Liberal Forum

You know how the reflexive response of slack jawed, FOX nursing, MAGAt cretins to the matter of Grifty's Disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is 

"B...b...b...b...but where's the conviction, for Insurrection? Due Process...Derp!"

?

Your patient explanation, to the effect that no conviction is required, is met with disbelief....or worse...

Let this put that particular matter to rest..

if the appeals court were to rule in Trump’s favor, it would have no effect on his disqualification, as the constitutional bar is not based on any conviction for any criminal offense. Although insurrection is indeed a federal crime under 18 US Code § 2383, it became one only in 1948, and it is in any case irrelevant to disqualification under the Constitution. None of the ex-Confederates excluded from office after the amendment went into effect were prosecuted for insurrection.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2024/0 ... n-wilentz/


Are we good with this, kids...

Cause there's more.
 

"But how can Grifty be deprived of a place on the ballot without a Conviction? Derp!"


None of the ex-Confederates excluded from office after the amendment went into effect were prosecuted for insurrection.......But one need not have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have engaged in insurrection in order to be disqualified from public office. Disqualification is a constitutionally imposed disability, not a punishment for a criminal offense

ibid.





 

R.Suave » 03 Mar 2024, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 12:01 pm

You know how the reflexive response of slack jawed, FOX nursing, MAGAt cretins to the matter of Grifty's Disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is 

"B...b...b...b...but where's the conviction, for Insurrection? Due Process...Derp!"

?



Are we good with this, kids...

Cause there's more.

This is Veghead's idea of original thoughts of his own. Nothing but insults and questions. 

Thus, no intelligent thoughts, etc...copy/paste. 

TDS 

Media comment proved. 

R.Suave » 03 Mar 2024, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 12:07 pm

"But how can Grifty be deprived of a place on the ballot without a Conviction? Derp!"

None of the ex-Confederates excluded from office after the amendment went into effect were prosecuted for insurrection.......But one need not have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have engaged in insurrection in order to be disqualified from public office. Disqualification is a constitutionally imposed disability, not a punishment for a criminal offense

ibid.

No thoughts, etc...copy/paste. 

TDS 

Media comment proved. 

Just as no additional law was needed to abolish slavery after the Thirteenth Amendment, none was needed to disqualify insurrectionists from public office. What evidence survives suggests that the framers and supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866–1868 assumed that it was self-ratifying in its entirety; there is no evidence suggesting they did not. Affirmation by a court of engagement in insurrection was sufficient for a Section 3 disqualification, as happened immediately after the Civil War...


ibid.

R. » wrote:

29 Jan 1970, 8:18 pm

You know how the reflexive response of slack jawed, FOX nursing, MAGAt cretins to the matter of Grifty's Disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is 

"B...b...b...b...but where's the conviction, for Insurrection? Due Process...Derp!"

?

Your patient explanation, to the effect that no conviction is required, is met with disbelief....or worse...

Let this put that particular matter to rest..

if the appeals court were to rule in Trump’s favor, it would have no effect on his disqualification, as the constitutional bar is not based on any conviction for any criminal offense. Although insurrection is indeed a federal crime under 18 US Code § 2383, it became one only in 1948, and it is in any case irrelevant to disqualification under the Constitution. None of the ex-Confederates excluded from office after the amendment went into effect were prosecuted for insurrection.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2024/0 ... n-wilentz/


Are we good with this, kids...

Cause there's more.
 

 

Section 3 adjudications against former Confederates were rare in the aftermath of the Civil War. That is because it was widely understood that former Confederates who took an oath to support the Constitution before the Civil War were disqualified under Section 3 and therefore many likely did not seek office in the first place

https://www.citizensforethics.org/repor ... fications/

I don't recall Trump taking an oath or aligning himself with a group or organization that was either an enemy of the country or associated with Jan 6th.

Oooh! Another leftists' hypothesis for disqualification!

Can we get even more of these, please!?!

But... muh democracy!!

muh.. muh .muh democracy is under attack!!

We must decide who the people have the right to vote for to save muh democracy!!

R. Suave » 03 Mar 2024, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 12:01 pm

You know how the reflexive response of slack jawed, FOX nursing, MAGAt cretins to the matter of Grifty's Disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is 

"B...b...b...b...but where's the conviction, for Insurrection? Due Process...Derp!"

?

Your patient explanation, to the effect that no conviction is required, is met with disbelief....or worse...

Let this put that particular matter to rest..

if the appeals court were to rule in Trump’s favor, it would have no effect on his disqualification, as the constitutional bar is not based on any conviction for any criminal offense. Although insurrection is indeed a federal crime under 18 US Code § 2383, it became one only in 1948, and it is in any case irrelevant to disqualification under the Constitution. None of the ex-Confederates excluded from office after the amendment went into effect were prosecuted for insurrection.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2024/0 ... n-wilentz/


Are we good with this, kids...

Cause there's more.
 

Why do you lying **** stains always cry about conservatives watching fox news? It's one the worst "news" sources there are and it keeps getting worse. I don't watch that ****. In fact I rarely watch any "news".

We have to take all the candidates I don't like off the ballot to save muh democracy!!

R.Suave » 03 Mar 2024, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 12:01 pm

You know how the reflexive response of slack jawed, FOX nursing, MAGAt cretins to the matter of Grifty's Disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is 

"B...b...b...b...but where's the conviction, for Insurrection? Due Process...Derp!"

?

Your patient explanation, to the effect that no conviction is required, is met with disbelief....or worse...

Let this put that particular matter to rest..

if the appeals court were to rule in Trump’s favor, it would have no effect on his disqualification, as the constitutional bar is not based on any conviction for any criminal offense. Although insurrection is indeed a federal crime under 18 US Code § 2383, it became one only in 1948, and it is in any case irrelevant to disqualification under the Constitution. None of the ex-Confederates excluded from office after the amendment went into effect were prosecuted for insurrection.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2024/0 ... n-wilentz/

Are we good with this, kids...

Cause there's more.

Sorry, gayboy, but no one has been disqualified under sec 3 WITHOUT a criminal conviction since 1870. And due process IS a thing, you **** fruit - whether you like it or not. 

Even if Trump COULD be simply politically "assumed" to have committed an unpunished act of insurrection in spite of more than half the country believing otherwise (and this bloc being the one that CAN tell a male toddler from a female by understanding the science of biology), he could still qualify for the Amnesty of 1872 by affecting a drawl. 

You have a little stupid there on your chin. Other side. 

It's still there. 
 

R.Suave » 03 Mar 2024, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 12:07 pm

"But how can Grifty be deprived of a place on the ballot without a Conviction? Derp!"

None of the ex-Confederates excluded from office after the amendment went into effect were prosecuted for insurrection.......But one need not have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have engaged in insurrection in order to be disqualified from public office. Disqualification is a constitutionally imposed disability, not a punishment for a criminal offense

ibid.

Do you understand the difference between facts of law and legal arguments, you dufus?  

You are one stupid halfanig, boy. 
 

Vegas » 03 Mar 2024, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 12:09 pm

This is Veghead's idea of original thoughts of his own. Nothing but insults and questions. 

Thus, no intelligent thoughts, etc...copy/paste. 

TDS 

Media comment proved.

He genuinely believes he is posting "facts." He does not realize he is posting rather specious arguments that will NEVER actually stand up in a court of law. 

What the fruitcake does not realize is that even if Trump COULD be removed from the ballot, this will only happen in deep blue states. So far, Maine, Colorado and Illinois have removed him.  Of course, he is still on the ballot in all three states, pending appeal. The removal will almost certainly fail - but I would not dare bet the farm on it, these days. The attempt to remove him failed in liberal Washington State (and a dozen others), and was not appealed. NOT THAT IT MATTERS. Trump isn't going to win a single elector out of Washington, because it is winner take all and the more populous western half is going democ rat.

There being but two states whose electors are not winner take all (Nebraska and Maine),it matters not a whit if California successfully removes Trump from the ballot. This is just thayatah. And of COURSE, the gay boy is invested. Those types ADOAH thayatah. 

Warcok » 03 Mar 2024, 12:19 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 12:19 pm

Oooh! Another leftists' hypothesis for disqualification!

Can we get even more of these, please!?!

Ah, geez, here comes the Gish Gallop! Why'dya haveta go an' ask fer that...  
 

Cannonpointer » 03 Mar 2024, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 12:31 pm

Sorry, gayboy, but no one has been disqualified under sec 3 WITHOUT a criminal conviction since 1870. And due process IS a thing, you **** fruit - whether you like it or not. 

Even if Trump COULD be simply politically "assumed" to have committed an unpunished act of insurrection in spite of more than half the country believing otherwise (and this bloc being the one that CAN tell a male toddler from a female by understanding the science of biology), he could still qualify for the Amnesty of 1872 by affecting a drawl. 

You have a little stupid there on your chin. Other side. 

It's still there.

no one has been disqualified under sec 3 WITHOUT a criminal conviction since 1870

Irrelevant.

And due process IS a thing, you **** fruit - whether you like it or not. 

Due Process was afforded.

Even if Trump COULD be simply politically "assumed" to have committed an unpunished act of insurrection

Judicially determined...

in spite of more than half the country believing otherwise

Unsupported drivel

Irrelevant.

(and this bloc being the one that CAN tell a male toddler from a female by understanding the science of biology),

a Fruit Cult.

he could still qualify for the Amnesty of 1872 by affecting a drawl. 

You couldn't qualify as Male if you grew a beard.

Huey » 03 Mar 2024, 12:13 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 12:13 pm

Section 3 adjudications against former Confederates were rare in the aftermath of the Civil War. That is because it was widely understood that former Confederates who took an oath to support the Constitution before the Civil War were disqualified under Section 3 and therefore many likely did not seek office in the first place

https://www.citizensforethics.org/repor ... fications/

I don't recall Trump taking an oath or aligning himself with a group or organization that was either an enemy of the country or associated with Jan 6th.

I don't recall Trump taking an oath or aligning himself with a group

This is so **** stupid, my hair hurts from having read it.

R.Suave » 03 Mar 2024, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 12:01 pm

You know how the reflexive response of slack jawed, FOX nursing, MAGAt cretins to the matter of Grifty's Disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is 

"B...b...b...b...but where's the conviction, for Insurrection? Due Process...Derp!"

?

Your patient explanation, to the effect that no conviction is required, is met with disbelief....or worse...

Let this put that particular matter to rest..

if the appeals court were to rule in Trump’s favor, it would have no effect on his disqualification, as the constitutional bar is not based on any conviction for any criminal offense. Although insurrection is indeed a federal crime under 18 US Code § 2383, it became one only in 1948, and it is in any case irrelevant to disqualification under the Constitution. None of the ex-Confederates excluded from office after the amendment went into effect were prosecuted for insurrection.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2024/0 ... n-wilentz/

Are we good with this, kids...

Cause there's more.

I don't know what your real purpose for this post was...and I won't even assume that you have one.

but if you are trying to change anyone's mind, this is a remarkably stupid strategy.

Do you know why people like Trump? Because you hate him...and they hate you. Because the establishment t hates him, and they hate the establishment.

When you show up and point out that 'akshually according to this technical legal code here and there that our establishment made Trump is breaking a law and should be punished!'...nobody is going to give a ****. It just makes them hate you and the establishment more, and like Trump more. 

All politics and all power is based fundamentally on illusion. No matter what you write down in a book that you put the label 'law' on...what really happens in the world depends solely on how many people feel a desire or a duty to shoot their guns at your enemies. That requires some sort of persuasion. Maybe they love you, maybe they fear you. Being hated is the worst of all options...maybe you can make people fight for you because they fear you...nobody will fight for you because they hate you.
 

Huey » 03 Mar 2024, 12:13 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 12:13 pm

R. » wrote:

29 Jan 1970, 8:18 pm

You know how the reflexive response of slack jawed, FOX nursing, MAGAt cretins to the matter of Grifty's Disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is 

"B...b...b...b...but where's the conviction, for Insurrection? Due Process...Derp!"

?

Your patient explanation, to the effect that no conviction is required, is met with disbelief....or worse...

Let this put that particular matter to rest..

if the appeals court were to rule in Trump’s favor, it would have no effect on his disqualification, as the constitutional bar is not based on any conviction for any criminal offense. Although insurrection is indeed a federal crime under 18 US Code § 2383, it became one only in 1948, and it is in any case irrelevant to disqualification under the Constitution. None of the ex-Confederates excluded from office after the amendment went into effect were prosecuted for insurrection.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2024/0 ... n-wilentz/


Are we good with this, kids...

Cause there's more.
 


 

Section 3 adjudications against former Confederates were rare in the aftermath of the Civil War. That is because it was widely understood that former Confederates who took an oath to support the Constitution before the Civil War were disqualified under Section 3 and therefore many likely did not seek office in the first place

https://www.citizensforethics.org/repor ... fications/

I don't recall Trump taking an oath or aligning himself with a group or organization that was either an enemy of the country or associated with Jan 6th.

 

 

R. » wrote:

29 Jan 1970, 8:19 pm

Huey » 03 Mar 2024, 12:13 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 12:13 pm

Section 3 adjudications against former Confederates were rare in the aftermath of the Civil War. That is because it was widely understood that former Confederates who took an oath to support the Constitution before the Civil War were disqualified under Section 3 and therefore many likely did not seek office in the first place

https://www.citizensforethics.org/repor ... fications/

I don't recall Trump taking an oath or aligning himself with a group or organization that was either an enemy of the country or associated with Jan 6th.

I don't recall Trump taking an oath or aligning himself with a group

This is so **** stupid, my hair hurts from having read it.

 

You need to try that again.  It appears you did not read the entire sentence:

I don't recall Trump taking an oath or aligning himself with a group or organization that was either an enemy of the country or associated with Jan 6th.

 

Bit I will say You are not a constitutional lawyer.  I am not a constitutional lawyer.  I would bet there are none here.  I will wait for the Supreme Court decision.