The end of Democracy?

[Chobham]

Which means they all have to be run the same way, on the same day. Some use machines, some use paper, some allow mail in, others don't, rules vary on absentee ballots, but the end result is compliance with Federal rules. What happens before and after may vary slightly, but not significantly.

Not at all SFB, and they are NOT all run the same way you ignorant POS. Elections for national positions have to be held on the same day certain, and all ELIGIBLE CITIZENS over the age of 18 must be allowed to vote regardless of race or gender. That's basically it, HOW those elections are managed are up to the individual states.

Federal Voting Laws

 

[Comshaw]

^^^ Yet again ..... one does NOT have to be convicted of anything at all to be disqualified from serving. Why can't some people get that through their heads?

Also, again, it doesn't really matter if one is on a state ballot or not. Even if that (or any, or all states) 'elect' a person who is not eligible, or has been disqualified, that person will not, can not be sworn in and serve.

You are in error and if you think you aren't, please show me how your statement is true. Facts: a cite of a regulation or law would be nice.

There are ONLY three things that can disqualify someone from serving as President:
Article II, Section I of the constitution: They must be a natural born citizen AND at least 35 years old.
Article I Section III of the constitution: Conviction of the charges of Impeachment
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States..."

Unless you can show me otherwise THERE ARE NO OTHER disqualifying reasons. If you know of any let's see them.


Comshaw

 

[jaF0]

"Section 3. 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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourt...ion_from_office_for_insurrection_or_rebellion


There is nothing there that says tried and convicted of, or even charged with any crime, only 'shall have engaged in', which is not in dispute.

 

[jaF0]

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.


Having thought long and deeply about the text, history, and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause for much of our professional careers, both of us concluded some years ago that, in fact, a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.

The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause.



https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...onstitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/



This stuff has already been posted multiple times on this board however.

 

[HisArpy]

So today you think it's mob rule. But I thought you said it was the tyranny of minority? In the end, it doesn't matter what you say because you have no convictions, you have no actual beliefs.

This part of your post completely and totally illustrates how your responses are made without thought and are basically nothing more than bullshit.

There is NOTHING which says that "the mob" cannot consist of minorities or that it cannot be "the" minority. Yet somehow you seem to think that "mob" automatically equals "majority." Why? Because you actually do NOT "think."

Which is something that shows up all the time in your posts and something which is constantly pointed out to you. Yet you STILL CANNOT do anything other than post unthinking mindless bullshit.

 

[HisArpy]

There is nothing there that says tried and convicted of, or even charged with any crime, only 'shall have engaged in', which is not in dispute.

Actually, it is in dispute. You "believe" that Trump "engaged in insurrection." Your "belief" isn't fact, it's only your belief. Others' believe he didn't. Again, that's just a "belief" and not "fact."

Thus, the facts are in dispute. To determine if indeed an "insurrection" occurred AND that Trump "engaged" in it AND that he'd be disqualified under the 14th Amendment requires a neutral party to review the facts and decide those questions. Something which hasn't occurred.

Without that review and subesequent decisions, all you have is your "belief" and that's just not good enough.

As for the upcoming "but but the Civil War officers..." crying jag, it could not be disputed that they engaged in civil insurrection since they were officers in the Confederate States army and that army was undeniably engaged in battle with the army of the Union. Thus, they come under a different part of the 14th than what you attempt to use against Trump. There is no cross comparison between them.

 

[ll74]

Actually, it is in dispute. You "believe" that Trump "engaged in insurrection." Your "belief" isn't fact, it's only your belief. Others' believe he didn't. Again, that's just a "belief" and not "fact."

Thus, the facts are in dispute. To determine if indeed an "insurrection" occurred AND that Trump "engaged" in it AND that he'd be disqualified under the 14th Amendment requires a neutral party to review the facts and decide those questions. Something which hasn't occurred.

Without that review and subesequent decisions, all you have is your "belief" and that's just not good enough.

As for the upcoming "but but the Civil War officers..." crying jag, it could not be disputed that they engaged in civil insurrection since they were officers in the Confederate States army and that army was undeniably engaged in battle with the army of the Union. Thus, they come under a different part of the 14th than what you attempt to use against Trump. There is no cross comparison between them.

It is the courts' decision.

 

[jomar]

It is the courts' decision.

Derpy doesn’t understand how that works.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

For anyone who wants to read a good write up on the 14th, I suggest this one. HisArpy really needs to read it!! He'll learn nothing from it, but I'm sure it'll rankle his feathers enough that he'll post some more comedy gold!!

https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Actually, it is in dispute. You "believe" that Trump "engaged in insurrection." Your "belief" isn't fact, it's only your belief. Others' believe he didn't. Again, that's just a "belief" and not "fact."

Thus, the facts are in dispute. To determine if indeed an "insurrection" occurred AND that Trump "engaged" in it AND that he'd be disqualified under the 14th Amendment requires a neutral party to review the facts and decide those questions. Something which hasn't occurred.

Without that review and subesequent decisions, all you have is your "belief" and that's just not good enough.

As for the upcoming "but but the Civil War officers..." crying jag, it could not be disputed that they engaged in civil insurrection since they were officers in the Confederate States army and that army was undeniably engaged in battle with the army of the Union. Thus, they come under a different part of the 14th than what you attempt to use against Trump. There is no cross comparison between them.

It is the courts' decision.

Derpy doesn’t understand how that works.

 

[icanhelp1]

I fully believe that if trump is somehow reelected president the USA will cease to be a democracy as we know it.

States aren’t excluding trump from the ballot willy nilly, as chobham would have you believe. No, they are following the constitution.

Lastly, boo fucking hoo. Repubs are loud and proud about canceling roe v wade and returning abortion to the states. But now are crying foul that states are actually exercising their rights regarding the constitution and an insurrectionist who wants to be president.

That’s not it at all! A state is using the violation of a federal statute to disqualify a candidate. If the state is hanging their hat on a felony violation without due process then where does it end. Section I of the 14th A. The CO Supreme Court assigned a guilty verdict without a trial or conviction. Even the courts cannot dismiss due process.

Presidential elections affect all fifty states. It’s a national (federal) event is why we have national committees DNC, RNC and on occasion write ins. IMHO

 

[DeluxAuto]

It is the courts' decision.

Poor Derpy.

 

[jomar]

That’s not it at all! A state is using the violation of a federal statute to disqualify a candidate. If the state is hanging their hat on a felony violation without due process then where does it end. Section I of the 14th A. The CO Supreme Court assigned a guilty verdict without a trial or conviction. Even the courts cannot dismiss due process.

The states are interpreting things as they see it. The courts will settle it. My larger point if you guys want your cake and to eat it too. Your hypocrisy is staggering.

 

[zipman]

It is the courts' decision.

Which sounds remarkably like "a neutral party to review the facts and decide those questions."

And right after he posted that I don't think.

Hahaha.

 

[icanhelp1]

The states are interpreting things as they see it. The courts will settle it. My larger point if you guys want your cake and to eat it too. Your hypocrisy is staggering.

I hope you have the same mindset during Biden’s impeachment.

 

[jomar]

I hope you have the same mindset during Biden’s impeachment.

So far all your side has is dreaming and scheming on Biden while Comer has actively scuttled investigation into trump. But bring it. I’m on record for letting the chips fall.

 

[zipman]

This part of your post completely and totally illustrates how your responses are made without thought and are basically nothing more than bullshit.

There is NOTHING which says that "the mob" cannot consist of minorities or that it cannot be "the" minority. Yet somehow you seem to think that "mob" automatically equals "majority." Why? Because you actually do NOT "think."

Which is something that shows up all the time in your posts and something which is constantly pointed out to you. Yet you STILL CANNOT do anything other than post unthinking mindless bullshit.

Perhaps you should go back and read his post again and spend a little more time on the context of what he wrote and a little less time on catching me saying something stupid.

Unlike a lot of other people on here, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. This just isn't one of those times.

But if you want to keep going with this, I'm fine with that. I've explained more difficult concepts to people even less intelligent than you are.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

That’s not it at all! A state is using the violation of a federal statute to disqualify a candidate.

Hmmm you need to read this.

" 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 brought on behalf of three New Mexico residents.

Presidential elections affect all fifty states. It’s a national (federal) event is why we have national committees DNC, RNC and on occasion write ins. IMHO

Further to the above, in regards to your words above.

"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.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

 

[YDB95]

^^^ Yet again ..... one does NOT have to be convicted of anything at all to be disqualified from serving. Why can't some people get that through their heads?

Because without that, they've got nothing whatsoever.

That’s not it at all! A state is using the violation of a federal statute to disqualify a candidate. If the state is hanging their hat on a felony violation without due process then where does it end.

They're not hanging their hat on a felony violation (which isn't even a legal term - I'm guessing you mean "felony conviction"). The 14th amendment does not require a conviction, period.

 

[icanhelp1]

Because without that, they've got nothing whatsoever.



They're not hanging their hat on a felony violation (which isn't even a legal term - I'm guessing you mean "felony conviction"). The 14th amendment does not require a conviction, period.

Felony offenses ( violations ) are generally violent crimes punishable by a jail sentence of more than one year. A felony prison sentence is usually served in a federal or state prison rather than a county jail. Some felony convictions can lead to the death penalty. Types of felonies include: Murder.

The Colorado Supreme Court predicated their ruling based on a felony violation without conviction.

18 USC § 2383 / insurrection, if they use it they need to prove it. Due process is a fundamental right. Where does it state that a conviction is not required. It doesn’t state one way or the other.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Felony offenses ( violations ) are generally violent crimes punishable by a jail sentence of more than one year. A felony prison sentence is usually served in a federal or state prison rather than a county jail. Some felony convictions can lead to the death penalty. Types of felonies include: Murder.

The Colorado Supreme Court predicated their ruling based on a felony violation without conviction.

18 USC § 2383 / insurrection, if they use it they need to prove it. Due process is a fundamental right. Where does it state that a conviction is not required. It doesn’t state one way or the other.

I've searched three sites so far for the word in red. Nowhere have I found violations tied in directly or indirectly. So I'm thinking the word in brackets comes from you, not any site on the internet. You can of course prove me wrong with a link. That thing you were supposed include in your post.

 

[YDB95]

18 USC § 2383 / insurrection, if they use it they need to prove it. Due process is a fundamental right. Where does it state that a conviction is not required. It doesn’t state one way or the other.

If you really believed in the strict constructivism you always preach, then, you would agree that a felony conviction is not required because the code doesn't say it is.

 

[Chobham]

It is the courts' decision.

Which court, the Supreme Court? Back to the OP.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

A mighty big claim, and as per it’s those extolling the virtues of the constitution who are most willing to trash it and to offer their ardent support to an insurrectionist election result denier.

What a cartoon reply.

There was no insurrection. Period.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

This part of your post completely and totally illustrates how your responses are made without thought and are basically nothing more than bullshit.

There is NOTHING which says that "the mob" cannot consist of minorities or that it cannot be "the" minority. Yet somehow you seem to think that "mob" automatically equals "majority." Why? Because you actually do NOT "think."

Which is something that shows up all the time in your posts and something which is constantly pointed out to you. Yet you STILL CANNOT do anything other than post unthinking mindless bullshit.

Not bullshit. Blind hate.

Hate makes so many people stupid.

That guy rarely posts and when he does it's with an axe to grind.

 

[dkovic77]

Felony offenses ( violations ) are generally violent crimes punishable by a jail sentence of more than one year. A felony prison sentence is usually served in a federal or state prison rather than a county jail. Some felony convictions can lead to the death penalty. Types of felonies include: Murder.

The Colorado Supreme Court predicated their ruling based on a felony violation without conviction.

18 USC § 2383 / insurrection, if they use it they need to prove it. Due process is a fundamental right. Where does it state that a conviction is not required. It doesn’t state one way or the other.

So it’s not needed. Got it. Was it needed to exclud folks post civil war?

Plus, if the house removes the disqualification it be will be “okay” for your Cheeto. Let’s see the 2024 house races run on that issue. There are a ton of folks in swing districts who wouldn’t want that- they already have the abortion issue dug back up. (And look out it’s getting passed overwhelmingly…hi Ohio)