Trump Is Constitutionally Barred From Holding Office.

[Into the Night]

Probably just Federal court. The more convictions of Trump's Traitors, the more likely a court will rule that Trump is ineligible. How many of Trump's Traitors being conviction of sedition and violence at 1/6 claimed they were only following Trump's orders?

Most, since they were following Pelosi's orders. No court can change the Constitution. No court can rule Trump 'ineligible'.

 

[Into the Night]

You forgot to call me Terry, dumbass.

You are hallucinating that you are T.A. Gardner???????!?

 

[floridafan]

You twits still can't name a crime.

Read the indictments, hand job. You must be too fucking lazy!

 

[floridafan]

Not a conviction, moron. Boy, there really are some stupid people in Florida.

Conviction not necessary.

 

[Into the Night]

Their entire purpose is to interpret the constitution, that is why they were created in the first place.

It never was. That is NOT why the Supreme Court was created.

 

[Into the Night]

Read the indictments, hand job. You must be too fucking lazy!

No crime listed in any indictment. Try again.

 

[floridafan]

No crime listed in any indictment. Try again.

You have not read a single page of any of them and you have previously admitted so.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

It never was. That is NOT why the Supreme Court was created.

Yes it was.

Now I know you are referring to judicial review but that is a separate issue. Their original intent was to be the final authority on laws in the United States and to decide if a law was constitutional or not.

 

[Yakuda]

Conviction not necessary.

Bullshit elsie

 

[floridafan]

Bullshit elsie

A couple of days ago I asked you to prove that a conviction was necessary. You never replied.
You lost again, my dear.

 

[Into the Night]

You have not read a single page of any of them and you have previously admitted so.

I've read every one of them that were published. No crime listed in any of them.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes it was.

No, it isn't. The Supreme Court has NO authority over the Constitution at all. They cannot interpret it. They cannot change it.

Now I know you are referring to judicial review but that is a separate issue.

The Supreme Court has no authority to 'review' the Constitution or make any judgement on it whatsoever.

Their original intent was to be the final authority on laws in the United States and to decide if a law was constitutional or not.

No, it wasn't. Go read Article III to see what the Supreme Court's authority is.

NO agent or agency created by a constitution has any say or authority over that constitution.

The States are the owners of the Constitution of the United States. Only they can interpret it, change it, or destroy it.

 

[floridafan]

I've read every one of them that were published. No crime listed in any of them.

4 criminal indictments, 91 counts, and not a single crime listed- Got it!

 

[Tinkerpeach]

No, it isn't. The Supreme Court has NO authority over the Constitution at all. They cannot interpret it. They cannot change it.

The Supreme Court has no authority to 'review' the Constitution or make any judgement on it whatsoever.

No, it wasn't. Go read Article III to see what the Supreme Court's authority is.

NO agent or agency created by a constitution has any say or authority over that constitution.

The States are the owners of the Constitution of the United States. Only they can interpret it, change it, or destroy it.

They don't rule on the constitution, they rule on laws that may violate it.

Seriously, this is fourth grade civics stuff here.

 

[Into the Night]

A couple of days ago I asked you to prove that a conviction was necessary. You never replied.
You lost again, my dear.

Negative proof fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

4 criminal indictments, 91 counts, and not a single crime listed- Got it!

Not a single crime listed. That's right.

 

[Into the Night]

They don't rule on the constitution, they rule on laws that may violate it.

This is more correct. Glad you are finally agreeing.

Seriously, this is fourth grade civics stuff here.

4th grade doesn't usually teach this stuff anymore, hence the confusion.

 

[floridafan]

Not a single crime listed. That's right.

Probably every one a J-Walking indictment

 

[Yakuda]

A couple of days ago I asked you to prove that a conviction was necessary. You never replied.
You lost again, my dear.

Its implied asshole. The 14th amendment says the person has to have "participated in" insurrection. How is it proven that someone "participated in" insurrection? Who decides if the person did? Whats the criteria for determining who "participated in" insurrection? I suspect you think a fat cow called floridafan gets to decide all that right you stupid whore? Theres a thing call DUE PROCESS you stupid dispshit

 

[floridafan]

Its implied asshole. The 14th amendment says the person has to have "participates in" insurrection. How is it proven that someone "participates in" insurrection? who decides it? Whats the criteria for determining who "participates in" insurrection? I suspect you think a fat cow called floridafan gets to decide all that right you stupid whore?

Congress decides, my little Einstein.