SCOTUS
- Thread starter LJ1999
- Start date
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
Well Colorado's Supreme court did decide that he committed insurrection so thats a strange statement for you to make.
Even though Trump's legal team argued he was simply exercising his right to question the election and never urged anyone to commit violence, Colorado's Supreme Court, in a split decision, ruled Trump had engaged in an insurrection and ordered him struck from the state's Republican primary ballot
Supreme Court to decide if insurrection clause can block Trump from Colorado ballot
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most consequential election cases in the nation’s history. Does the Civil War-era insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment disqualify Donald Trump from holding higher office? The court will hear a case out of Colorado, where its state Supreme...
www.pbs.org
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
It sounds like the Sups could rule based on POTUS (and VPOTUS) not being "officers" of the Federal govt instead of dealing with the insurrection question directly.
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
I listened to it live. You could have as well.
Or should educate herself.
Why start now?
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
WingsOfGold
Well-Known Member
Thus far the trash is getting their asses kicked by both sides.
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
These are the questions before SCOTUS.
POTUS is the Chief Executive OFFICER of the United States.
Under Amendment 14, Sec 3, people were barred from office for sending money (money is an exercise of free speech) as well as writing letters to the editor (also, obviously, an exercise of free speech) of newspapers in support of secession.
There is no requirement for Congress to pass laws to “enforce” this provision. Plenty of examples of this. Take the 5th Amendment, for example - the right to not self-incriminate. There is no law passed by Congress, but is routinely enforced by Courts.
As far as ballot access, this may be Trump’s lawyers best bet. But a strict interpretation of the Section 3, 14A uses the phrase “hold office”. So in theory, he could be elected but disallowed from ascending to the office. Wouldn’t that be awesome!!
The last question is just a losing proposition.
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
Hopefully they will keep the insurrectionist off the ballot.
He has made it clear he will break any law to remain in power.
It's sad Dan Quayle and Mike Pence were two of the few who interpreted the constitution correctly and upheld it on J6
He has made it clear he will break any law to remain in power.
It's sad Dan Quayle and Mike Pence were two of the few who interpreted the constitution correctly and upheld it on J6
"So in theory, he could be elected but disallowed from ascending to the office."
I was curious about that. What would happen then, VP would step up?
Very True
WingsOfGold
Well-Known Member
Lucky break for Dementia Joe and his classified materials..........
"Old man with poor memory".......................... cannot prosecute.
When he illegally STOLE the docs he was young.
"Old man with poor memory".......................... cannot prosecute.
When he illegally STOLE the docs he was young.
Yeah pretty strange. Stole them when he was a Senator.
So do we ask, should the old man with poor memory be President.
WingsOfGold
Well-Known Member
He in theory was sane when he STOLE them, therefore punished. Every cent and asset taken away.