Will Trump be on your ballot?

Jarod said:
What makes you believe that the constitution requires a criminal conviction?
Click to expand...

Law has no meaning to you of the Reich - the revolution rules above all laws.

What makes you believe that questioning a highly controversial election is "insurrection?"

It doesn't matter though, does it? Your party will do what it has to in order to thwart free and fair elections and keep the Reich in power.
 
Wife-Beating Dumbass said:
7x8zls.jpg
Click to expand...
You need to go back to your anger management classes before you end up in prison, dumbass.
 
Jarod said:
Notably does not say one who is convicted of to be convicted, just “engaged” in insurrection.
Click to expand...

Pssst...

It's speaking of the Civil War, not a speech given.

You should take a night school class on introduction to law.

They might teach you this,

Insurrection:

2020.06.16-02.46-stevegruber-5ee8326f4fc8f.jpg



Notice, Armed men invading and holding territory.

NOT Insurrection:

180310191211-01-trump-rally-0310-exlarge-169.jpg


Notice, political speech that was protected by the First Amendment back when we had a Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Now all we have is the Revolutionary dictatorship under the third world banana republic.
 
Jarod said:
Then why didn’t the framers of the 14th amendment say “convicted of” instead of “engaged in”?

I assume they chose the words very carefully.
Click to expand...

You think the framers wrote the 14th? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Why didn't congress put "speech that democrats don't like" instead of "armed insurrection?"
 
Uncensored2008 said:
You think the framers wrote the 14th? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Why didn't congress put "speech that democrats don't like" instead of "armed insurrection?"
Click to expand...
More evidence you are a Down Under dumbassed bogan. You're too fucking stupid to understand the difference between "the framers of the 14th Amendment" and "the Framers of the Constitution".

You're clearly a monarchist cocksucker who, like your fellow monarchist cocksuckers on JPP, wants to be an American. Well, you never will be one, dumbass.
 
Why does this fuckwit Douche Duck keep posting to me? The moron is clearly too stupid to grasp that I will not respond or read his foul vomit. If for some reason I ever visit China, I'll look him up and give him the beat down he so richly deserves - beyond that, dust on the windowsill has more relevance than the dog rapist does.
 
Jarod said:
I’m willing to bet some secretaries of state are going to decide Trump is inelegance for the ballot due to The 14th Amendment prohibitions about people serving as president who have joined in conspiracy against the United States.
Click to expand...

Are you drunk again? WTF is inelegance? What conspiracy against the US did Trump join and where are those charges?

Jarod said:
All State Secretaries of State might be asked to make a determination.
Click to expand...

Priceless; the Democratic Party of Marxist autocracy is so scared that 91 spurious charges in 4 indictments are not enough? :laugh:

Fascinating that they argue they want Trump on the ticket because Biden can easily beat him, yet all this additional constitutional crisis causing malarky.

Jarod said:
If that happens it will be decided by the Roberts Court!
Click to expand...

It will be decided ultimately by the people. And even those who might vote Democrats are probably having second thoughts with all the insanity of 91 charges and 1,000 years in jail. Something even the worse criminals of our time never had to face.

Love to see this level of fear from the deep state which is why Trump gets stronger each time Democrats overstep and look like lunatics. :laugh:
 
Truth Detector said:
Are you drunk again? WTF is inelegance? What conspiracy against the US did Trump join and where are those charges?



Priceless; the Democratic Party of Marxist autocracy is so scared that 91 spurious charges in 4 indictments are not enough? :laugh:

Fascinating that they argue they want Trump on the ticket because Biden can easily beat him, yet all this additional constitutional crisis causing malarky.



It will be decided ultimately by the people. And even those who might vote Democrats are probably having second thoughts with all the insanity of 91 charges and 1,000 years in jail. Something even the worse criminals of our time never had to face.

Love to see this level of fear from the deep state which is why Trump gets stronger each time Democrats overstep and look like lunatics. :laugh:
Click to expand...

The faux indictments ALWAYS were intended to tamper with the election. They know they can't get convictions - and even if the DC circus were to get a conviction, SCOTUS is going to throw it out as the fraud we all know it to be.

The ENTIRE purpose of this rape of our system of justice is to block Trump from running. That's all it has ever been.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
The faux indictments ALWAYS were intended to tamper with the election. They know they can't get convictions - and even if the DC circus were to get a conviction, SCOTUS is going to throw it out as the fraud we all know it to be.

The ENTIRE purpose of this rape of our system of justice is to block Trump from running. That's all it has ever been.
Click to expand...

Spot on! :thumbsup:
 
Port Tack said:
That should be easy for you to provide proof. do you have a link?
Click to expand...


https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourteenth_amendment_0


Privileges and Immunities Clause

There has been some debate over the meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause with several possible original meanings. A question arises as to whether the clause meant that all state laws should be applied equally to its citizens or that state laws should have certain substantive content. The substantive view can be further divided into two categories. One view is that these privileges and immunities include all of the rights in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Thus, this view sees the purpose of the Privileges and Immunities Clause as applying all of the rights in the Constitution to all of the states. Another view is that it only meant to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (No. 3,230)(C.C.E.D.Pa., 1823), an early case concerning the Privileges and Immunities Clause, found that the Clause protects certain fundamental rights of all citizens. However, in Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Supreme Court rejected that interpretation, holding that the privileges of national citizenship were substantive, but they came about as a result of the federal government, the Constitution, or other laws. The fundamental natural rights were not included, and thus the equality function of the Privileges and Immunities Clause was taken over by the Equal Protection Clause and the substantive functions were taken by the Due Process Clause. Aside from one case that was later overruled, the Supreme Court did not use the Privileges and Immunities Clause as the basis for decisions until 1999 with Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), where California set welfare benefits for new residents at a certain level equal to what their former state provided for the first year of residency in California. The Court decided that part of the fundamental right to interstate travel was for new citizens of a state to be treated like other citizens of the state.

Due Process Clause

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments both contain a Due Process Clause, although the Fourteenth Amendment applies explicitly to the states. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Due Process Clauses in both articles as having the same meaning, as Justice Frankfurter describes in his concurrence in Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401 (1945): "To suppose that "due process of law" meant one thing in the Fifth Amendment and another in the Fourteenth is too frivolous to require elaborate rejection."

Due process is generally understood to contain two concepts: procedural due process and substantive due process.

Procedural Due Process

Procedural due process guarantees fairness to all individuals. This fairness might require different elements to the accused, including the opportunity to be heard, given notice, and be given a judicial decision with a stated rationale. As a basic rule, the more important the right, the stricter the procedural process must be. The Supreme Court has defined what property and liberty interests are in different cases. In the case Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972), the Court held, "The Fourteenth Amendment does not require opportunity for a hearing prior to the nonrenewal of a nontenured state teacher's contract unless he can show that the nonrenewal deprived him of an interest in 'liberty' or that he had a 'property' interest in continued employment, despite the lack of tenure or a formal contract."

Substantive Due Process

Although procedural due process is widely accepted, substantive due process is a bit more controversial. Modern debate regarding the substantive due process clause tends to focus on certain liberties which the Supreme Court has interpreted as belonging to citizens, with a large focus on economic liberties, such as the right to create a private contracts.
Click to expand...
 
Truth Detector said:
LYING MORON ALERT!!
Click to expand...

Why don't you just shut the fuck up? You are invariably wrong on all counts. You have always been wrong on all counts, you swore Trump was going to win re-election and he was crushed so you swallow his bullshit about the election being stolen. You assholes are going to lose again, there are not enough fucking stooges that believe trump so he will lose. Assholes like you won't vote or will write his name in so the republican will lose either way. Another decade or so and the white American is going to be the minority and since republicans despise minorities that party is doomed. Go fuck yourself.:laugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top