Liberal Forum

Skans » 20 Dec 2023, 5:21 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 5:21 pm

No.  You state whatever it is you want to say, and if I think its thought out well enough for me to respond, I will.  If its a troll post, I'll ignore it.

I've already done that..

R.Suave » 20 Dec 2023, 5:31 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 5:31 pm

and numerous NAMED jurists who say otherwise..

That's why SCOTUS will probably take the case.  There are some predicting a 9-0 ruling for Trump...we'll see.  I didn't read the entire paper, but found this interesting in the link below:

This article will proceed in six parts. Part I will contend that the phrases “officer of the United States” and “office . . . under the United States” in Section 3 refer to different categories of positions. Part II will analyze the phrase “officer of the United States,” which is used in the Constitution of 1788 and in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. Part III will show that the meaning of the phrase “officer of the United States” did not drift from 1788 through 1868. There is substantial evidence from both eras that the President was not considered an “officer of the United States.” Part IV will recount longstanding Executive Branch opinions, which affirmed that elected officials like the President are not “officers of the United States.” Part V will respond to recent academic arguments suggesting that the President is an “officer of the United States” for purposes of Section 3. Finally, part VI will chart how the courts, and not Congress, will likely have the final say about whether President Trump is subject to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3978095

 
 

Here you go you little ****** Bitch..this is much more like what an insurrection would look like if you wanted to overthrow a government in Ragheadistan but still not nearly enough to overthrow the US Government.
There really is no scenario imaginable that could overthrow the US Government short of a complete annihilation  of everything and everybody in the chain of command..and this includes NORAD.
Get a **** clue you brainwashed POS.
 

ConsRule » 20 Dec 2023, 5:30 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 5:30 pm

See the post I just made.  Some constitutional scholars disagree with that assessment and cite Article !!, Section 2.

so????

they are wrong.

ConsRule » 20 Dec 2023, 5:41 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 5:41 pm

That's why SCOTUS will probably take the case.  There are some predicting a 9-0 ruling for Trump...we'll see.  I didn't read the entire paper, but found this interesting in the link below:

This article will proceed in six parts. Part I will contend that the phrases “officer of the United States” and “office . . . under the United States” in Section 3 refer to different categories of positions. Part II will analyze the phrase “officer of the United States,” which is used in the Constitution of 1788 and in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. Part III will show that the meaning of the phrase “officer of the United States” did not drift from 1788 through 1868. There is substantial evidence from both eras that the President was not considered an “officer of the United States.” Part IV will recount longstanding Executive Branch opinions, which affirmed that elected officials like the President are not “officers of the United States.” Part V will respond to recent academic arguments suggesting that the President is an “officer of the United States” for purposes of Section 3. Finally, part VI will chart how the courts, and not Congress, will likely have the final say about whether President Trump is subject to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3978095

I really think you should read about the paper from the Federalists...

And Calabresi's response...

GHETTOBLASTER » 20 Dec 2023, 5:42 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 5:42 pm

Here you go you little ****** Bitch..this is much more like what an insurrection would look like if you wanted to overthrow a government in Ragheadistan but still not nearly enough to overthrow the US Government.
There really is no scenario imaginable that could overthrow the US Government short of a complete annihilation  of everything and everybody in the chain of command..and this includes NORAD.
Get a **** clue you brainwashed POS.

Go tell prosecutors and judges, ****.

R.Suave » 20 Dec 2023, 5:30 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 5:30 pm

Of what conceivable relevance is that when ransacking the Capitol?

So now LITTLE MSM BRAINWASHED ****** BITCH has been forced by enough sensible reason and by enough ridicule to drop the totally ridiculous  "insurrection narrative"...!!!


 

  

R.Suave » 20 Dec 2023, 5:47 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 5:47 pm

Go tell prosecutors and judges, ****.

WHY...?
THEY'RE A BUNCH OF EASILY TERRIFIED  LITTLE ****** BITCHES JUST LIKE YOU...!!!
I'LL BET HALF OF THEM ARE FEMALE ****** BITCHES WHO SPENT THEIR ENTIRE CHILDHOODS PLAYING WITH DOLLS JUST LIKE YOU...!!!

GHETTOBLASTER » 20 Dec 2023, 5:57 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 5:57 pm

WHY...?
THEY'RE A BUNCH OF EASILY TERRIFIED  LITTLE ****** BITCHES JUST LIKE YOU...!!!

How many firearms do you need to make you feel like a man?

R.Suave » 20 Dec 2023, 6:01 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 6:01 pm

How many firearms do you need to make you feel like a man?

ZERO.
NEXT CASE MY LITTLE ****** BITCH...!!!      .
 
NOW.
How many loaded firearms  would it take for  you to work up enough courage for you to  defend yourself during an armed attack...?

ANSWER...There is no amount possible. You would stand there gripped with fear while your trembling little weenie arms dangle helplessly at your sides. 
 

ConsRule » 20 Dec 2023, 5:30 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 5:30 pm

See the post I just made.  Some constitutional scholars disagree with that assessment and cite Article !!, Section 2.

------------------------------------------------------

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

ConsRule » 20 Dec 2023, 5:41 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 5:41 pm

That's why SCOTUS will probably take the case.  There are some predicting a 9-0 ruling for Trump...we'll see.  I didn't read the entire paper, but found this interesting in the link below:

This article will proceed in six parts. Part I will contend that the phrases “officer of the United States” and “office . . . under the United States” in Section 3 refer to different categories of positions. Part II will analyze the phrase “officer of the United States,” which is used in the Constitution of 1788 and in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. Part III will show that the meaning of the phrase “officer of the United States” did not drift from 1788 through 1868. There is substantial evidence from both eras that the President was not considered an “officer of the United States.” Part IV will recount longstanding Executive Branch opinions, which affirmed that elected officials like the President are not “officers of the United States.” Part V will respond to recent academic arguments suggesting that the President is an “officer of the United States” for purposes of Section 3. Finally, part VI will chart how the courts, and not Congress, will likely have the final say about whether President Trump is subject to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3978095

-------------------------------------

What is the presidential oath of office?The vice-president-elect is sworn in first, and repeats the same oath of office, in use since 1884, as senators, representatives, and other federal employees:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Around noon, the president-elect recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

jerrab » 20 Dec 2023, 6:13 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 6:13 pm

------------------------------------------------------

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

An "office" and an "officer" are not the same. That is their point.

Skans » 20 Dec 2023, 1:40 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 1:40 pm

Are you ready for this, boys and girls.  I just read the Colorado Supreme Court case.  I'm going to re-print here the entire basis for that court claiming Trump lead an "insurrection".

"President Trump held a rally that morning at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. at which  he, along with several others, spoke to the  attendees.  In his speech, which began  around noon, President Trump  persisted in rejecting the election results, telling his supporters that “[w]e won in a landslide” and “we will never concede.” He urged his supporters to “confront this egregious assault on our democracy”; “walk down to the Capitol. . . [and] show strength”; and that if they did not  “fight like hell, [they would] not. . . have a country anymore.” Before his speech ended, portions of the crowd began moving toward the Capitol."

That's it.  That's all the Colorado Supreme court has to justify its bogus claim that Trump conducted an insurrection.  Sometimes you just have to read the source document for yourself to see just how bogus the claim being made really is.  

They aren't alone...

A number of judges have concluded the same thing based on the evidence presented.

You dutifully averted your eyes from the Jan 6th hearings, are completely ignorant of the facts of the case while insisting that Grifty is getting the Shaft.
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 20 Dec 2023, 6:04 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 6:04 pm

ZERO.
NEXT CASE MY LITTLE ****** BITCH...!!!      .
 
NOW.
How many loaded firearms  would it take for  you to work up enough courage for you to  defend yourself during an armed attack...?

ANSWER...There is no amount possible. You would stand there gripped with fear while your trembling little weenie arms dangle helplessly at your sides.

I want to see the light go out of their eyes, hear them whimper for their mother....

GHETTOBLASTER » 20 Dec 2023, 5:21 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 5:21 pm

No doubt an effeminately raised and helpless  little ****** bitch like you has no concept of what "Self Defense" is.

No doubt an easily terrified little ****** Bitch like you would be easy to convince that the following list of weapons was capable of overthrowing the US Government

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... ters-carry

Great article...summer of 2020 comes to mind...
 

Skans » 20 Dec 2023, 5:31 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 5:31 pm

I agree that the US Supreme court has already ruled that elected officials are not "officers" within the meaning of Article 3.  However, even more fundamental than that is that Trump has never been charged with insurrection and certainly not convicted of it.  Not only that, his mere statements expressing disappointment at the election process falls far far short of any actual insurrection.

One example of a genuine insurrection in American History was Shays Rebellion of 1786.  Farmers who could not pay their taxes were losing their property to foreclosures. A group of citizens organized protest gatherings across the state.  Daniel Shays led armed rebels and massed at county courts to stop them from processing the seizures of farms. Protestors calling themselves the “Regulators” stormed the courthouse at Northampton to prevent it from convening. Job Shattuck, a farmer from Groton, led an armed confrontation with tax collectors to prevent them from foreclosing on neighbors. In Uxbridge, a mob  seized confiscated property and returned it to the former owners.

That has Jews written all over it...  
 

ROG62 » 21 Dec 2023, 9:04 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 9:04 am

That has Jews written all over it...

Shey - must be one of those red-headed Irish Jews.
 

Skans » 21 Dec 2023, 9:14 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 9:14 am

Shey - must be one of those red-headed Irish Jews.

  Quite the combo...

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 8:15 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 8:15 am

I want to see the light go out of their eyes, hear them whimper for their mother....

This is because you want to live in as society where only the members of the Globalist Party are allowed to protest the out come of elections, or protest when a fellow member of the Democrat Party's Monkey Militia is killed by a cop,  etc.
No doubt the visual image of Viking Horns Guy [out of work actor Jack Angeli] letting out that "War Whoop" has traumatized you to the point where by now you just want to see him dead.