Go back to China you cocksuckin chinkrazoo » 07 Sep 2023, 3:15 am » wrote: ↑ 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
You still have a very substantial obstacle. The only people referring to the events of Jan 6 as an insurrection are whiny *** idiots like you. No organization with criminal authority (investigative or otherwise) has found an insurrection occurred. You simply wanting to call it that is not a legal basis to remove someone's Constitutional right.razoo » 07 Sep 2023, 1:24 pm » wrote: ↑ 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, 3:15 am » wrote: ↑ 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
It's really funny watching how terrified you liberal idiots are to face Trump in an open and fair election!razoo » 07 Sep 2023, 6:50 am » wrote: ↑ 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
Zeets2 » 07 Sep 2023, 5:26 pm » wrote: ↑ It's really funny watching how terrified you liberal idiots are to face Trump in an open and fair election!
Why don't you admit how panic-stricken you are, especially when you look at the corrupt, feeble, demented diaper-boy YOU think can beat him to become president!
You are far more dangerous to your own ancestry than Trump is to this species. You figure it out, I did 40 years ago. Took me 23 years to figure out how to work against reasonable doubts governing every alternate reality saving humanity at one time globally continuing 24/7 every generation gap present.razoo » 08 Sep 2023, 12:28 am » wrote: ↑ TRump and his cronies and his worshippers believe that it is okay to keep trying to steal the election by denying the the election took place, claims it was stolen out from under them, then sponsored a performance on Jan 6th that was entitled " The Fake Fascist Anti American Violent Insurrection Round-UP" which eliminated Rump from ever running for office which will impact several other really bad actors aka Fake Republicans in due time. Fake Republicans want a Fascist Dictatorship.
ALEC has designed 61 methods of voter suppression which should be prosecuted in due time.
ALEC designed the legislation calling for a Voter ID which will cost the taxpayers money aka tax increase yet is not necessary = just another form of Voter Suppression and Fake GOP BIG GOVERNMENT.
ALEC designed legislation for state governments that reduces voting opportunities and forbids water being made available to voters waiting in line.
ALEC is far more dangerous to the USA than MAGA ................
To this day Fake Republicans are still trying to steal the election which is against the law.
How dangerous did you determine you are?Nostradamus'omh » 08 Sep 2023, 5:50 am » wrote: ↑ You are far more dangerous to your own ancestry than Trump is to this species. You figure it out, I did 40 years ago.
I'm still grappling with the question if they got him now...razoo » 07 Sep 2023, 3:15 am » wrote: ↑ 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?

I am not a threat to any ancestor alive. I have already debunked the concept of tomorrow by showing how chromosomes are equal to periodic elements balancing out an ever changing universe never duplicating details again, here now.
The intellectual superiority complex reaction. Anyone that can resist your mantra doesn't say anything worthy of a response. That act lost its power of suggestion.
That can't be right, that would imply wazoo's suggestions had any power in the past... I know, you don't do nuance, but still..Nostradamus'omh » 08 Sep 2023, 7:07 am » wrote: ↑ The intellectual superiority complex reaction. Anyone that can resist your mantra doesn't say anything worthy of a response. That act lost its power of suggestion.
I think we'll find him out on a ledge somewhere when Trump wins the election.
Completely accurate isn't same result as historically right in how people behaved cradle to grave as arranged in sequence of deliver since inception of ancestral lineages increasing population proportionally left in 5 generation gaps present.Jantje_Smit » 08 Sep 2023, 7:39 am » wrote: ↑ That can't be right, that would imply wazoo's suggestions had any power in the past... I know, you don't do nuance, but still..
:rofl:
That what I mean, you may be historically right in general but in wazoo's case you're historically wrong... somewhere along the line his ancestors seriously screwed up and we have to suffer from the results...Nostradamus'omh » 08 Sep 2023, 7:57 am » wrote: ↑ Completely accurate isn't same result as historically right in how people behaved cradle to grave as arranged in sequence of deliver since inception of ancestral lineages increasing population proportionally left in 5 generation gaps present.
5 races, 5 generation gaps, 8 billion sole displacements claiming ideas surpass time adapting in space now. But they don't without corrupting every generation gap left. ending life as 16 dead great great grandparents and the social corrupting of each great great grandchild arriving.
So , doing the same thing every generation gap promising better tomorrows each rotation of the planet if people sacrifice their biological time pretending relative time logistics matter more than ancestors changing population forward now makes better tomorrows since dawn of civilization actually produce an Eternal Hell or drive each ancestor insane cradle to grave?
Stop defending reasonable doubt. I am ancestrally accurate, history is recording what people made happen every generation pretending now isn't eternity, right?Jantje_Smit » 08 Sep 2023, 8:15 am » wrote: ↑ That what I mean, you maybe historically right in general but in wazoo's case you're historically wrong... somewhere along the line his ancestors seriously screwed up and we have to suffer from the results...
:blink: