ActionfigureJoe Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Amazing arguments. Historical stuff. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-prepares-hearing-trump-removal-colorado-ballot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 8 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 8 (edited) Lots of interesting questions and answers. Love this stuff. Found this interesting and seems to me make this clear in 2 ways. Hold office and congress can override it leaving it in their hands either way, not the states. Alito also said disqualifying someone from running for office before being elected goes beyond the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which he said refers to holding office. “Section 3 refers to the holding of office, not running for office,” Alito said. “So if a state or Congress were to go further and say you can’t run for office, you can’t compete in a primary, wouldn't that be adding an additional qualification for serving for president?” Actual text. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Edited February 8 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSFB Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 11 minutes ago, Highmark said: Lots of interesting questions and answers. Love this stuff. Found this interesting and seems to me make this clear in 2 ways. Hold office and congress can override it leaving it in their hands either way. Alito also said disqualifying someone from running for office before being elected goes beyond the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which he said refers to holding office. “Section 3 refers to the holding of office, not running for office,” Alito said. “So if a state or Congress were to go further and say you can’t run for office, you can’t compete in a primary, wouldn't that be adding an additional qualification for serving for president?” Actual text. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Yep, that's one of the determinations that will need to be made. Admittedly, these circumstances were different however Gorsuch was a judge in another Colorado case that kept a candidate off the ballot because they were not eligible to hold said office. Quote Back in 2012, Gorsuch was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. In that capacity, he wrote the panel opinion in Hassan v. Colorado. Hassan, a naturalized citizen, sued Colorado, arguing it was required to put him on the presidential ballot even though he was not a natural-born citizen and was therefore not constitutionally qualified to run for president. The Tenth Circuit ruled against him, with Gorsuch writing that states have “a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” and that because of that, they can “exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” It’s that quote that makes its way into the Colorado Supreme Court opinion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted February 8 Author Share Posted February 8 Barrett is extremely clear and concise. She’s able to cut through the legal babble. Thomas sounds like he just crawled out of bed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSFB Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 2 minutes ago, ActionfigureJoe said: Barrett is extremely clear and concise. She’s able to cut through the legal babble. Thomas sounds like he just crawled out of bed. Thomas was known to not utter a word during arguments for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 The question, I suspect, will hinge on the notion of whether or not the "due process" clause of the constitution is a blanket clause covering all other aspects of the document. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 8 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 8 (edited) 15 minutes ago, SSFB said: Yep, that's one of the determinations that will need to be made. Gorsuch was a judge in another Colorado case that kept a candidate off the ballot because they were not eligible to hold said office. In that case there was no dispute on the disqualifying evidence nor a need for due process. Massive difference. they can “exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” Another point here is if Trump was elected would the states electors have to chose him. I don't think they actually do unless state legislatures already wrote it into law. This ties into they must allow him to run then the state might have some power on whether is gets their EC votes. Edited February 8 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted February 8 Author Share Posted February 8 (edited) Jackson made a very good point. The term president is not listed as those that are covered. This seems as though it was very intentional by the framers. Why leave out such a crucial member of government unless it was intentional? Those crafty fucks knew something. Edited February 8 by ActionfigureJoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 I’m gonna run so if I’m elected I can’t serve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Truth. Isn’t fraudulently using the 14th Amendment/falsely accusing @realDonaldTrumpn of insurrection to keep him off the ballot insurrection in itself? 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Steve753 Posted February 8 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 8 Just now, ArcticCrusher said: Truth. Isn’t fraudulently using the 14th Amendment/falsely accusing @realDonaldTrumpn of insurrection to keep him off the ballot insurrection in itself? Not true whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 6 minutes ago, Steve753 said: Not true whatsoever. Bullshit. The 4 judges should be removed from office along with the SOS. Its weaponization of the courts and election interference 101. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Steve753 Posted February 8 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 8 3 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: Bullshit. The 4 judges should be removed from office along with the SOS. Its weaponization of the courts and election interference 101. Trump is the one who tried to interfere with an election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Just now, Steve753 said: Trump is the one who tried to interfere with an election. election results... 81 m vs 74 m or so I've heard 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 7 minutes ago, Steve753 said: Trump is the one who tried to interfere with an election. Trump drove the getaway car….but he was innocent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 btw... that's Mitch McConnell's supreme court, not Trump's. and I do wonder what they're thinking before it even began. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 42 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said: election results... 81 m vs 74 m or so I've heard 81 million my ass. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 3 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: 81 million my ass. interesting... what was the actual number, in your head? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSFB Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 1 hour ago, ArcticCrusher said: Truth. Isn’t fraudulently using the 14th Amendment/falsely accusing @realDonaldTrumpn of insurrection to keep him off the ballot insurrection in itself? You should change your screen name to “Rubber-Glue” 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 12 minutes ago, SSFB said: You should change your screen name to “Rubber-Glue” Sure Junior IT. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 8 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 8 (edited) 1 hour ago, ActionfigureJoe said: Jackson made a very good point. The term president is not listed as those that are covered. This seems as though it was very intentional by the framers. Why leave out such a crucial member of government unless it was intentional? Those crafty fucks knew something. Very interesting and if the POTUS is not found to be an officer could it have impact on other cases? To me the best argument that the POTUS is an "officer" is the fact they are the CiC of the armed forces however he is still a civilian not military officer. I would hate to guess how that particular question alone would be voted. Keep in mind Article 2 section 3 states which may lead to say he/she is not because they cannot commission themselves. he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, Edited February 8 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 The entire premise is fucking bullshit because insurrection was totally contrived. There was no insurrection 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Nobody has been accused of insurrection , nobody has been tried or convicted on the grounds of insurrection CRIMINAL TRESPASS IS NOT FUCKING INSURRECTION 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 2 minutes ago, f7ben said: Nobody has been accused of insurrection , nobody has been tried or convicted on the grounds of insurrection CRIMINAL TRESPASS IS NOT FUCKING INSURRECTION insurrection is what the boys do to your anus at the hunting camp miright? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.