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

[QP!]

You did not read the whole article it seems

Wrong. It is you who did not understand the article. There is nothing in the article before or after that says the bolded is wrong, as you claim, and that 'the 14th could not be used without a criminal conviction' as you are claiming. The article says the exaxt opposite.

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

So when you read the bolded above and say 'see it says a criminal conviction is required' that is not because the article says that, it is because you are painfully stupid and cannot read.

 

[ptif219]

Wrong. It is you who did not understand the article. There is nothing in the article before or after that says the bolded is wrong, as you claim, and that 'the 14th could not be used without a criminal conviction' as you are claiming. The article says the exaxt opposite.




So when you read the bolded above and say 'see it says a criminal conviction is required' that is not because the article says that, it is because you are painfully stupid and cannot read.

Go back and see what I posted from your link

 

[Matt Dillon]

Wrong. It is you who did not understand the article. There is nothing in the article before or after that says the bolded is wrong, as you claim, and that 'the 14th could not be used without a criminal conviction' as you are claiming. The article says the exaxt opposite.




So when you read the bolded above and say 'see it says a criminal conviction is required' that is not because the article says that, it is because you are painfully stupid and cannot read.

You're just a pussy that can't stand up to any opposition because you suck. Fucking Napoleon Dynamite could beat you and yours.

 

[QP!]

Go back and see what I posted from your link

I did. it proves you wrong. The excerpt you picked specifically says a court ruling COULD ALSO be used and not that it is required. The FACTS of hIstory has PROVEN it is not required.

 

[ptif219]

I did. it proves you wrong. The excerpt you picked specifically says a court ruling COULD ALSO be used and not that it is required. The FACTS of hIstory has PROVEN it is not required.

It shows there is no tested proof on this. You will find the suprene court will demand proof of guilt

 

[Lightbringer]

I did. it proves you wrong. The excerpt you picked specifically says a court ruling COULD ALSO be used and not that it is required. The FACTS of hIstory has PROVEN it is not required.

Nope.

 

[QP!]

It shows there is no tested proof on this. You will find the suprene court will demand proof of guilt

Except you are wrong. The article cites examples that used a civil lawsuit (no indictment or conviction) to remove politicians from office.

So the exact opposite of what you say is the truth.

One example.

Couy Griffin

Removal from office
Subsequent to his 2022 conviction for the trespassing charge, a suit was filed by the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and the residents of New Mexico under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that would bar him from holding a public office for life due to his participation in the insurrection.[11]

Following the Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, District Court Judge Francis J. Mathew removed Griffin from public office on September 6, 2022, due to his participation in the insurrection....

So as always you offer opinions and lies on topics you are clueless on.

 

[ptif219]

Except you are wrong. The article cites examples that used a civil lawsuit (no indictment or conviction) to remove politicians from office.

So the exact opposite of what you say is the truth.

One example.




So as always you offer opinions and lies on topics you are clueless on.

It has not been tested on a president you may not get the reults you want

 

[QP!]

It has not been tested on a president you may not get the reults you want

That is not how the Constitution works. Simply because no President has been criminal enough to trigger it does not mean the 14th amendment does not apply to them.

Since it is established that the 14th CAN BE APPLIED WITHOUT ANY COURT CONVICTION that means it applies to all the offices below.

Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

[Jarod]

Has Trump won any yet

 

[ptif219]

That is not how the Constitution works. Simply because no President has been criminal enough to trigger it does not mean the 14th amendment does not apply to them.

Since it is established that the 14th CAN BE APPLIED WITHOUT ANY COURT CONVICTION that means it applies to all the offices below.

Trump is innocent until proven guilty

 

[Lightbringer]

That is not how the Constitution works. Simply because no President has been criminal enough to trigger it does not mean the 14th amendment does not apply to them.

Since it is established that the 14th CAN BE APPLIED WITHOUT ANY COURT CONVICTION that means it applies to all the offices below.

How did Trump give aid and comfort? Was J6 even an insurrection?

Keep barking up that tree.

 

[QP!]

Trump is innocent until proven guilty

Of course he is. No one argued that.

What we were arguing was your wrong statement that the 14th Amendment required a court conviction FIRST to be used on Trump when that is not the case. No conviction is needed at all but a Court case AFTER the 14th is triggered, will be needed to establish what the Congressional boundaries or requirements are, similar to how we have defined requirements for Impeachment.

 

[QP!]

How did Trump give aid and comfort? Was J6 even an insurrection?

Keep barking up that tree.

Why would i answer you words when i did not say that?

AGAIN, use of the 14th is Political much like Impeachment. Impeachment does not require any legal findings for the House and Senate to act. It is simply based on what they BELIEVE.

Here is what BOTH McConnell and McCarthy believed and stated about Jan6th and who was responsible...

Based on the above, both McConnell (Head of Senate) and McCarthy (Head of House) have stated Trump as POTUS broke his oath of office by fomenting and participating in an attack on the Capital and Congress.

So as the SC addresses what are the types of evidence or requirements the various State officials who determine who is eligible to be put on the ballots, need, this has to be one of the absolute top ones, the Political Process in Congress can provide to those State officials. A joint Statement of Blame and Responsibility, with both Houses attributing blame and responsibility to Trump, and trump breaking his oath of Office to protect the Constitution.

 

[QP!]

And lest we forget there is also MANY SUCH judicial rulings such as the one below, piercing the Attorney client Privilege, and giving the notes, cell phones and other materials of various Trump lawyers, to the Prosecutors,

Such Judicial rulings require a very high bar such as 'Obvious criminality'.

Judge calls 'illegality' of Trump plan to overturn election 'obvious,' in ruling for Jan. 6 committee


A federal judge ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump likely “corruptly attempted to obstruct” Congress from certifying the 2020 election, in a case over whether a House committee will receive a lawyer’s emails while investigating the attack on the Capitol.

“The illegality of the plan was obvious,” U.S. District Judge David Carter in California wrote in approving the transfer of John Eastman’s emails to the committee. “Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.”

So again, when it comes to a State Secretary of State or other assessing what evidence he can assess in making a determination as to whether Trump is excluded via the 14th Amendment, a consideration of the House Leader, Senate Leader and various courts of Trumps responsibility and culpability for Jan 6th,thus breaking his oath of office to Protect the Constitution, seems to be about as high as one can get in a Political consideration that does not involve a court verdict.

 

[ptif219]

Of course he is. No one argued that.

What we were arguing was your wrong statement that the 14th Amendment required a court conviction FIRST to be used on Trump when that is not the case. No conviction is needed at all but a Court case AFTER the 14th is triggered, will be needed to establish what the Congressional boundaries or requirements are, similar to how we have defined requirements for Impeachment.

Then how can you use the 14th amendment without a trial?

 

[Lightbringer]

Of course he is. No one argued that.

What we were arguing was your wrong statement that the 14th Amendment required a court conviction FIRST to be used on Trump when that is not the case. No conviction is needed at all but a Court case AFTER the 14th is triggered, will be needed to establish what the Congressional boundaries or requirements are, similar to how we have defined requirements for Impeachment.

Ummm...ok?

I think ptif is correct on this.

 

[QP!]

Then how can you use the 14th amendment without a trial?

God you are fucking stupid. A pure simpleton.

We just went thru all that where i demonstrated to you, that like with Impeachment, this Clause of the Constitution belongs to the Legislative Branch and not the Judicial Branch.

You seem to not understand there 3 'Separate but equal' branches and thus the Judicial Branch does not need to adjudicate everything first for actions to happen.

For instance if a person is Impeached by the Legislation Branch, and that person believes the Legislative branch did not follow the Constitutional process, they could then go to the Judicial branch, sue, and ask them to rule on whether it was appropriate and fair or not.

What that DOES NOT mean, is that the Legislative branch needs the Court to act first. They DO NOT.

It is the same for the 14th. The Legislative Branch can and will act first, and ban Trump or not, based on a State Secretary of State, excluding or including him on their list for Potus, and THEN AFTER that the Judicial branch, Courts, will be asked to rule and define the thresholds.

 

[QP!]

Ummm...ok?

I think ptif is correct on this.

Stupid people believe stupid things.

News at 11.

 

[ptif219]

God you are fucking stupid. A pure simpleton.

We just went thru all that where i demonstrated to you, that like with Impeachment, this Clause of the Constitution belongs to the Legislative Branch and not the Judicial Branch.

You seem to not understand there 3 'Separate but equal' branches and thus the Judicial Branch does not need to adjudicate everything first for actions to happen.

For instance if a person is Impeached by the Legislation Branch, and that person believes the Legislative branch did not follow the Constitutional process, they could then go to the Judicial branch, sue, and ask them to rule on whether it was appropriate and fair or not.

What that DOES NOT mean, is that the Legislative branch needs the Court to act first. They DO NOT.

It is the same for the 14th. The Legislative Branch can and will act first, and ban Trump or not, based on a State Secretary of State, excluding or including him on their list for Potus, and THEN AFTER that the Judicial branch, Courts, will be asked to rule and define the thresholds.

If he is innocent the 14th amendment is irrelevant