Liberal Forum

Skans » 05 Jan 2024, 12:43 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 12:43 pm

I have Section 3 memorized, don't need to read it.

You read the Amendment XII: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President..." 
Then read Amendment XIV.  The 14th Amendment protects the fundamental right to vote and bars states from needlessly imposing substantial burdens on that right.

Go get a pocket constitution.  Study it.  Understand it.  And, memorize it, ****.

The state isn't "placing the burden", the Constitution is.
 

Beekeeper » 05 Jan 2024, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 1:03 pm

Oh, so you AGREE that CONGRESS can enact legislation that REMOVES this from being utilized against ANYONE!!

And for your information, ******* CUCKED ******, they did. 



And do you know what that means???

ALL AND THAT MEANS ALL OF YOUR **** JUST GOT GUTTED, FILETTED AND SEND TO THE CRAPPER TO NEVER BE SEEN AGAIN!!

 

That's Griffin....

It isn't considered a precedent.

In order to have the disability removed, a state of disability is required. It would be acknowledgment that the disqualification was entirely legitimate.
 

The world is laughing at Murka

aka

BANANA REPUBLIC of TRANNYISM

R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 12:54 pm

Please stop.

The first item, "double jeopardy", is direct from a TrumpCo recatapulter...no one with a professional reputation would float it. It's ******* Raw Meat for the Faithful.

Of those you list only the Post or Moonie Times would peddle it.

Probably in an unsigned piece.

Like I have said repeatedly, I don't remember the source. Also, if you remember I clearly said I thought that was the weakest argument.

That said, Article I, Section 3 states (in part): "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."

For my entire life (and probably before that), people have said impeachment was a political process and had no bearing on criminal matters...and I count myself among them.  However, the Constitution does not make that clear.  Notice it does not mention what happens when someone is found not guilty. While I am certainly not an attorney, it seems to me if the Constitution doesn't address it. courts would look to typical cases brought before them. In a normal case, being found not guilty prevents someone being tried again federally. I can see their twisted logic, I just don't see it holding up. In fact, it would not surprise me if that argument was met with, what amounts to, a "Shut the **** up" dismissal.
 
 

ConsRule » 05 Jan 2024, 1:18 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 1:18 pm

Like I have said repeatedly, I don't remember the source. Also, if you remember I clearly said I thought that was the weakest argument.

That said, Article I, Section 3 states (in part): "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."

For my entire life (and probably before that), people have said impeachment was a political process and had no bearing on criminal matters...and I count myself among them.  However, the Constitution does not make that clear.  Notice it does not mention what happens when someone is found not guilty. While I am certainly not an attorney, it seems to me if the Constitution doesn't address it. courts would look to typical cases brought before them. In a normal case, being found not guilty prevents someone being tried again federally. I can see their twisted logic, I just don't see it holding up. In fact, it would not surprise me if that argument was met with, what amounts to, a "Shut the **** up" dismissal.

Come up with a more artful lie.
 

R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 1:24 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 1:24 pm

Come up with a more artful lie.

**** you...apparently you are too immature to handle a discussion.  I'm moving on.
 

R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 11:36 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 11:36 am

Sec 3 doesn't even require an indictment to disqualify.

So you're still stupidly trying to claim that Trump doesn't have the right to a speedy and public trial for a crime you're accusing him of?
Because you've decreed he doesn't have the right to confront any witnesses against him or the compulsory process to obtain witnesses supporting him?

Putting yourself in the position to circumvent our God-given rights under the Constitution, and deciding that YOUR belief is superior to God's, huh?

Get it through your thick liberal head that simply because a specific crime YOU think took place, Trump or anyone else DOES NOT LOSE HIS OTHER RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION!

And once the Supreme Court rubs your dumb nose in it, you'll be proven to be a horse's *** once again!

While we're waiting for the SC ruling, why don't you address your same interpretation that would be used by the Republicans by disallowing Biden to be included on the ballot, since his blatant refusal to abide by the US immigration laws THAT HE TOOK AN OATH OF OFFICE TO DEFEND is far more illegal than telling a crowd to "march peacefully and patriotically" in their right to protest?

 

Zeets2 » 05 Jan 2024, 1:33 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 1:33 pm

So you're still stupidly trying to claim that Trump doesn't have the right to a speedy and public trial for a crime you're accusing him of?
Because you've decreed he doesn't have the right to confront any witnesses against him or the compulsory process to obtain witnesses supporting him?

Putting yourself in the position to circumvent our God-given rights under the Constitution, and deciding that YOUR belief is superior to God's, huh?

Get it through your thick liberal head that simply because a specific crime YOU think took place, Trump or anyone else DOES NOT LOSE HIS OTHER RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION!

And once the Supreme Court rubs your dumb nose in it, you'll be proven to be a horse's *** once again!

While we're waiting for the SC ruling, why don't you address your same interpretation that would be used by the Republicans by disallowing Biden to be included on the ballot, since his blatant refusal to abide by the US immigration laws THAT HE TOOK AN OATH OF OFFICE TO DEFEND is far more illegal than telling a crowd to "march peacefully and patriotically" in their right to protest?

He will when he is charged with it.

Until then, the bar for disqualification remains "the preponderance of the evidence".


Under which he has been found liable.
 

ConsRule » 05 Jan 2024, 1:33 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 1:33 pm

**** you...apparently you are too immature to handle a discussion.  I'm moving on.

When dealing with a principled correspondent, I don't hesitate.

Your record sucks.

R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 1:06 pm

That's Griffin....

It isn't considered a precedent.

In order to have the disability removed, a state of disability is required. It would be acknowledgment that the disqualification was entirely legitimate.

Well, *******, that happens to be a FEDERAL LAW that was passed BY CONGRESS which REMOVED ALL OF THE RESTRICTIONS of the 14th Amendment!! 

LAW, ****, which has NOTHING to do with your "Griffin" claim you STUPID **** MORON!!!

Sucks for you that your *** IS NOW A BLOODY MESS and you have NOTHING LEFT to make any points on!!


 
 

R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 1:03 pm

The state isn't "placing the burden", the Constitution is.

The State most certainly is imposing a burden on the right of its citizens to vote for Trump. The 14th Amendment protects the fundamental right of individuals to vote and bars states from needlessly imposing substantial burdens on that right.  Taking a candidate off of the ballot is needlessly imposing a substantial burden on a person's right to vote for the candidate of his choice.

Not to mention, your statement above there is complete nonsense.  You're like arguing with 3 year old.
 

Skans » 05 Jan 2024, 2:25 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 2:25 pm

The State most certainly is imposing a burden on the right of its citizens to vote for Trump. The 14th Amendment protects the fundamental right of individuals to vote and bars states from needlessly imposing substantial burdens on that right.  Taking a candidate off of the ballot is needlessly imposing a substantial burden on a person's right to vote for the candidate of his choice.

Not to mention, your statement above there is complete nonsense.  You're like arguing with 3 year old.

The State most certainly is imposing a burden on the right of its citizens to vote for Trump

Your "right" is to write him in. You have no standing with respect to his qualification to appear on a ballot. That is between Grifty and Secretaries of State.

 

Beekeeper » 05 Jan 2024, 2:08 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 2:08 pm

Well, *******, that happens to be a FEDERAL LAW that was passed BY CONGRESS which REMOVED ALL OF THE RESTRICTIONS of the 14th Amendment!! 

LAW, ****, which has NOTHING to do with your "Griffin" claim you STUPID **** MORON!!!

Sucks for you that your *** IS NOW A BLOODY MESS and you have NOTHING LEFT to make any points on!!

No, it is NOT a federal law, *******...it isn't even binding precedent. It is a "one off" issued by Justice Chase.

Skip the gifs, rube.
 

R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 2:27 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 2:27 pm

Your "right" is to write him in. You have no standing with respect to his qualification to appear on a ballot. That is between Grifty and Secretaries of State.

You are ONE GIANT CONTRADICTION, cumbucket!!

So if he doesn't have "standing" to question qualifications to appear on a ballot, then you are ALSO saying that the CITIZENS who brought suit to have TRUMP REMOVED based on qualifications, have ZERO STANDING AS WELL!!!

You kick your OWN *** with your own very words. 

R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 2:29 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 2:29 pm

No, it is NOT a federal law, *******...it isn't even binding precedent. It is a "one off" issued by Justice Chase.

Skip the gifs, rube.

You're saying that this is NOT A LAW???


 

R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 2:27 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 2:27 pm

Your "right" is to write him in. You have no standing with respect to his qualification to appear on a ballot. That is between Grifty and Secretaries of State.

We shall just verifythis AFTER the Supreme Court rules on the matter.  I say you're "wrong", but what I say doesn't matter. 
 

Skans » 05 Jan 2024, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 2:39 pm

We shall just verifythis AFTER the Supreme Court rules on the matter.  I say you're "wrong", but what I say doesn't matter.

All you have to do is think about it.

Beekeeper » 05 Jan 2024, 2:32 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 2:32 pm

You're saying that this is NOT A LAW???

The Griffin case did NOT establish either precedent or law.

R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 2:43 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 2:43 pm

The Griffin case did NOT establish either precedent or law.

You really are one STUPID **** LWNJ PIECE OF ****!!!

This is NOT ANY COURT CASE, ASSHOLE, BUT AN ACTUAL LAW THAT CONGRESS PASSED WHICH REMOVED ALL OBSTICLES THAT THE 14th AMENDMENT CREATED!!!

Damn, girl, you keep grasping as some obscure court case that has ZERO BEARING ON THIS LAW!!! The 3rd Part of the 14th Amendment has been DECLARED DEAD BY CONGRESS!! Suck on that one CUMDUMP!!!
 

R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 2:40 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 2:40 pm

All you have to do is think about it.

Yeah, well I have.  And, I've written about it.  You simply disagree.  You have nothing to support why you disagree with me, however.  So, at this point, I say - wait for the decision.  Either you will be wrong and I right, or I will be right and you wrong.