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 7:57 pm
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.
Pssst. SLACK BRAIN PIECE OF PIG ****.....
CONGRESS remedied the CONFEDERATES "disqualification" when President Ulysses S. Grant, a Republican, won reelection in 1872, but political pressure from both parties convinced Grant and congressional Republicans to reconsider Section 3. By passing the General Amnesty Act of 1872, Congress and President Grant provided blanket amnesty.
It took an ACT OF CONGRESS to "enforce it" and it takes an ACT OF CONGRESS to produce ANY determination of "insurrection", which HAD HAPPENED in the "reconstruction" acts.
FURTHER, courts HAVE RULED that Section 3 is NOT "self executing" as you claim...
Section Three was then the first part of the Fourteenth Amendment construed by the courts. Jefferson Davis contended in 1868 that Section Three was self-executing and barred his treason prosecution, and Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase agreed with those arguments as a circuit judge presiding over the proceedings in Virginia.[8] But shortly thereafter, the Chief Justice issued the first opinion on Section Three and held that the text was not self-executing in Virginia and—in the absence of congressional action—did not apply to a Black criminal defendant there.
So **** FACE PIECE OF ****, YOU LOSE AGAIN!!!
I bet you love losing as much as you do!!!
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
3 Mar 2024 8:11 pm
Oh and **** DOG TURD, the RULINGS are plain as it gets......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.
Chase stated that “those provisions of the constitution which deny to the legislature power to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or to pass a bill of attainder or an ex post facto, are inconsistent in their spirit and general purpose with a provision [Section Three] which, at once without trial, deprives a whole class of persons of offices held by them.”
So WITHOUT a DUE PROCESS OF LAW that convicts someone of "insurrection", you have NO CLAIM under the 14th Amendment either.
SUCKS your research "legal beagles' FAILED MISERABLY in finding that ACTUAL CASES where rulings state PLAINLY you can't deprive someone of their CONSTITIUTIONAL RIGHT to due process and blatantly make a declaration that "insurrection" was committed by ANYONE!!
How's that MASSIVE *** KICKING FEEL NOW THAT I SHOVED MY BOOT 4 FT UP THAT NASTY LITTLE ASSHOLE OF YOURS???
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
3 Mar 2024 8:37 pm
capital of institutional ideologies cradle to grave punishing anyone for being honest about natural outcomes of genetics eternally separating the individual numbers adapting as specifically occupying space now.
this species has three types of originalism. inception as a species, generation gaps starting 2nd generation, aunts, uncles cousins 3rd generation, great grandparents, grandparents, 2nd cousins 4th generation, 31first parallel arriving 5th generation, works that way ever since.
originalism 101.
4 Mar 2024 4:53 am
Do you understand most people consider you to be a dick head. I bet your name is Dick.
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
4 Mar 2024 5:22 am
the **** thinks it's a trigger point....murdock » 03 Mar 2024, 12:25 pm » wrote: ↑ 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".
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."
4 Mar 2024 5:23 am
a little?Cannonpointer » 03 Mar 2024, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑ 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.
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."
4 Mar 2024 5:29 am
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."
4 Mar 2024 5:30 am
^^^ lawyerspeak....
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."
4 Mar 2024 5:31 am
he and the polished turd in his pocket...
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."
4 Mar 2024 5:32 am
not as spaeschul as yew!
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."
4 Mar 2024 5:36 am
Huey » 04 Mar 2024, 5:53 am » wrote: ↑ Do you understand most people consider you to be a dick head. I bet your name is Dick.
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."
4 Mar 2024 5:45 am
For **** not even you will read.
4 Mar 2024 5:46 am
It's not about me....it's about what a **** idiot you are.Huey » 04 Mar 2024, 5:53 am » wrote: ↑ Do you understand most people consider you to be a dick head. I bet your name is Dick.
Now answer the question, **** idiot.
Help him out @ROG62 ....
4 Mar 2024 5:53 am
Beekeeper » 03 Mar 2024, 9:11 pm » wrote: ↑ Oh and **** DOG TURD, the RULINGS are plain as it gets......
Chase stated that “those provisions of the constitution which deny to the legislature power to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or to pass a bill of attainder or an ex post facto, are inconsistent in their spirit and general purpose with a provision [Section Three] which, at once without trial, deprives a whole class of persons of offices held by them.”
So WITHOUT a DUE PROCESS OF LAW that convicts someone of "insurrection", you have NO CLAIM under the 14th Amendment either.
SUCKS your research "legal beagles' FAILED MISERABLY in finding that ACTUAL CASES where rulings state PLAINLY you can't deprive someone of their CONSTITIUTIONAL RIGHT to due process and blatantly make a declaration that "insurrection" was committed by ANYONE!!
How's that MASSIVE *** KICKING FEEL NOW THAT I SHOVED MY BOOT 4 FT UP THAT NASTY LITTLE ASSHOLE OF YOURS???
Anderson v. Griswold.So WITHOUT a DUE PROCESS OF LAW that convicts someone of "insurrection", you have NO CLAIM under the 14th Amendment either
**** idiot.
now get your institutionalized *** out of here.How's that MASSIVE *** KICKING FEEL NOW THAT I SHOVED MY BOOT 4 FT UP THAT NASTY LITTLE ASSHOLE OF YOURS???
4 Mar 2024 5:55 am
Beekeeper » 03 Mar 2024, 8:57 pm » wrote: ↑ Pssst. SLACK BRAIN PIECE OF PIG ****.....
CONGRESS remedied the CONFEDERATES "disqualification" when President Ulysses S. Grant, a Republican, won reelection in 1872, but political pressure from both parties convinced Grant and congressional Republicans to reconsider Section 3. By passing the General Amnesty Act of 1872, Congress and President Grant provided blanket amnesty.
It took an ACT OF CONGRESS to "enforce it" and it takes an ACT OF CONGRESS to produce ANY determination of "insurrection", which HAD HAPPENED in the "reconstruction" acts.
FURTHER, courts HAVE RULED that Section 3 is NOT "self executing" as you claim...
Section Three was then the first part of the Fourteenth Amendment construed by the courts. Jefferson Davis contended in 1868 that Section Three was self-executing and barred his treason prosecution, and Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase agreed with those arguments as a circuit judge presiding over the proceedings in Virginia.[8] But shortly thereafter, the Chief Justice issued the first opinion on Section Three and held that the text was not self-executing in Virginia and—in the absence of congressional action—did not apply to a Black criminal defendant there.
So **** FACE PIECE OF ****, YOU LOSE AGAIN!!!
I bet you love losing as much as you do!!!
It took an ACT OF CONGRESS to "enforce it" and it takes an ACT OF CONGRESS to produce ANY determination of "insurrection"
No...you're full of ****.
4 Mar 2024 6:06 am
Chase took 2 stands on the matter...the second, communicated in a letter, is not a binding precedent.Beekeeper » 03 Mar 2024, 8:57 pm » wrote: ↑ Pssst. SLACK BRAIN PIECE OF PIG ****.....
CONGRESS remedied the CONFEDERATES "disqualification" when President Ulysses S. Grant, a Republican, won reelection in 1872, but political pressure from both parties convinced Grant and congressional Republicans to reconsider Section 3. By passing the General Amnesty Act of 1872, Congress and President Grant provided blanket amnesty.
It took an ACT OF CONGRESS to "enforce it" and it takes an ACT OF CONGRESS to produce ANY determination of "insurrection", which HAD HAPPENED in the "reconstruction" acts.
FURTHER, courts HAVE RULED that Section 3 is NOT "self executing" as you claim...
Section Three was then the first part of the Fourteenth Amendment construed by the courts. Jefferson Davis contended in 1868 that Section Three was self-executing and barred his treason prosecution, and Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase agreed with those arguments as a circuit judge presiding over the proceedings in Virginia.[8] But shortly thereafter, the Chief Justice issued the first opinion on Section Three and held that the text was not self-executing in Virginia and—in the absence of congressional action—did not apply to a Black criminal defendant there.
So **** FACE PIECE OF ****, YOU LOSE AGAIN!!!
I bet you love losing as much as you do!!!
You should stop relying on the **** sources you are too ashamed to name.
4 Mar 2024 6:07 am
R.Suave » 04 Mar 2024, 6:53 am » wrote: ↑ Anderson v. Griswold.
**** idiot.
now get your institutionalized *** out of here.
Sorry PERVERT, but SUPREME COURT RULINGS trump ALL ruling by the State courts!!
The US Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, and imbedded in that document!!
LOSER!!!
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
4 Mar 2024 6:08 am
You can stop yapping now, Fondler.Beekeeper » 04 Mar 2024, 7:07 am » wrote: ↑ Sorry PERVERT, but SUPREME COURT RULINGS trump ALL ruling by the State courts!!
The US Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, and imbedded in that document!!
LOSER!!!
4 Mar 2024 6:08 am
SUCKS FOR YOU, :LOSER!!!
ALL SUPREME COURT RULINGS KICK YOUR *** ON THIS ONE!!
That has to massively SUCK for you??
Bet this *** KICKING where it's around your neck has left you smelling your OWN ****!!
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
4 Mar 2024 6:10 am
Yeah, YOU LOST so I am SURE you want that to happen!!!
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
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