Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Hey Libtards. About this whole omitting Trump from the ballot thing...
Hey Libtards. About this whole omitting Trump from the ballot thing...
By Vegas
1 Jan 2024 10:24 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
It will all be overruled. just like the BOGUS indictments...all 91 of them.R.Suave » 02 Jan 2024, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑ Children don't understand Consequences, or the Constitution, apparently.
Grifty is disqualifying himself, in the opinion of JUDGES, and a Secretary of State.
Be damned sure to be here.MR-7 » 02 Jan 2024, 3:41 pm » wrote: ↑ It will all be overruled. just like the BOGUS indictments...all 91 of them.
You're a lying coward.ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑ I haven't seen a single liberal here willing to discuss the constitutional issues yet to be decided, therefore I will reserve further comment until one states a willingness to have that discussion...including answering questions...or until the case reaches it's conclusion.
What a piece of **** you are...including answering questions...
Does that mean you are willing to have a conversation, primarily limited to your own thoughts unless stating something that is fact based...i.e. "It is a federal crime to..." or "The Constitution says..."? We can rely on what we have heard from "experts" or "talking heads" in the media (regardless of format), but it must be your thoughts or a summation of opinions from various "experts" or "talking heads". If so, I'm game. However, the first time you don't give a direct answer to a question, you are conceding defeat.
Those are the ground rules. Accept?
Didn't take much to get you to spit up even more qualifications.ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 4:13 pm » wrote: ↑ Does that mean you are willing to have a conversation, primarily limited to your own thoughts unless stating something that is fact based...i.e. "It is a federal crime to..." or "The Constitution says..."? We can rely on what we have heard from "experts" or "talking heads" in the media (regardless of format), but it must be your thoughts or a summation of opinions from various "experts" or "talking heads". If so, I'm game. However, the first time you don't give a direct answer to a question, you are conceding defeat.
Those are the ground rules. Accept?
Why don't you establish that you can meet the low bar of answering the question asked.
See...you can't even bring yourself to answer the question of "Do you want to have a discussion" even when the parameters are "a low bar". By the way, the reason I set the parameters of your thoughts or a summation of the thoughts of experts is there have been stories/articles on the topic of disqualifying Trump for at least 7-8 months. I don't expect someone (even you) to be able to quickly find a link to something heard or read in June of last year.R.Suave » 02 Jan 2024, 4:18 pm » wrote: ↑ Didn't take much to get you to spit up even more qualifications.
Why don't you establish that you can meet the low bar of answering the question asked.
Like I said, I haven't found a liberal here willing to have a discussion...which includes answering questions.
------------------------------------------ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑ I haven't seen a single liberal here willing to discuss the constitutional issues yet to be decided, therefore I will reserve further comment until one states a willingness to have that discussion...including answering questions...or until the case reaches it's conclusion.
the reason the amendment exists is to prevent officers engaged in rebellion or insurrection to ever gain office again. it is ridiculous to say that they would want a president involved in rebellion or insurrection to be president again. if it said a president involved in a rebellion or insurrection should surely be elected again then it would be allowable. but this is obviously would be a scenario the authors did not want. the intent of the writers is to be examined and the intent would show that a president involved in rebellion or insurrection would not be allowed to gain office again.
Your thoughts or a cut and paste? Looks like a cut and paste.jerrab » 02 Jan 2024, 4:32 pm » wrote: ↑ ------------------------------------------
the reason the amendment exists is to prevent officers engaged in rebellion or insurrection to ever gain office again. it is ridiculous to say that they would want a president involved in rebellion or insurrection to be president again. if it said a president involved in a rebellion or insurrection should surely be elected again then it would be allowable. but this is obviously would be a scenario the authors did not want. the intent of the writers is to be examined and the intent would show that a president involved in rebellion or insurrection would not be allowed to gain office again.
I know it is hard to believe the writers of the Constitution didn't intend for the President to be considered an officer, but there are those that argue he is not and they cite the Constitution.
what is the purpose of the admendment?ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 4:37 pm » wrote: ↑ Your thoughts or a cut and paste? Looks like a cut and paste.
I know it is hard to believe the writers of the Constitution didn't intend for the President to be considered an officer, but there are those that argue he is not and they cite the Constitution.
ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 4:37 pm » wrote: ↑ Your thoughts or a cut and paste? Looks like a cut and paste.
I know it is hard to believe the writers of the Constitution didn't intend for the President to be considered an officer, but there are those that argue he is not and they cite the Constitution.
and where do they cite the constitution?
ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 4:37 pm » wrote: ↑ Your thoughts or a cut and paste? Looks like a cut and paste.
I know it is hard to believe the writers of the Constitution didn't intend for the President to be considered an officer, but there are those that argue he is not and they cite the Constitution.
my thoughts,
It had several purposes. According to the US Senate; "Passed by the Senate on June 8, 1866, and ratified two years later, on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States," including formerly enslaved people, and provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws,” extending the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. The amendment authorized the government to punish states that abridged citizens’ right to vote by proportionally reducing their representation in Congress. It banned those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. The amendment prohibited former Confederate states from repaying war debts and compensating former slave owners for the emancipation of their enslaved people. Finally, it granted Congress the power to enforce this amendment, a provision that led to the passage of other landmark legislation in the 20th century, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation."
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-fo ... ndment.htm
Now...I asked you a simple question that you did not answer. Either answer that question of concede defeat.
The U.S. Supreme Court wrote in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982): “Article II, § 1, of the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States. . . ." This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. (457 U.S. 749-750).”ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 4:37 pm » wrote: ↑ Your thoughts or a cut and paste? Looks like a cut and paste.
I know it is hard to believe the writers of the Constitution didn't intend for the President to be considered an officer, but there are those that argue he is not and they cite the Constitution.
---------------------------------------ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 5:09 pm » wrote: ↑ It had several purposes. According to the US Senate; "Passed by the Senate on June 8, 1866, and ratified two years later, on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States," including formerly enslaved people, and provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws,” extending the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. The amendment authorized the government to punish states that abridged citizens’ right to vote by proportionally reducing their representation in Congress. It banned those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. The amendment prohibited former Confederate states from repaying war debts and compensating former slave owners for the emancipation of their enslaved people. Finally, it granted Congress the power to enforce this amendment, a provision that led to the passage of other landmark legislation in the 20th century, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation."
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-fo ... ndment.htm
Now...I asked you a simple question that you did not answer. Either answer that question of concede defeat.
People also ask
What is the definition of an officer in the United States?
In general, an officer is a person who has the obligation of carrying out the responsibilities and functions of an office, whether it be duty or charge, a position of trust, or the right to engage in public or private employment.
Vegas » 02 Jan 2024, 2:14 pm » wrote: ↑ No *******. He isn't. This will easily be overruled. It's just another incident of TDS. You know all about that.
That's your opinion. The Constitution tells us who we can and cannot vote for. As much as you might want to, you cannot vote for someone who was not born in the US. You cannot vote for someone who has not reached the age of 35. And you cannot vote for someone who led an insurrection. There are plenty of other folks who you CAN vote for... pick one of them.
------------------------------------------------------------ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 5:09 pm » wrote: ↑ It had several purposes. According to the US Senate; "Passed by the Senate on June 8, 1866, and ratified two years later, on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States," including formerly enslaved people, and provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws,” extending the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. The amendment authorized the government to punish states that abridged citizens’ right to vote by proportionally reducing their representation in Congress. It banned those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. The amendment prohibited former Confederate states from repaying war debts and compensating former slave owners for the emancipation of their enslaved people. Finally, it granted Congress the power to enforce this amendment, a provision that led to the passage of other landmark legislation in the 20th century, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation."
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-fo ... ndment.htm
Now...I asked you a simple question that you did not answer. Either answer that question of concede defea
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2016/15-1251/15-1251-1.pdf
This article challenges whether “significant authority” is even the proper standard, using two distinctive tools: (i) “corpus linguistics”-style analysis of Founding Era documents and (ii) examination of appointments practices in the Continental Congress and the First Federal Congress. Both strongly suggest the original public meaning of “officer” is much broader than modern doctrine assumes—encompassing any government official with responsibility for an ongoing governmental duty. This historical meaning of “officer” likely would extend to thousands of officicers
-----------------------------------ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 5:09 pm » wrote: ↑ It had several purposes. According to the US Senate; "Passed by the Senate on June 8, 1866, and ratified two years later, on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States," including formerly enslaved people, and provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws,” extending the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. The amendment authorized the government to punish states that abridged citizens’ right to vote by proportionally reducing their representation in Congress. It banned those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. The amendment prohibited former Confederate states from repaying war debts and compensating former slave owners for the emancipation of their enslaved people. Finally, it granted Congress the power to enforce this amendment, a provision that led to the passage of other landmark legislation in the 20th century, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation."
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-fo ... ndment.htm
Now...I asked you a simple question that you did not answer. Either answer that question of concede defeat.
This article challenges whether “significant authority” is even the proper standard, using two distinctive tools: (i) “corpus linguistics”-style analysis of Founding Era documents and (ii) examination of appointments practices in the Continental Congress and the First Federal Congress. Both strongly suggest the original public meaning of “officer” is much broader than modern doctrine assumes—encompassing any government official with responsibility for an ongoing governmental duty. This historical meaning of “officer” likely would extend to thousands of officicers
-----------------------------------------------
this includes the president.
They all seem to end up citing Article II, Section 2 (though some get there in a circuitous route) that states:
" He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, 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, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."
Some point to different parts, but it seems to me they boil down to the officers of the United States are appointed. Some have even supported that logic by pointing out the Constitution (while not giving a specific complete list) gives examples of officers.
I have also heard/read (don't remember which) some that point out nowhere in the Constitution is the President referred to as an officer. Article II, Section 1 states "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
There is a counter argument given by those who cite the Supreme Court ruling in Nixon v Fitzgerald which says “Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States. . . ." This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity. (457 U.S. 749-750).”...but that seems to run 180 degrees counter to Article II, Section 2, probably because that case dealt with a different issue.
This is why SCOTUS needs to decide the matter once and for all.
When taking away a right of a person, "In general" doesn't cut it, in my opinion.jerrab » 02 Jan 2024, 5:11 pm » wrote: ↑ ---------------------------------------
People also ask
What is the definition of an officer in the United States?
In general, an officer is a person who has the obligation of carrying out the responsibilities and functions of an office, whether it be duty or charge, a position of trust, or the right to engage in public or private employment.
rights are taken away every day. people get sent to jail. is it your opinion murderers go free?ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 5:23 pm » wrote: ↑ When taking away a right of a person, "In general" doesn't cut it, in my opinion.
even if they murder 50 people in one day?
Who is online
In total there are 2069 users online :: 11 registered, 12 bots, and 2046 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, roadkill, Blackvegetable, Buck Naked, RebelGator, Beekeeper, jerra b, SouthernFried, Cannonpointer, Deezer Shoove, nefarious101
Bots: ADmantX, proximic, YandexBot, CensysInspect, CriteoBot, DuckDuckBot, Applebot, Mediapartners-Google, Googlebot, facebookexternalhit, bingbot, curl/7