Liberal Forum

Huey » 29 Dec 2023, 10:07 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 10:07 am

You lied about the majority.  And I corrected my error on my own.  Wanna see?

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 10:25 am

You only heard about it.

Then you were promised that it would be contradicted under oath.

Do you recall what happened next?

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 10:35 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 10:35 am

Mistake/assumption....

Many are the stands...

And you "corrected it on your own"?

Coincident with my pointing out your lie, of course.

What a piece of **** you are.

ConsRule » 29 Dec 2023, 10:34 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 10:34 am

I have heard several;

Does double jeopardy apply? Article I, Section 3 states (in part); "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend 

Must someone be charged, tried and convicted before they can be disqualified?  Section 5 of the 14th Amendment states: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by 

Does a state court have the authority to disqualify someone?  Article III, Section 2 states (in part): " In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."  Their contention is that since the Constitution give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction (because a state is clearly a party), they are the ones that must make the determination.

Is the President an "officer of the United States"?  Article II, Section 2 (Presidential Power) states: "... and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,..." Their position is that "officers of the United States" are appointed, not elected. They feel the use of the term "appoint", a partial list of specific officers, and the phrase "and all other officers" make it clear the President is not an officer. They support that position further that pointing out nowhere in the Constitution is the President referred to as "Chief Executive".  Article II, Section 1 only states; "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

There may be others, but these are the issues I have heard.

Does double jeopardy apply?

Must "due process" be followed? Since a freedom/right is being taken,

Must someone be charged, tried and convicted before they can be disqualified?

Does a state court have the authority to disqualify someone?

Huey » 29 Dec 2023, 10:43 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 10:43 am

I have proven it. Now, as far as the thread, Trump is on both ballots at the moment pending appeals and the USSC.  Really nothing else to discuss.

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 10:46 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 10:46 am

By NOT posting your lie.

RedheadedStranger » 29 Dec 2023, 10:39 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 10:39 am

What happened next?

Hugs and kisses all around if I remember right...


 

Huey » 29 Dec 2023, 10:47 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 10:47 am

I bumped the thread for you.  Have at it, Lil Napoleon,

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 10:45 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 10:45 am

No links, of course..

I really want to know who bleated this...but I doubt you'll tell me.

it isn't...

The Due Process question will involve whether or not the route this issue took to the Colorado Supreme Court met an unarticulated constitutional standard.

I don't know where you went for this ****. One SUES to challenge...a successful challenge meets a standard of evidence for CIVIL matters. 

You gotta post the source for this ****.

ConsRule » 29 Dec 2023, 10:50 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 10:50 am

I posted what I heard and/or read over the last few months.  I am not about to attempt to find links to all of them.  Believe whatever the **** you choose to believe.

I will point out one thing...since Congress has codified insurrection in the US Criminal Cost, finding someone participated in an insurrection would require a criminal case, not a civil proceeded.

Oh...by they way...your agreement with any of those issues is not required and completely irrelevant.  It matters what the courts decide...and the case(s) are far from over.

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 10:54 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 10:54 am

You want to talk about "double jeopardy"?

An Impeachment is not a judicial proceeding. It is the very excuse Moscow Mitch offered for his fecklessness. Not only does Moscow Mitch know Senate procedure, he's also a lawyer.

So, why don't you try to recall ONE name..

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 10:48 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 10:48 am

I really can't blame you all for sublimating it.

But you might want to reconsider leading with that.

Someone might ask you to relate what, exactly, she said.

RedheadedStranger » 29 Dec 2023, 11:11 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 11:11 am

She said she heard Orange Man Bad... and it got Lizzy all wet.

You too apparently.

ConsRule » 29 Dec 2023, 11:11 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 11:11 am

I agree with you on the double jeopardy issue...personally.  I am of the opinion the authors of the Constitution intended impeachment to be outside the criminal arena. However, it is odd the Constitution doesn't clearly address both possible outcomes in a Senate trial and there is no harm in SCOTUS deciding the matter once and for all.

I'm not going to try to recall any name or find a link because I heard some on various show segments and read about some ever since the idea of disqualifying Trump started getting tossed around.  I will never remember which networks or article were involved.  Frankly, I have better things to do at the moment.  As I said, believe what you choose to believe.  However, in my opinion, a more adult thing to do is discuss the merits of each of the issues that were offered.

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 11:21 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 11:21 am

Please stop lying....you're so artless.

Your menu of sources isn't that large, and none therein are dedicated to the Law.

You recalled what was said in such detail, I struggle to believe that you can't place a single face..

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 10:31 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 10:31 am

That's why you won't tell me what you challenge.

GHETTOBLASTER » 29 Dec 2023, 8:20 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 8:20 am

Yes...now try to visualize unarmed MAGA trying to drag Pence all the way across the capitol campus past 100s of well armed Capitol Cops to where the "Hang Man's" pick up truck with the Home Depot Gallows was parked.
No sane person would  give that scenario a 1% chance of ever coming true.
 Only effeminately raised ****** Bitches with zero street smarts  like maineman and Black Vegetable would.     

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 7:26 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 7:26 am

States are availing themselves of their rights.

MAGAts want them federalized.

Until next time.

MAGAts be dumbasses.

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

ROG62 » 29 Dec 2023, 11:47 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 11:47 am

Oh, like libtards want abortion federalized?

states are availing their rights I guess...

SCOTUS will knock this **** down faster than the air expelling from your meager lips in protest...

you be stupid as ****...

maineman » 29 Dec 2023, 11:52 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 11:52 am

It seems like you want it both ways.  You want states to be able to ban abortions but you want SCOTUS to take away their right to hold elections.