I didn't blame Democrats for anything. I just said I don't believe there is any provision to prohibit anybody from running for president. If I am wrong, I would like information on this topic.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trump’s indictment plus candidacy could endanger democracy and the rule of law
- Thread starter BidenPresident
- Start date
I didn't blame Democrats for anything. I just said I don't believe there is any provision to prohibit anybody from running for president. If I am wrong, I would like information on this topic.
What did they want?
A republic that prohibited any group from pushing their interests by avoiding majority rule. They sacrificed efficiency for checks on excessive power. Read Madison's Federalist #10 for his view on the purpose of government and the best form of government to accomplish that purpose.
You're right, of course, and that's why I don't like it.
What you wanted would never have been ratified. Even the document submitted had to be amended to be accepted.
BidenPresident
Verified User
A republic that prohibited any group from pushing their interests by avoiding majority rule.
Yet they spent a lot of text protecting property rights.
BidenPresident
Verified User
They sacrificed efficiency for checks on excessive power. Read Madison's Federalist #10 for his view on the purpose of government and the best form of government to accomplish that purpose.
I've read it.
floridafan
Verified User
I didn't blame Democrats for anything. I just said I don't believe there is any provision to prohibit anybody from running for president. If I am wrong, I would like information on this topic.
"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."
BidenPresident
Verified User
"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."
Yes. Notice it does not say convicted of insurrection.
Yet they spent a lot of text protecting property rights.
No more than it protects other rights. It says you can't deny a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and you can't take people's property without compensation.
And these two provisions were not even included in the original document but added later in the 5th Amendment.
BidenPresident
Verified User
No more than it protects other rights. It says you can't deny a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and you can't take people's property without compensation.
And these two provisions were not even included in the original document but added later in the 5th Amendment.
Ok. Now pay for a lawyer.
"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."
That was for members of the Confederacy. Trump has not been convicted of insurrection or rebellion so it cannot be applied on the whims of the U. S. Attorney.
floridafan
Verified User
That was for members of the Confederacy. Trump has not been convicted of insurrection or rebellion so it cannot be applied on the whims of the U. S. Attorney.
1. It has nothing to do with the confederacy
2. One does not have to be convicted
I thought you were a constitutional expert. Try reading the 14th amendment.
BidenPresident
Verified User
That was for members of the Confederacy. Trump has not been convicted of insurrection or rebellion so it cannot be applied on the whims of the U. S. Attorney.
Where did that statement mention conviction?
Ok. Now pay for a lawyer.
All I had to do was read the Constitution. I have to pay for a lawyer if government restricts any of my rights (speech, press, religion, search and seizure...) and I want to challenge it (unless I am indigent).
BidenPresident
Verified User
All I had to do was read the Constitution. I have to pay for a lawyer if government restricts any of my rights (speech, press, religion, search and seizure...) and I want to challenge it (unless I am indigent).
My point is, nice list of rights, but you literally have to pay for it.
1. It has nothing to do with the confederacy
2. One does not have to be convicted
I thought you were a constitutional expert. Try reading the 14th amendment.
I'm no constitutional expert. But the 14th amendment was one of the Civil War amendments and that provision was to disqualify former Confederate leaders from holding office which is why the South was dominated by Republicans during Reconstruction.
It says nothing about conviction but government cannot just declare a person was engaged in "rebellion or insurrection" without some legal determination. It was easy to determine if someone was part of the Confederacy. I don't know if this provision has ever been used for any cases except for the Civil War era. Almost all of members of House and Senate expelled by those bodies were Civil War related.
floridafan
Verified User
I'm no constitutional expert. But the 14th amendment was one of the Civil War amendments and that provision was to disqualify former Confederate leaders from holding office which is why the South was dominated by Republicans during Reconstruction.
It says nothing about conviction but government cannot just declare a person was engaged in "rebellion or insurrection" without some legal determination. It was easy to determine if someone was part of the Confederacy. I don't know if this provision has ever been used for any cases except for the Civil War era. Almost all of members of House and Senate expelled by those bodies were Civil War related.
I agree you are no constitutional expert, nor do you know what you are talking about
My point is, nice list of rights, but you literally have to pay for it.
You don't have to pay for the right, only if government restricts that right. What is the alternative? Criminal cases get free lawyers if they are indigent. It is certainly superior to almost all other nations where the same level of rights do not exist.
Those charged with January 6 crimes are collecting thousands in contributions for their legal defense but had no legal expenses because they were represented by government lawyers.
BidenPresident
Verified User
You don't have to pay for the right, only if government restricts that right. What is the alternative? Criminal cases get free lawyers if they are indigent. It is certainly superior to almost all other nations where the same level of rights do not exist.
Those charged with January 6 crimes are collecting thousands in contributions for their legal defense but had no legal expenses because they were represented by government lawyers.
Point is, those prosecuted for stealing US documents are serving prison time. We can't even get a trial for Trump.
I agree you are no constitutional expert, nor do you know what you are talking about
I never claimed to be an expert, but I can read.
What was the purpose of the 14th amendment disqualification clause?
The U. S. Attorney did not include such a provision in the indictment because Congress passed no law disqualifying any person.
Point is, those prosecuted for stealing US documents are serving prison time. We can't even get a trial for Trump.
We have an indictment. Next comes the trial.