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

QP! said:
PmP, the claimed lawyer has taken the position that the 14th Amendment was written as a sole use amendment and only applies to the Civil war.
Click to expand...

so did every other lawyer in America from 1879 until 2022......then a demmycrat looked for a novel way to beat Trump in 2024.....a couple of dozen people agreed with him......none were lawyers.....
 
ExpressLane said:
What does QP stand for Quit Posting or Quite Psychotic, or maybe Queer Person?
Click to expand...

none of those.....
800px-German_Kewpie_with_Heart_Sticker.png
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so did every other lawyer in America from 1879 until 2022......then a demmycrat looked for a novel way to beat Trump in 2024.....a couple of dozen people agreed with him......none were lawyers.....
Click to expand...

Except for the times the 14th was applied and people were excluded from office that your great legal mind has no clue exists.


At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.

Section 3, also known as the Disqualification Clause


....CREW analyzed historical records to identify all public officials who a court, legislature, or other body determined to have been disqualified under Section 3. The list includes six officials aligned with the Confederacy who held office after the Civil War, as well as former New Mexico County Commissioner Couy Griffin, who a state court removed from office last year based on his participation in the January 6th insurrection following a lawsuit CREW brought on behalf of three New Mexico residents. ...

...Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.

The precedent likewise confirms that one can “engage” in insurrection without personally committing violent acts. Neither Kenneth Worthy nor Couy Griffin were accused of engaging in violence, yet both were ruled to be disqualified because they knowingly and voluntarily aided violent insurrections. These rulings are consistent with the views of Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who opined in 1867 that when a person has “incited others to engage in [insurrection or] rebellion, he must come under the disqualification.” President Andrew Johnson and his Cabinet approved that interpretation, and Johnson directed officers commanding the Southern military districts to follow it....



cite
Click to expand...

Sucks for you PmP that everything written in law and the COnstitution continually proves you wrong and you have no clue on the topics you try to opine.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so did every other lawyer in America from 1879 until 2022......then a demmycrat looked for a novel way to beat Trump in 2024.....a couple of dozen people agreed with him......none were lawyers.....
Click to expand...

As if you know what any lawyer thought then or later. The Amendment was in response to the war and perhaps no lawyer or anyone else at the time believed Americans would try to undo the government a second time but lawyers do know statutes are interpreted to mean what they plainly say. Which raises the question: if the concern was treachery against the United States between the years 1860-65 why send a law into perpetuity by amending The Constitution when a simple federal statute would take care of it.
 
Last edited:
America said:
Don't you follow the news? He's been indicted and will face trial. It's sad that you care more about the man Trump than about whatever ideals he supposedly stands for. What happens when he dies of old age? Your retarded movement ends because the cult leader is gone?
Click to expand...

You mean the Democrats political show trials tp try and stop Trump from becoming president again. It is what they do in a communist country. The Democrats show they are communists
 
QP! said:
Ok so we are done with you and your view that Impeachment, (and other actions) cannot happen and person cannot be found guilty in the Senate without a court ruling.

That you think the Legislative branch requires Courts for enactment of all Constitution clauses, and you do not understand that some are deliberately designed to have sole power within the Legislative branch due to separation of powers, seems beyond you.
Click to expand...

As always you have to lie and take what is said out of context
 
QP! said:
Except for the times the 14th was applied and people were excluded from office that your great legal mind has no clue exists.
Click to expand...

what a fucking idiot......seven cases against officials who had been in office when the civil war and one other......a person who protested on 1/6.......that was the first time it was used since 1870 and it was proposed by the same fuck ups you quoted......you people are sick....and before you ask the cite for the above is the one you posted at the very bottom of your demented post......
 
martin said:
You have that precisely backward. Trump is the first defeated Presidential candidate in the history of the republic to permanently persuade his voters he was the one elected.
Click to expand...

what a coincidence......2020 was also the first year someone was put in the Oval Office with an uncontitutional election.......
 
martin said:
As if you know what any lawyer thought then or later. The Amendment was in response to the war and perhaps no lawyer or anyone else at the time believed Americans would try to undo the government a second time but lawyers do know statutes are interpreted to mean what they plainly say. Which raises the question: if the concern was treachery against the United States between the years 1860-65 why send a law into perpetuity by amending The Constitution when a simple federal statute would take care of it.
Click to expand...

if I am wrong, why did no other lawyer use it on anyone between 1870 and 2023?......
 
ptif219 said:
You mean the Democrats political show trials tp try and stop Trump from becoming president again. It is what they do in a communist country. The Democrats show they are communists
Click to expand...

He wasn't indicted by Biden or George Soros or Nancy Pelosi. He was indicted by his fellow citizens.
 
ptif219 said:
As always you have to lie and take what is said out of context
Click to expand...

Wrong.

You are clearing and continually stating some version of the 14th Amendment requiring criminal charges and a court ruling and that is simply your ignorance.

It requires neither as history demonstrates.

Given that the 14th Amendment, like Impeachment, resides within the legislative branch the FACTS that both the House leader and the Senate Leader, publically, acknowledge the then President, Trump's role in the Jan6th insurrection. That means Trump went against his oath to protect and follow the Constitution, and he failed in his role as POTUS on his most core duty.

"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day,...."He did not do his job. He didn't take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed and order restored,.... "No. Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily — happily — as the chaos unfolded," he said. "Even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in serious danger." Mitch McConnell
Click to expand...

“The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters, ... “He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump.”” McCarthy said
Click to expand...


In terms of what in the Political process of both the House and Senate that could and should be sufficient to trigger the 14th, it is the Supreme Court that will have to decide that. But I see no path that they set boundaries that reach the level of seriousness and culpability, then both the House and Senate leaders, taking the floor of their chambers, and specifically citing the blame the POTUS has for the attempted insurrection that took place and Trumps accountability for it.

If the SC acknowledges the 14th does reside within Congress and does not require Judicial or Executive branch findings, then it will be near impossible for them to set any boundaries that Trumps actions, as cited, do not meet or exceed that threshold.
 
QP! said:
Wrong.

You are clearing and continually stating some version of the 14th Amendment requiring criminal charges and a court ruling and that is simply your ignorance.

It requires neither as history demonstrates.

Given that the 14th Amendment, like Impeachment, resides within the legislative branch the FACTS that both the House leader and the Senate Leader, publically, acknowledge the then President, Trump's role in the Jan6th insurrection. That means Trump went against his oath to protect and follow the Constitution, and he failed in his role as POTUS on his most core duty.






In terms of what in the Political process of both the House and Senate that could and should be sufficient to trigger the 14th, it is the Supreme Court that will have to decide that. But I see no path that they set boundaries that reach the level of seriousness and culpability, then both the House and Senate leaders, taking the floor of their chambers, and specifically citing the blame the POTUS has for the attempted insurrection that took place and Trumps accountability for it.

If the SC acknowledges the 14th does reside within Congress and does not require Judicial or Executive branch findings, then it will be near impossible for them to set any boundaries that Trumps actions, as cited, do not meet or exceed that threshold.
Click to expand...

It is clear it does and never has required criminal charges, but they know this is real and are terrified.
 
ptif219 said:
Without a conviction he is eligible
Click to expand...

Again you are confusing an 'conviction', which is enacted by the Executive (DoJ) and completed in the judiciary with a Political process, the very thing you deny doing in the post above.

Convictions DO NOT make any one ineligible for running for POTUS. it has zero impact.

Again, in the legislative branch, due to separation of powers, you see POTUS can be BANNED from holding office via Article 1 impeachment, which requires no charges (DoJ) or conviction (Courts).

So you keep repeating a fundamental lack of understanding of the Constitution and separation of powers.


'Conviction" in the Judiciary, has no impact on eligibility.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
what a fucking idiot......seven cases against officials who had been in office when the civil war and one other......a person who protested on 1/6.......that was the first time it was used since 1870 and it was proposed by the same fuck ups you quoted......you people are sick....and before you ask the cite for the above is the one you posted at the very bottom of your demented post......
Click to expand...

lol at your idiocy.

Neither laws nor Constitutional clauses are sole use, because they are crafted in response to an event and not again used for year after due to no similar event.

Understand your stupid argument is that they simply expire or go defunct due to non use, and not that laws or Constitutional clauses need to be repealed or changed or NO MATTER HOW MANY YEARS LATER, if people transgress that law or Constitutional clause, they can and will be charged with it.


There are all sorts of laws that can go decades and decades between charges because the crime is rare. Rare does not mean, it never happens.

You need to be less stupid, or stop claiming to be a lawyer. There has NEVER been a concept such as the one you are pushing that if it is not used for decades then when the crime does occur again later, that law or Constitutional clause is no longer valid due to its lack of use for decades.
 
QP! said:
lol at your idiocy.

Neither laws nor Constitutional clauses are sole use, because they are crafted in response to an event and not again used for year after due to no similar event.

Understand your stupid argument is that they simply expire or go defunct due to non use, and not that laws or Constitutional clauses need to be repealed or changed or NO MATTER HOW MANY YEARS LATER, if people transgress that law or Constitutional clause, they can and will be charged with it.


There are all sorts of laws that can go decades and decades between charges because the crime is rare. Rare does not mean, it never happens.

You need to be less stupid, or stop claiming to be a lawyer. There has NEVER been a concept such as the one you are pushing that if it is not used for decades then when the crime does occur again later, that law or Constitutional clause is no longer valid due to its lack of use for decades.
Click to expand...

Dude, you’re asking the impossible by exhorting PMP to be less stupid.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if I am wrong, why did no other lawyer use it on anyone between 1870 and 2023?......
Click to expand...

You base dunce, stop trying to suggest Laws and Constitutional clauses time out, and are no longer in force, if not used for long periods, because no one has committed that specific crime.

It could be 1000 years later and if that law or Constitutional clause has not been repealed and the action that triggers it not done, that is sits quietly, in force and in place and perfectly applicable when that crime is done, for use and charging.

You have no comprehension on how laws or the Constitution works, thinking they simply expire, if not used, as you keep arguing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top