
Click to expand...

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional scholar at Harvard University, took a similar issue with Wallace's ruling.

"Judge Wallace held that anyone but a former president who did what she found Trump did — take an oath to the Constitution and then break that oath by engaging in a violent insurrection — could never again run for any public office," Tribe wrote on X on Saturday. "So much for nobody being above the law!"
Click to expand...
"You mean you think it seems odd that the drafters of the 14th Amendment would have decided that an insurrectionist should hold no federal office other than the presidency?" George Conway, a lawyer and outspoken conservative critic of Trump, wrote in response to Tribe. "Or that the president is not an 'officer' of the United States under a Constitution that explicitly refers to the presidency as an 'office'?"
Click to expand...

cite
Click to expand...
 
QP! said:
The case for Trump being barred by the 14th only gets stronger.

So lets check the boxes:

- Leader of the House, The SPeaker McCarthy, blamed Trump for Jan6th insurrection
- Leader of Senate,McConnell, blamed Trump for Jan6th insurrection
- Trump was Impeached in part for his part in Jan6th Insurrection
- and NOW we have a Federal Judge FINDING that Trump engaged in Insurrection



And while the Judge ruled they were not certain the Office of the President is actually an 'Office' within the United States, and thus they would not preclude Trump from running, that will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Even the Judge cited that it seemed absurd that the Office of the President is not an 'Office', so the Supreme COurt will have to decide that.

And i say again, if the SC decides the Presidents office is subject to the 14th, S3, and that it is Constitutionally something that resides within the Legislative Branch (like Impeachment) and not in the Judicial Branch to determine, and the SC then sets the bar of what must be established (such as exists with Impeachment in the House and Senate), it is very hard, to see any bar higher than what Trump has already faced, with the bullet points above. Leader of BOTH House and Senate, Impeachment and Federal court ruling ALL denoting his responsibility for Jan6th Insurrection.
Click to expand...
Judge said Trump is guilty of insurrection, enough said!
 
Phantasmal said:
Judge said Trump is guilty of insurrection, enough said!
Click to expand...

And lets not forget Trump already went to Federal Court to argue the Office of the President is a 'Federal Office' when he was arguing to remove a State case to a Federal Court. The judge in that case FOUND he was correct in saying the office was a Federal Office, but did not remove the case due to OTHER factors.


...There are other considerations as well. To remove to federal court, Trump must say he was as president a “federal officer.” In defending suits to disqualify Trump from the ballot as insurrectionist, he may wish to argue the opposite — that he was not a federal officer for purposes of Section Three of the 14th Amendment. Of course, he has already claimed he was a federal officer in his removal petition in New York last May.

Trump’s decision to remain in state court left his co-defendants twisting in the wind....

cite
Click to expand...

So i think it is fairly certain the SC will say the judge was wrong in that issue, and 'it is a Federal Office and thus subject to the 14th' and that then leaves them to decide what factors need to be met to enact it.

Good luck in setting any 'factors' within the Legislative Branch, that Trump has not already exceeded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top