Liberal Forum

It wasn’t long after the Jan. 6 attacks that some political observers started grappling with an unprecedented question: If Donald Trump ran for a second term, would he be disqualified for the presidency under the 14th Amendment?

In fact, just six weeks after the attack on the Capitol, Rep. Jamie Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, reminded the political world that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars any public official who swore an oath to protect the Constitution from holding office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it or gave “aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The Maryland Democrat explained at the time, “Donald Trump is right in, you know, the bullseye middle of that group,” referencing how the lawmakers at the end of the Civil War intended for it to be used. “And so, he really does fulfill exactly the constitutional prohibition there.”

More than two years later, as the former president faces criminal charges related to his post-defeat efforts, the conversation about the 14th Amendment has reached a level that has apparently gotten Trump’s attention. In fact, it was nearly 24 hours ago when the Republican turned to his social media platform to do something he has largely avoided: Trump commented on the constitutional provision and pushed back against the conversation.


From the missive:There are a few angles to this that are worth keeping in mind. The first is that Trump almost certainly didn’t come up with this wording himself, at least not all of it.


While it stands to reason that the Republican would refer to constitutional provisions he doesn’t like as a “trick,” it’s also true that “no legal basis or standing relative to...” just isn’t how he normally communicates, especially via social media.

The second is that the former president’s claims are plainly wrong. The idea that “almost all legal scholars” believe the constitutional provision is unrelated to his candidacy is contradicted by all kinds of prominent legal voices who’ve made the opposite case.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho ... rcna103481
 

Any republican elected official or appointed official could be dealt a blow with the 14th Amendment Article 3............ stand by

razoo » 07 Sep 2023, 3:15 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 3:15 am

It wasn’t long after the Jan. 6 attacks that some political observers started grappling with an unprecedented question: If Donald Trump ran for a second term, would he be disqualified for the presidency under the 14th Amendment?

In fact, just six weeks after the attack on the Capitol, Rep. Jamie Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, reminded the political world that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars any public official who swore an oath to protect the Constitution from holding office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it or gave “aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The Maryland Democrat explained at the time, “Donald Trump is right in, you know, the bullseye middle of that group,” referencing how the lawmakers at the end of the Civil War intended for it to be used. “And so, he really does fulfill exactly the constitutional prohibition there.”

More than two years later, as the former president faces criminal charges related to his post-defeat efforts, the conversation about the 14th Amendment has reached a level that has apparently gotten Trump’s attention. In fact, it was nearly 24 hours ago when the Republican turned to his social media platform to do something he has largely avoided: Trump commented on the constitutional provision and pushed back against the conversation.

From the missive:There are a few angles to this that are worth keeping in mind. The first is that Trump almost certainly didn’t come up with this wording himself, at least not all of it.

While it stands to reason that the Republican would refer to constitutional provisions he doesn’t like as a “trick,” it’s also true that “no legal basis or standing relative to...” just isn’t how he normally communicates, especially via social media.

The second is that the former president’s claims are plainly wrong. The idea that “almost all legal scholars” believe the constitutional provision is unrelated to his candidacy is contradicted by all kinds of prominent legal voices who’ve made the opposite case.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho ... rcna103481

Guess Trump fell out of bed and hit his egotistical head. Reality = "I cannot run for president .......oh **** I'm in deep trouble. Wish I would have done some homework."     LOL

Goodbye MTG, Boebert, Jordan, Matt the child rapist plus about 51 more.

This is how tRump cleans the swamp.

razoo » 07 Sep 2023, 3:15 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 3:15 am

It wasn’t long after the Jan. 6 attacks that some political observers started grappling with an unprecedented question: If Donald Trump ran for a second term, would he be disqualified for the presidency under the 14th Amendment?

In fact, just six weeks after the attack on the Capitol, Rep. Jamie Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, reminded the political world that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars any public official who swore an oath to protect the Constitution from holding office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it or gave “aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The Maryland Democrat explained at the time, “Donald Trump is right in, you know, the bullseye middle of that group,” referencing how the lawmakers at the end of the Civil War intended for it to be used. “And so, he really does fulfill exactly the constitutional prohibition there.”

More than two years later, as the former president faces criminal charges related to his post-defeat efforts, the conversation about the 14th Amendment has reached a level that has apparently gotten Trump’s attention. In fact, it was nearly 24 hours ago when the Republican turned to his social media platform to do something he has largely avoided: Trump commented on the constitutional provision and pushed back against the conversation.

From the missive:There are a few angles to this that are worth keeping in mind. The first is that Trump almost certainly didn’t come up with this wording himself, at least not all of it.

While it stands to reason that the Republican would refer to constitutional provisions he doesn’t like as a “trick,” it’s also true that “no legal basis or standing relative to...” just isn’t how he normally communicates, especially via social media.

The second is that the former president’s claims are plainly wrong. The idea that “almost all legal scholars” believe the constitutional provision is unrelated to his candidacy is contradicted by all kinds of prominent legal voices who’ve made the opposite case.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho ... rcna103481

Trump grabs them by the ****** and you grab Trump by the balls?....well then,  "You got him now!'...Don't you?

Federal Judge Dismisses 14th Amendment Lawsuit Attempting to Keep Trump off Ballot

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023 ... ff-ballot/

razoo » 07 Sep 2023, 3:21 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 3:21 am

Any republican elected official or appointed official could be dealt a blow with the 14th Amendment Article 3............ stand by

That prohibits Biden since he clearly gave aid and comfort to the enemy when he left enough armament for ISIS to destroy the world. You sure you want to go down that road, bozo?

razoo » 07 Sep 2023, 3:21 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 3:21 am

Any republican elected official or appointed official could be dealt a blow with the 14th Amendment Article 3............ stand by

power of suggestion only masks how evolving works for each occupying space here. People of character mind social consensus repeated every generation gap, ancestors just adapt to space for the time they get adapting forward one of a kind.

Difference between civil soles and corrupted souls.

They say Trump can't win....so why all this trying to keep him off the ballot? They should want him to run if they are so certain they can beat him

A judge cannot simply dismiss a constitutional amendment .....

It wasn’t long after the Jan. 6 attacks that some political observers started grappling with an unprecedented question: If Donald Trump ran for a second term, would he be disqualified for the presidency under the 14th Amendment?

In fact, just six weeks after the attack on the Capitol, Rep. Jamie Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, reminded the political world that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars any public official who swore an oath to protect the Constitution from holding office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it or gave “aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The Maryland Democrat explained at the time, “Donald Trump is right in, you know, the bullseye middle of that group,” referencing how the lawmakers at the end of the Civil War intended for it to be used. “And so, he really does fulfill exactly the constitutional prohibition there.”

More than two years later, as the former president faces criminal charges related to his post-defeat efforts, the conversation about the 14th Amendment has reached a level that has apparently gotten Trump’s attention. In fact, it was nearly 24 hours ago when the Republican turned to his social media platform to do something he has largely avoided: Trump commented on the constitutional provision and pushed back against the conversation.


From the missive:There are a few angles to this that are worth keeping in mind. The first is that Trump almost certainly didn’t come up with this wording himself, at least not all of it.


While it stands to reason that the Republican would refer to constitutional provisions he doesn’t like as a “trick,” it’s also true that “no legal basis or standing relative to...” just isn’t how he normally communicates, especially via social media.

The second is that the former president’s claims are plainly wrong. The idea that “almost all legal scholars” believe the constitutional provision is unrelated to his candidacy is contradicted by all kinds of prominent legal voices who’ve made the opposite case.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho ... rcna103481

Trump the anti American leading the insurrection cannot run for president it is that simple. Others will become
more familiar with as we move forward as they become ineligible to run for any government office.

razoo » 07 Sep 2023, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 11:03 am

A judge cannot simply dismiss a constitutional amendment .....

It wasn’t long after the Jan. 6 attacks that some political observers started grappling with an unprecedented question: If Donald Trump ran for a second term, would he be disqualified for the presidency under the 14th Amendment?

In fact, just six weeks after the attack on the Capitol, Rep. Jamie Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, reminded the political world that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars any public official who swore an oath to protect the Constitution from holding office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it or gave “aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The Maryland Democrat explained at the time, “Donald Trump is right in, you know, the bullseye middle of that group,” referencing how the lawmakers at the end of the Civil War intended for it to be used. “And so, he really does fulfill exactly the constitutional prohibition there.”

More than two years later, as the former president faces criminal charges related to his post-defeat efforts, the conversation about the 14th Amendment has reached a level that has apparently gotten Trump’s attention. In fact, it was nearly 24 hours ago when the Republican turned to his social media platform to do something he has largely avoided: Trump commented on the constitutional provision and pushed back against the conversation.


From the missive:There are a few angles to this that are worth keeping in mind. The first is that Trump almost certainly didn’t come up with this wording himself, at least not all of it.


While it stands to reason that the Republican would refer to constitutional provisions he doesn’t like as a “trick,” it’s also true that “no legal basis or standing relative to...” just isn’t how he normally communicates, especially via social media.

The second is that the former president’s claims are plainly wrong. The idea that “almost all legal scholars” believe the constitutional provision is unrelated to his candidacy is contradicted by all kinds of prominent legal voices who’ve made the opposite case.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho ... rcna103481

Your rational mind doesn't use more than 10% of your brain navigating time living in series parallel space evolving as a equally timed apart reproduction of a specific ancestry ignoring now has always been a point of eternal balancing done when ancestrally alive.

Why do you insist everyone else do it also?

razoo » 07 Sep 2023, 3:15 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 3:15 am

The Jan. 6 attacks.........!!!!!!!
 

 

In the real world, Trump continues to run for President and is holding another Trump rally Friday night ...

Conservatives are operating under the understanding that the system is mostly in tact. That Trump will be given a valid shot in the national election. Removing him from state ballots will show them this isn't true, that we are no longer a people ruled by democracy installed by the vote of the governed. May not want to go down that road.

All this 14th Amendment crap is proof the dim-0-craps do not believe in free and fair elections and know that they cannot beat Trump in a free and fair election.

Remember piglosi's words, "They will do "whatever it takes" to see that he is not re-elected." THAT says it all!!!

razoo » 07 Sep 2023, 11:06 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 11:06 am

Trump the anti American leading the insurrection cannot run for president it is that simple. Others will become
more familiar with as we move forward as they become ineligible to run for any government office.

Stating things, doesn't make them true - not even when Democrats do it. If you're going to state that Trump led an insurrection, you're going to have to unpack that in a legal sense - which leads to:

1) Demonstrate an insurrection/attempted insurrection took place. If you can't do this, you can't possibly demonstrate anyone led it or took part in it. That's going to have a number of stumbling blocks since the only people who have stated one did take place, are pig-ignorant about such matters and have enormous political bias and/or TDS. However, one agency that probably has a lot greater authority to judge this, has said an insurrection didn't take place. The FBI.. not an agency that's exactly well known for being partial to Donald Trump, but they stated it nonetheless.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... -january-6

2) Assuming you can show an insurrection took place (pro-tip, it wasn't an insurrection and so even in the **** up lop-sided legal system the US has at the moment, I'm pretty certain the attempt will fail), you'd then have to demonstrate Trump knowingly played an active role in it and/or led it. Very, very unlikely you will achieve that as it would require a standard of evidence you simply don't have. If the FBI doesn't have it, then neither does Rachel Madcow

3) He was technically still president at the time, which introduces a number of nut-spankingly obvious complications

Until both 1 and 2 are satisfied (however long that takes, including potential appeals etc) - forget it - you can't even test the applicability of that amendment to someone who was technically still president. You can't just call someone an insurrectionist and expect the legal system to jump to attention and destroy their lives based purely on your whimsical beliefs - even if (and I want to make this absolutely clear) even if the defendant's second name happens to be Trump

 
 

razoo » 07 Sep 2023, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 11:03 am

A judge cannot simply dismiss a constitutional amendment .....



https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho ... rcna103481
 

There has to be a ruling from a court on eligibility.  Rachel Madcow cannot simply declare someone ineligible because he doesn't like them.

What you don't seem to understand is there is no organization, with criminal investigative authority, that has determine the events of Jan 6 to be an insurrection.  That is why every whiny *** attempt to invoke that part of the 14th has failed.
 

While it stands to reason that the Republican would refer to constitutional provisions he doesn’t like as a “trick,” it’s also true that “no legal basis or standing relative to...” just isn’t how he normally communicates, especially via social media.

The fact is that the former president’s claims are plainly wrong. The idea that “almost all legal scholars” believe the constitutional provision is unrelated to his candidacy is contradicted by all kinds of prominent legal voices who’ve made the opposite case.

His big mouth and his presence at Jan 6th incriminated Rump and all of those who will testify against him
will nail his ***. Plenty are sitting behind bars because the big screen revealed all committing insurrection, attempted murder, destruction of taxpayer property etc etc etc etc etc ....................... Ego and Arrogance 
did them in .............

A judge cannot simply dismiss the 14th Amendment Article 3 ..............

Many will rat out the Rump ............. before he rats them out!!!!!!
 

razoo » 07 Sep 2023, 1:24 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2023, 1:24 pm

While it stands to reason that the Republican would refer to constitutional provisions he doesn’t like as a “trick,” it’s also true that “no legal basis or standing relative to...” just isn’t how he normally communicates, especially via social media.

The fact is that the former president’s claims are plainly wrong. The idea that “almost all legal scholars” believe the constitutional provision is unrelated to his candidacy is contradicted by all kinds of prominent legal voices who’ve made the opposite case.

His big mouth and his presence at Jan 6th incriminated Rump and all of those who will testify against him
will nail his ***. Plenty are sitting behind bars because the big screen revealed all committing insurrection, attempted murder, destruction of taxpayer property etc etc etc etc etc ....................... Ego and Arrogance 
did them in .............

A judge cannot simply dismiss the 14th Amendment Article 3 ..............

Many will rat out the Rump ............. before he rats them out!!!!!!

Pure conjecture and ****!!!