The 14th Amendment is silent on indictment or criminal conviction.
Colorado Lawsuit Seeks to Keep Trump Off Ballots Under 14th Amendment
- Thread starter BidenPresident
- Start date
The 14th Amendment is silent on indictment or criminal conviction.
The constitution, however, is not silent on that topic. Hence my note of the reality. Since he hasn't even been indicted on that we know that the evidence is so lacking that even Democratic-loving AGs willing to politicize the Justice Department haven't indicted him on that one. Without strong evidence that could convict the Constitution tells me that he's presumed innocent, hence my note that he will be on the ballot in your state whether you want to pretend he's an "insurrectionist" or not.
You will not be able to get the courts to agree that someone that has not been proven to have committed such a crime should have their rights curtailed.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
The mere fact that the Left wants to keep Trump off the ballot entirely rather than show America why they (the Left) should have their chosen candidate elected says everything you need to know about who the real enemy to America is. If the Left's ideas, political platform, etc., are so unpopular that they cannot garner national support and that they, instead, have to resort to questionable legal wrangling to avoid being defeated at the ballot box then it is the Left that is the true enemy of democracy and a free and open society.
You’ll have to cite the other part of the Constitution that deals with insurrection.
I also don’t know that there is a right to run for office. The Constitution does curtail one running for president if they are not 35 years old or an American citizen.
Again, no part of the constitution allows for government action against someone that has not been convicted. Even impeachment requires conviction before action is taken.
Your fictional reality where it "doesn't matter" if someone actually has done something and you can prove it before you can start taking government action is not one that exists in the here and now. The reality is you have zero evidence that Trump was part of an "insurrection", if you had even a modicum of such evidence you and the biased AGs would have him on trial for it.
Only a true imbecile would think that you can start removing people from ballots based on your, and yours alone for that matter, assumption of guilt.
BartenderElite
Verified User
It's insane to me that Trump could win the Presidency again after 1/6 & the events surrounding that day.
It's really a disgrace. Republican voters should be greatly embarrassed.
It's really a disgrace. Republican voters should be greatly embarrassed.
Election tampering was ALWAYS the reason behind the faux "indictments."
democrats simply cannot win free and fair elections.
So, the answer is you have no answer. There IS no other part of the Constitution that deals with insurrection.
Impeachment is government action without conviction. The trial in the Senate, Rufus, is the conviction part. Derp.
And, once again, Cletus, the 14th says NOTHING about proof that we associate with that of the criminal level. You haven’t even given any argument that being on a ballot is a government action, anyway. Seems more like a citizen movement or party movement. Where does the Constitution mention who gets on ballots, anyway? It doesn’t. Go ahead and cite that, as well, Nancy.
Look, you idiot. There is no part of the constitution that allows for any government action to remove the rights of any individual without a conviction, including impeachment proceedings (gotta be convicted before you can remove them from office).
There is no part of the constitution that will allow you to remove folks from ballots based on your fantastical wishes, beliefs, faith and hopes. And we already know that there is zero evidence of Trump being part of an "insurrection" as your biased AGs, and the newly politicized "Justice" Department, would not hesitate to try him for that crime if they could somehow twist evidence enough to make it even slightly appear like they had evidence.
This is stupid, a waste of money and time, and it can only help Trump (Heaven forfend) once it is rejected because it will only serve to underline that you have zero evidence of that nonsense.
Try this, fucking moron. A president can be removed from office with a simple 2/3 vote of the Senate. That’s not even remotely considered “proof”, regardless of what your little pea brain may think.
Ballots are not a federal government issue, Cletus. Candidates appearing on ballots, especially primary ballots, must meet the requirements of each STATE.
SO, yeah, as I said, dumbfuck, the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment is SILENT on requiring a criminal conviction as a condition of “participation” in an insurrection. You stupid fuckers wanted constitutional originalists and those that read the text AS IS. They did ignore the militia clause in the 2nd for Heller. Let’s see how they deal with the silence of criminal conviction on the 14th, if it ever comes to that.
Insurrection, BTW, is not clearly defined, either. But it generally involves violating the oath of office. That Trump tried to coerce Pence to disregard his constitutional duties and not certify the legal electors, which is common knowledge that Trump tried to, can be considered insurrection, with no conviction necessary.
Last edited:
You are a total maroon as Bugs would say. The constitution calls that "magical" 2/3 vote a conviction. In order to remove the President he is put on trial in the Senate and convicted (look it up, it even uses that word). That's why I noted that even in impeachment you get a conviction....
Please stop talking, you simply are too stupid to hold this conversation. You need to read. And slowly so it can get past the Barrier of Stupid you've erected to protect your political opinion. The very amendment you try to pretend will get him off the ballot ensures that his innocent until proven guilty right passes to the states, equal protection and all that. This is why states that used to have a state religion no longer can... et al and why the idea that removing someone from a ballot without even evidence of a crime (as I noted already, had there been even a modicum of evidence the politicized Justice System would already have been trying him for it) will be rejected by the SCOTUS... Yeah, they can overrule states on constitutional rights issues like the whole "innocent until proven guilty" and "trial by peers" issues...
There is no part of the constitution that allows you to be punished (as in the government taking action against you) for something for which you have no evidence. Not one. Not even the 14th Amendment. If you want to remove Trump from ballots you will need to convict him of the thing for which you want to deny him access to a ballot, otherwise the courts will note that the Constitution itself says you are innocent until proven guilty, and that you cannot face punishment until you have done that bit.... and that the 14th Amendment protects that right even from States trying to disregard your rights.
Colorado, the state in which I live, is stupid for wasting treasure and time on such a nonsense lawsuit. Even the Colorado Constitution has guarantees that will stop them. This Secretary of State is a worthless partisan, and has erected that same Barrier of Stupid to protect her brain from facts that go against her political opinion that you and Desh have erected.
Yes. The republic and democratic process survived despite the attempt to overturn the election.
Sorry, dumbfuck, the 14th says NOTHING about innocence or guilt, no matter how much you want it to.
Here’s a little tidbit to chew on, shitstain. Trump was found liable in a CIVIL suit of sexual assault. Know what the burden of proof there is, Nancy? It is “more likely than not”. That’s it.
A simple testimony from Pence about how Trump tried to get him to violate the Constitution, you know, his OATH OF OFFICE, easily meets that standard. No conviction necessary.
There are legal experts, certainly a lot more informed than you, Rufus, that maintain Trump has already violated the 14th. So, spare me, Cletus, your in depth knowledge of what the 14th “requires” or doesn’t. You don’t have a fucking clue.
You are a moron. One cannot just say the words three times and make things happen. You can't remove someone from a ballot because you really really really don't like him and to do it you'll just say what you want and use the "magic words".
Again, no part of the constitution allows you to take negative action against someone without proving it first. Even the 14th Amendment.
I know you really want this. But again I will tell you that you will not get it. It is very likely that this early appearance in Colorado will get SCOTUS attention and their ruling will ensure you will see Trump on your ballot, even though you really hate him and thought using the magic word would make him go away.
If you had any evidence that Trump had participated in any insurrection you would be trying him for insurrection. You do not even have evidence of it, you just have your wish and strong barrier of stupid you've put around your brain to protect your political "opinion". The same one put around the brains of the "legal experts"...
If this were the case, nobody would ever be able to run once they've taken an oath of office as the other party would just say "insurrection" 3 times fast and boom... There would be no repeat runs. You don't need evidence according to your stupidity, why would you ever need evidence? You just say the word "insurrection" and your fantasy will be fulfilled....
I could give a shit whether he’s removed from ballots or not. I merely made the observation that the 14th is silent on any criminal conviction requirement, which it is.
You’re the one, Festus, shitting your drawers and claiming to know what it requires or doesn’t require. It hasn’t been tested, so you are fucking CLUELESS.
But, in your defense, I do notice being clueless does not prevent idiots from weighing in to inform us their great, in-depth knowledge of any given subject. Thanks for filling that niche for us.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
if allegations were enough to acknowledge simple guilt, then we'd be discussing this for every president since FDR. No matter how much you want it to work that way, a determination of guilty or not guilty MUST be applied in order to effect a judicial punishment, restriction, or prohibition of rights, liberties, or freedom.
not sure why you are bringing this to bear because civil suits are completely fucking irrelevant to criminal cases........
again, if allegations are the standard now, we can easily scrap our jury system.
there are legal experts out there who CLAIM they are more informed who still claim that the 2nd Amendment is NOT a individual right.......that just means that anyone claiming to be an expert cannot simply be trusted, moron.