Liberal Forum

Huey » 03 Mar 2024, 1:22 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 1:22 pm

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

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.

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.

Cannonpointer » 03 Mar 2024, 1:51 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 1:51 pm

I'm a Constitutional lawyer. Ask my dad - he'll tell ya. 

Oh, wait. He was murdered recently. You can't ask him. 

I have a sycophant. He'll vouch for me.

Huey » 03 Mar 2024, 2:26 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 2:26 pm

How did he die this time?

Cannonpointer » 03 Mar 2024, 2:31 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 2:31 pm

He was murdered by 4 Justices of the Colorado Supreme Court. 

Three others were on his side - they wrote a scathing rebuke of the other 4's decision. 

That's the who. You can guess the how: blunt force trauma.

Yep. They threw the book at him  mg:

Cannonpointer » 03 Mar 2024, 2:31 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 2:31 pm

He was murdered by 4 Justices of the Colorado Supreme Court. 

Three others were on his side - they wrote a scathing rebuke of the other 4's decision. 

That's the who. You can guess the how: blunt force trauma.

Yep. They threw the book at him  mg:

Cannonpointer » 03 Mar 2024, 12:45 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 12:45 pm

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.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

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.

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.

GHETTOBLASTER » 03 Mar 2024, 3:53 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 3:53 pm

Majik » 03 Mar 2024, 1:53 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 1:53 pm

There was no insurrection .....
The entire false narrative you have blindly fallen for was totally contrived by the Democrats and their RINO establishment counterparts and was propagated by The Establishment media mouthpiece's ....
The funny part of your stupidity in this particular case is how you believe that Disqualifying your opposition based on propaganda somehow doesn't constitutionally affect those voters that are your opposition  in those states where you are trying to disqualify Trump.

The SCOTUS will have no choice but to rule in favor of Trump because of the ramifications to the constitution if they do not ......in effect if they do not rule in favor of Trump ....They themselves will be creating a constitutional crisis ......

​​​​​​

R.Suave » 03 Mar 2024, 5:58 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 5:58 pm

With the law and the facts against them, the Trumpists and the apologetic pundits alike have started pounding the table, trying to raise doubts about whether Trump engaged in any kind of insurrection at all. This has led to some diverting speculation and oddball debates over what, exactly, constitutes an insurrection. ...

To satisfy the Supreme Court majority, an originalist inquiry would be in order; but once more, originalism ends up working to Trump’s disadvantage. Graber has again done the essential work. Upon close examination of Anglo-American legal texts on treason and insurrection dating back to Edward III in the fourteenth century, but with special attention to American law from the founding through the start of Reconstruction, he has identified four elements that define an insurrection: 1) an assemblage of people; 2) engaged in resisting a federal law; 3) using force or the threat of force with intimidating numbers; 4) with a public purpose or, in the words of Justice Samuel Chase in 1800, an “object of a great public nature, or of public and general (or national) concern.” Engaging in insurrection need not mean actually being present to commit the violence or intimidation. On all four counts, the well-established facts of Trump’s activities and spoken words on January 6 and over the preceding weeks squarely fit an originalist definition.

ibid.

R.Suave » 03 Mar 2024, 5:53 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 5:53 pm

Perhaps if I put it in terms you understand.

Picture Dubuque.

Picture Delaware.

See what I'm saying?

R.Suave » 03 Mar 2024, 5:58 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 5:58 pm

With the law and the facts against them, the Trumpists and the apologetic pundits alike have started pounding the table, trying to raise doubts about whether Trump engaged in any kind of insurrection at all. This has led to some diverting speculation and oddball debates over what, exactly, constitutes an insurrection. ...

To satisfy the Supreme Court majority, an originalist inquiry would be in order; but once more, originalism ends up working to Trump’s disadvantage. Graber has again done the essential work. Upon close examination of Anglo-American legal texts on treason and insurrection dating back to Edward III in the fourteenth century, but with special attention to American law from the founding through the start of Reconstruction, he has identified four elements that define an insurrection: 1) an assemblage of people; 2) engaged in resisting a federal law; 3) using force or the threat of force with intimidating numbers; 4) with a public purpose or, in the words of Justice Samuel Chase in 1800, an “object of a great public nature, or of public and general (or national) concern.” Engaging in insurrection need not mean actually being present to commit the violence or intimidation. On all four counts, the well-established facts of Trump’s activities and spoken words on January 6 and over the preceding weeks squarely fit an originalist definition.

ibid.

Vegas » 03 Mar 2024, 3:49 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 3:49 pm

Exactly. 
He posts opinionated pieces that support his undying hatred for Trump. Then he turns around and pretends he posted evidence.

RedheadedStranger » 03 Mar 2024, 6:11 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 6:11 pm

 Nailed it @Vegas   

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

FOS » 03 Mar 2024, 1:20 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 1:20 pm

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.

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

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

Vegas » 03 Mar 2024, 3:49 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 3:49 pm

Exactly. 
He posts opinionated pieces that support his undying hatred for Trump. Then he turns around and pretends he posted evidence.

ConsRule » 03 Mar 2024, 6:57 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 6:57 pm

The argument to the OP is that insurrection was not a crime under the US Code when they were granted immunity, therefore a charge or conviction was not possible. Someone cannot be charged with, of convicted of, a crime that doesn't exist. As the OP mentioned, insurrection was not made a federal crime until 1948. After that point, since Congress enacted legislation to enforce the amendment, a criminal conviction is now necessary.