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

QP! said:
No it was properly constituted Impeachment proceeding, that was voted and decided by the House and Trump was Impeached, as Bill Clinton was prior. There is no requirement that the other party must be 'allowed to stop it or it does not count'.


That is your stupidity speaking.
Click to expand...

It was a scam and Democrats knew they did not need evidence they had enough votes. They also knew it would fail in the Senate. They made impeachment a joke
 
QP! said:
No it was properly constituted Impeachment proceeding, that was voted and decided by the House and Trump was Impeached, as Bill Clinton was prior. There is no requirement that the other party must be 'allowed to stop it or it does not count'.


That is your stupidity speaking.
Click to expand...

He's saying it was entirely political and you know it was.
 
ptif219 said:
So you can't answer the question
Click to expand...

It is stupid, nonsensical question.

If the Constitution says 'If anyone running for Political does X then they are subject to sanction Y' and then there are numerous examples of Politicians doing X and being sanctioned, simply because no POTUS, or no AG, or no SoS has yet done X does but OTHER politicians have does not mean the OTHER politicians are not subject to that.

It is just painfully stupid to try and say 'until each and every office in politics does X and is shown to be subject i will need proof that they are'.

The Constitution makes it clear that it applies to ANYONE who engages in Insurrection.
 
ptif219 said:
It was a scam and Democrats knew they did not need evidence they had enough votes. They also knew it would fail in the Senate. They made impeachment a joke
Click to expand...

Lightbringer said:
He's saying it was entirely political and you know it was.
Click to expand...

All Impeachments are entirely political and that is proper and by design. They are the sole providence of the Legislative Branch which is entirely a political branch.

And yet, in both impeachments the levels of clear and undeniable evidence of abuse of power, including tape recordings of Trump were crystal clear.

Only Trump derps with TDS deny it, as they deny everything, including Trump doing fraud, when he puts in writing a property is worth X for one form and then 2000X X in another.

As Trump said, 'he could should someone in plain sight and his derps would let him get away with it'.
 
QP! said:
Nothing to deny there.

We were not arguing over 'a type of court'. We were arguing as you stated using the 14th would require a Judicial branch conviction FIRST, and i stated it was fact that it would not and it could be entirely done in the Legislative branch.

So now you have acknowledged you are wrong we can move on.


and as is pointed out above Impeachment does not require the Senate court process. It takes place in the House. Only expulsion requires the Senate process but you are already Impeached first. Not that this point is relevant to what we are discussing.
Click to expand...

your error is in treating this as if it were an impeachment....you are trying to prevent someone from running for office, not remove him.....the constitution provides who has the authority for the first.......it does not do so for the second......
 
1697632523858-png.1406434
 
QP! said:
the 14th amendment DOES NOT only apply to a POTUS and it does not have different rules for a POTUS and others seeking elected office. It speaks to ALL who seek elected office, period.

Your question would be like asking 'what murder charge was ever used against a POTUS' as a way to say that means the law does not apply to the POTUS.
Click to expand...

true, it applies to everyone......who fought for the confederacy.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
gosh, I wonder what precedent there is for blocking innocent people from running for office.......I mean besides in totalitarian regimes......
Click to expand...

Are you complaining about the Constitution allowing Congress to block a POTUS from running from office again for misdemeanors they feel rise to the level of Impeachment and removal but are not crimes?

Are you saying the American constitution is a totalitarian document?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
your error is in treating this as if it were an impeachment....you are trying to prevent someone from running for office, not remove him.....the constitution provides who has the authority for the first.......it does not do so for the second......
Click to expand...

Again you know you are not supposed to comment on matters of law as you are ALWAYS wrong.

This discussion is over Separation or Powers, and those held by the Legislative branch and not the Judicial or Executive.

Both the 14th.S3 and Impeachment clauses both reside within the Legislative branch. It allows for BOTH "removal" and also "Exclusion" from office.

For example, if a POTUS is impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate it "prevents them from running"

So once again you piss poor understanding of law and the Constitution is exposed as you say the Constitution DOES NOT provide for it and it DOES.
 
QP! said:
Again you know you are not supposed to comment on matters of law as you are ALWAYS wrong.
Click to expand...

sorry, cunt.....I can't hear you when your buried in shit up to your ears......clause 3 of Article 14 has never been used on anyone since the Civil War except one poor fuck who was charged for protesting the unconstitutional election on Jan 6.........if you ever get your head out of your ass long enough to read it, you will understand why.....now please, go back to playing in the street until your mother calls you in for supper........

For example, if a POTUS is impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate it "prevents them from running"
Click to expand...

its obvious why you fucks don't want courts involved.....all that complicated law shit interferes with your political goals........
 
QP! said:
It is stupid, nonsensical question.

If the Constitution says 'If anyone running for Political does X then they are subject to sanction Y' and then there are numerous examples of Politicians doing X and being sanctioned, simply because no POTUS, or no AG, or no SoS has yet done X does but OTHER politicians have does not mean the OTHER politicians are not subject to that.

It is just painfully stupid to try and say 'until each and every office in politics does X and is shown to be subject i will need proof that they are'.

The Constitution makes it clear that it applies to ANYONE who engages in Insurrection.
Click to expand...

Your talking in circles shows you have nothing
 
QP! said:
All Impeachments are entirely political and that is proper and by design. They are the sole providence of the Legislative Branch which is entirely a political branch.

And yet, in both impeachments the levels of clear and undeniable evidence of abuse of power, including tape recordings of Trump were crystal clear.

Only Trump derps with TDS deny it, as they deny everything, including Trump doing fraud, when he puts in writing a property is worth X for one form and then 2000X X in another.

As Trump said, 'he could should someone in plain sight and his derps would let him get away with it'.
Click to expand...

They are not all scams like the 2 against trump
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry, cunt.....I can't hear you when your buried in shit up to your ears......clause 3 of Article 14 has never been used on anyone since the Civil War except one poor fuck who was charged for protesting the unconstitutional election on Jan 6.........if you ever get your head out of your ass long enough to read it, you will understand why.....now please, go back to playing in the street until your mother calls you in for supper........



its obvious why you fucks don't want courts involved.....all that complicated law shit interferes with your political goals........
Click to expand...

PostmodernIdiot, again this is why you are NOT to comment on law or the Constitution.

I have put down your point before that elements of the Constitution DO NOT expire because they are rarely used.

That is not how the Constitution or laws work.

Any lawyer worth his salt knows there is no defense to breaking a law in arguing 'no one has been charged for a long, long time'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top