Liberal Forum

maineman » 11 Sep 2023, 11:17 am » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 11:17 am

I think his belief is exactly that, that the president is not an "OFFICER of the United States".  And he would not be alone in that interpretation.  I am sure he read an article such as this to get that spin:

https://www.nyujll.com/home/blog-post-f ... ld%20issue.

which says, in part:  "We disagree. There is some good reason to think the President is not an “officer of the United States.”

However, my question was not about whether he was considered an "officer" of the United States, but rather was the Office of the President considered to be a civil office under the United States.  You seem to feel that it is.  SO do I.
 

So...those are you OPINIONS.  You have no proof he actually said those things.

Got it.
 

ConsRule » 11 Sep 2023, 10:41 am » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 10:41 am

I have never said it wouldn't apply to Trump.  However, just because a bunch of liberals in Op-Eds say he's not eligible, doesn't mean he's not eligible.  There has not been a single entity, with criminal investigative authority, to look into the events of Jan 6 and call it an insurrection.  There have been a grand total of ZERO people charged with insurrection related to Jan 6.  You cannot take away a Constitutional right just because you don't like someone and are scared he will win an election.

and you will note that the 14th does not require a criminal conviction nor does it even require that the person being disqualified from holding office actually engaged in insurrection or rebellion.   All that is needed is a determination that a person gave aid or comfort to those who rebelled against the CONSTITUTION.

I would imagine it will be tough to say that those members of Proud Boys who plotted to break into the capitol and stop the Constitutional transfer of power were not comforted, at the very least, if not aided, by the words and actions of Donald Trump in the days leading up to J6.  

Again... this isn't a criminal issue at all.   14A says that if you rebel against the Constitution or aid and comfort those who do, you disqualify yourself from holding office.

ConsRule » 11 Sep 2023, 11:17 am » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 11:17 am

I know for a fact it wasn't.  There was never going to be a transfer of power on January 6.  Trump was going to be President that day, regardless of what happened inside the Capital  That day, someone was going to be declared the winner of the Presidential election.  Until Congress finished their work that day, nobody had been elected President for the term beginning at noon on January 20, 2021.  Just because idiot liberals, and their lackies in the media, say differently doesn't make it true.

January 6th had to happen in order for there to BE a peaceful transfer of power 15 days later.

The insurrectionists rebelled against that event happening.  The fact that they were ultimately unsuccessful does not make their rebellion against the Constitution on that day vanish.

ConsRule » 11 Sep 2023, 11:21 am » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 11:21 am

So...those are you OPINIONS.  You have no proof he actually said those things.

Got it.

you should ask him if it's really all that important to you.  

maineman » 11 Sep 2023, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 11:25 am

and you will note that the 14th does not require a criminal conviction nor does it even require that the person being disqualified from holding office actually engaged in insurrection or rebellion.   All that is needed is a determination that a person gave aid or comfort to those who rebelled against the CONSTITUTION.

I would imagine it will be tough to say that those members of Proud Boys who plotted to break into the capitol and stop the Constitutional transfer of power were not comforted, at the very least, if not aided, by the words and actions of Donald Trump in the days leading up to J6.  

Again... this isn't a criminal issue at all.   14A says that if you rebel against the Constitution or aid and comfort those who do, you disqualify yourself from holding office.

Someone with legal standing has to make that determination.  And don't forget Section 1 of that amendment:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Rest assured, running for President is a privilege.  Therefore, due process must be followed to abridge that privilege.

maineman » 11 Sep 2023, 11:28 am » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 11:28 am

January 6th had to happen in order for there to BE a peaceful transfer of power 15 days later.

The insurrectionists rebelled against that event happening.  The fact that they were ultimately unsuccessful does not make their rebellion against the Constitution on that day vanish.

Nobody has been charged with insurrection...you calling them insurrectionist doesn't make it so.

 

ConsRule » 11 Sep 2023, 11:32 am » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 11:32 am

Someone with legal standing has to make that determination.  And don't forget Section 1 of that amendment:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Rest assured, running for President is a privilege.  Therefore, due process must be followed to abridge that privilege.

Driving a car is also a privilege.  Yet there are specific qualifications required to get a license.

Running for president is much the same.  the Constitution says you gotta be natural born, be at least 35, and have been a resident for 14 years.  The 14th Amendment to the Constitution adds the additional qualification of never having rebelled against the Constitution or aided and comforted those who did. 

ConsRule » 11 Sep 2023, 11:33 am » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 11:33 am

Nobody has been charged with insurrection...you calling them insurrectionist doesn't make it so.

the 14th also uses the word rebellion.  

maineman » 11 Sep 2023, 11:38 am » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 11:38 am

Driving a car is also a privilege.  Yet there are specific qualifications required to get a license.

Running for president is much the same.  the Constitution says you gotta be natural born, be at least 35, and have been a resident for 14 years.  The 14th Amendment to the Constitution adds the additional qualification of never having rebelled against the Constitution or aided and comforted those who did.
 

Driving a car is not a Constitutionally protected privilege...running for President is.

No..IT DOES NOT.  It states the grounds for which someone can be declared ineligible...there is a difference.  It also states that a privilege cannot be taken from a citizen without due process.

maineman » 11 Sep 2023, 11:39 am » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 11:39 am

the 14th also uses the word rebellion.

And it uses the words "due process".
 
 

ConsRule » 11 Sep 2023, 11:42 am » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 11:42 am

And it uses the words "due process".

not in Section 3.  The only place were due process is mentioned is in an admonition to the states in Section 3:  nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.


Section 3, which talks about what behavior is disqualifying for office does not mention it.

ConsRule » 11 Sep 2023, 11:42 am » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 11:42 am

Driving a car is not a Constitutionally protected privilege...running for President is.

No..IT DOES NOT.  It states the grounds for which someone can be declared ineligible...there is a difference.  It also states that a privilege cannot be taken from a citizen without due process.

"privilege" and "due process" are not mentioned together - nor connected in any way - in the 14th.  Sorry.

maineman » 11 Sep 2023, 3:18 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 3:18 pm

not in Section 3.  The only place were due process is mentioned is in an admonition to the states in Section 3:  nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Section 3, which talks about what behavior is disqualifying for office does not mention it.

I understand you, like virtually every liberal, have a problem understanding context and applying logical thinking.  You cannot pick and choose what parts of the US Constitution you want to use. 

A link to the ENTIRE text of the 14th: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

The pertinent sections:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

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.

The whiny *** liberal move to keep Trump off the ballot using the 14th is a STATE BY STATE effort...because there is no such thing as a federal election...Section 1 becomes the most critical section.  Notice the part in red...a state cannot abridge the privileges of a citizen without due process...period...full stop.  It's in the Constitution and is routinely referred to as "the due process clause".  Therefore, for a STATE to deny a citizen the privilege of being a candidate for President, they must follow due process.

Since liberals also have a problem understanding the definition of words...privilege is defined as "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group."  In the case of President, the particular group is those natural born citizens born of the US who are at least 35 years of age and have lived in the US for at least 14 years.
 
 
 

ConsRule » 11 Sep 2023, 3:48 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 3:48 pm

I understand you, like virtually every liberal, have a problem understanding context and applying logical thinking.  You cannot pick and choose what parts of the US Constitution you want to use. 

A link to the ENTIRE text of the 14th: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

The pertinent sections:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

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.

The whiny *** liberal move to keep Trump off the ballot using the 14th is a STATE BY STATE effort...because there is no such thing as a federal election...Section 1 becomes the most critical section.  Notice the part in red...a state cannot abridge the privileges of a citizen without due process...period...full stop.  It's in the Constitution and is routinely referred to as "the due process clause".  Therefore, for a STATE to deny a citizen the privilege of being a candidate for President, they must follow due process.

Since liberals also have a problem understanding the definition of words...privilege is defined as "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group."  In the case of President, the particular group is those natural born citizens born of the US who are at least 35 years of age and have lived in the US for at least 14 years.

Just because you wish that Section 1 is pertinent does not make it so.

Section 1 deals with LAWS that states may or may not make or enforce.  A state would not have to make or enforce any law in order to determine that an individual did not meet the qualifications listed in Section 3 of the 14th for any public office.  

The wording of the 14th has been around for a long time.  It ought not to come as a surprise to anyone that, if they gave aid and comfort to someone who rebelled against the Constitution, they would no longer qualify to hold public office.  Why would I or you or anyone WANT someone who either rebelled against the Constitution or aided or gave comfort to those who did ever hold public office again???

 

maineman » 11 Sep 2023, 4:22 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 4:22 pm

Just because you wish that Section 1 is pertinent does not make it so.

Section 1 deals with LAWS that states may or may not make or enforce.  A state would not have to make or enforce any law in order to determine that an individual did not meet the qualifications listed in Section 3 of the 14th for any public office.  

The wording of the 14th has been around for a long time.  It ought not to come as a surprise to anyone that, if they gave aid and comfort to someone who rebelled against the Constitution, they would no longer qualify to hold public office.  Why would I or you or anyone WANT someone who either rebelled against the Constitution or aided or gave comfort to those who did ever hold public office again???

That is NOT what Section 1 says.  You did not read everything I had highlighted.

Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A state simply cannot deny a privilege of that kind just because they don't like someone.  Even if we assume your kindergarten level logic correct, you should also focus on the part that I have highlighted above.  Every citizen, who meets the three Constitutional requirements for President, has the "liberty" of running for President.  Since I know you are too lazy to look it up (and probably don't know how to do it), liberty is defined as"the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."  Can there be a more applicable definition of a word?
 
 
 

ConsRule » 11 Sep 2023, 4:36 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 4:36 pm

That is NOT what Section 1 says.  You did not read everything I had highlighted.

Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A state simply cannot deny a privilege of that kind just because they don't like someone.  Even if we assume your kindergarten level logic correct, you should also focus on the part that I have highlighted above.  Every citizen, who meets the three Constitutional requirements for President, has the "liberty" of running for President.  Since I know you are too lazy to look it up (and probably don't know how to do it), liberty is defined as"the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."  Can there be a more applicable definition of a word?

Last I checked, being qualified to run for public office was neither life, liberty nor property.  Donald Trump is free to hold whatever views he might want to hold.  The Constitution simply does not guarantee him the right to run for public office if he has rebelled against the Constitution or provided aid or comfort to those who did... and he clearly did exactly that in the months, days, and hours before the capitol was broken into by a mob rebelling against the Constitutional declaration of the next president.

maineman » 11 Sep 2023, 4:55 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 4:55 pm

Last I checked, being qualified to run for public office was neither life, liberty nor property.  Donald Trump is free to hold whatever views he might want to hold.  The Constitution simply does not guarantee him the right to run for public office if he has rebelled against the Constitution or provided aid or comfort to those who did... and he clearly did exactly that in the months, days, and hours before the capitol was broken into by a mob rebelling against the Constitutional declaration of the next president.
 

It most certainly does.  Anyone who meets the Constitutional requirements has the right to run for President.


 

ConsRule » 11 Sep 2023, 5:09 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 5:09 pm

It most certainly does.  Anyone who meets the Constitutional requirements has the right to run for President.

The 14th adds an additional qualification.

RebelGator » 11 Sep 2023, 5:49 am » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 5:49 am

Razoo has the diarrhea again.

one of his many aids symptoms

razoo » 11 Sep 2023, 4:24 am » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 4:24 am

14th Amendment Article 3 can work, should work and will work as a self executing part of the Constitution

you self executed yourself with aids