Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Why? Because Originalism....Duh!
Why? Because Originalism....Duh!
By R. Suave
4 Mar 2024 11:47 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
3 Mar 2024 6:06 pm
Do you understand why "Constitution" is capitalized?Huey » 03 Mar 2024, 1:22 pm » wrote: ↑
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.
3 Mar 2024 6:06 pm
We've already discussed this.R.Suave » 03 Mar 2024, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑ 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.
You predict Trump will NOT be allowed to run for president.
Ok..
3 Mar 2024 6:11 pm
Post my words, Hole.BooRadley » 03 Mar 2024, 7:06 pm » wrote: ↑ We've already discussed this.
You predict Trump will NOT be allowed to run for president.
Ok..
We've demonstrated that you lie, then you lie about your lies.
3 Mar 2024 6:35 pm
Your agreement with the argument is not a requirement to make the argument. I understand you butt-hurt whiny *** liberals don't like the argument, but it remains an argument until the question is answered.
3 Mar 2024 6:37 pm
"We've"?R.Suave » 03 Mar 2024, 7:11 pm » wrote: ↑ Post my words, Hole.
We've demonstrated that you lie, then you lie about your lies.
Who is we?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
3 Mar 2024 6:38 pm
There's no argument, only an asseetion.ConsRule » 03 Mar 2024, 7:35 pm » wrote: ↑ Your agreement with the argument is not a requirement to make the argument. I understand you butt-hurt whiny *** liberals don't like the argument, but it remains an argument until the question is answered.
An assertion which ignores the text of Section 3.
3 Mar 2024 6:39 pm
Since it was made it court (per reports), it IS an argument. That, and the argument the President is not an officer...be appoints officers.R.Suave » 03 Mar 2024, 7:38 pm » wrote: ↑ There's no argument, only an asseetion.
An assertion which ignores the text of Section 3.
3 Mar 2024 6:40 pm
You're some kind of very special *******, aren't you...
3 Mar 2024 6:41 pm
Link?ConsRule » 03 Mar 2024, 7:39 pm » wrote: ↑ Since it was made it court (per reports), it IS an argument. That, and the argument the President is not an officer...be appoints officers.
The officer argument was resolved by the Colorado Supreme Court.
3 Mar 2024 6:43 pm
Show me where a state court becomes the final authority to interpret the US Constitution.R.Suave » 03 Mar 2024, 7:41 pm » wrote: ↑ Link?
The officer argument was resolved by the Colorado Supreme Court.
3 Mar 2024 6:49 pm
R.Suave » 03 Mar 2024, 6:51 pm » wrote: ↑ To demonstrate how painfully ignorant you are...
QED.
Child, please..."the establishment"?
"The Man"?
"Mister Charlie"?
Flash!
The Übermensch isn't a guy in a fake tan farting through a panty shield.
an ubermensch is just a person who derives their purpose from advancing his people. Fake tans would not actually disqualify them.
3 Mar 2024 6:49 pm
Good luck.ConsRule » 03 Mar 2024, 7:43 pm » wrote: ↑ Show me where a state court becomes the final authority to interpret the US Constitution.
Where's my link?
3 Mar 2024 6:49 pm
I will correct myself...their argument is an insurrection (as defined by US Code) did not occur:
They contend that the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol wasn’t an insurrection. They say the attack wasn’t widespread, didn’t involve large amounts of firearms or include other markers of sedition. They say Trump didn’t “engage” in anything that day other than in exercising his protected free speech rights.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/a ... ligibility
3 Mar 2024 6:53 pm
Good luck with that one.ConsRule » 03 Mar 2024, 7:49 pm » wrote: ↑ I will correct myself...their argument is an insurrection (as defined by US Code) did not occur:
They contend that the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol wasn’t an insurrection. They say the attack wasn’t widespread, didn’t involve large amounts of firearms or include other markers of sedition. They say Trump didn’t “engage” in anything that day other than in exercising his protected free speech rights.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/a ... ligibility
3 Mar 2024 7:04 pm
Well, since insurrection is a crime...and no organization with the authority to conduct a criminal investigation has found an insurrection occurred, their argument seems pretty strong to me.
3 Mar 2024 7:35 pm
Except that Section 3 doesn't require a criminal conviction, only a court finding.ConsRule » 03 Mar 2024, 8:04 pm » wrote: ↑ Well, since insurrection is a crime...and no organization with the authority to conduct a criminal investigation has found an insurrection occurred, their argument seems pretty strong to me.
3 Mar 2024 7:37 pm
You bet. 3k qreenies.
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...
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
3 Mar 2024 7:41 pm
Don't you talk about us like that.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
3 Mar 2024 7:50 pm
You got ****, Titled family boy,
BV is in question time out indefinitely, until he takes the pledge to answer questions one for one.
The Pledge viewtopic.php?f=3&t=100927
Popular Vote Totals 2024 viewtopic.php?p=2685476#p2685476
BV's Sporter Losshttps: viewtopic.php?p=2610828#p2610828
BV 33 miles: viewtopic.php?p=2747521#p2747521
Sources viewtopic.php?p=2589152#p2589152
The Pledge viewtopic.php?f=3&t=100927
Popular Vote Totals 2024 viewtopic.php?p=2685476#p2685476
BV's Sporter Losshttps: viewtopic.php?p=2610828#p2610828
BV 33 miles: viewtopic.php?p=2747521#p2747521
Sources viewtopic.php?p=2589152#p2589152
3 Mar 2024 7:51 pm
But is does require insurrection...which, under law, has a definition. I understand you (and probably every other whiny *** liberal) will never accept the argument, but I really could not care less. The Supreme Court will most likely decide the matter. It doesn't matter to me if they disqualify him.R.Suave » 03 Mar 2024, 8:35 pm » wrote: ↑ Except that Section 3 doesn't require a criminal conviction, only a court finding.
Who is online
In total there are 6674 users online :: 10 registered, 15 bots, and 6649 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, Blackvegetable, Buck Naked, ROG62, RebelGator, ConservativeWave, nefarious101, springfield xd, Huey, Fuelman
Bots: DuckDuckGo, Bolt, SiteLockSpider, MQQBrowser, LCC, YandexBot, ADmantX, proximic, bingbot, CriteoBot, Mediapartners-Google, Applebot, Googlebot, facebookexternalhit, curl/7