Posted on 10/13/2023 4:19:08 PM PDT by george76
Has anyone been convicted of “insurrection or rebellion?”
And Turley will still vote Democrat which enables what he his complaining about...
later
Bkmk
“Has anyone been convicted of “insurrection or rebellion?”
Millions of people should sue big tech and dreck like Castro coincidentally in small claims court.
Claim civil rights violations and let them defend themselves all over GOD’s green earth.
All these cases, including CO, need to be smacked down.
All this lawfare shows just how terrified the swamp is of Trump.
Don’t care
Voting for him regardless
1st of all standing
2nd of all innocent until proven guilty
3rd of all, liberals are morons.
They would need a trail resulting in such a finding in order to bar Trump.
The 14th Amendment bars those who took the oath and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.” It then adds that that disqualification can extend to those who have “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Biden and all pro-illegal demoKKKrats must be removed from all election tickets via the 14th Amendment
If this goes against DJT, and he appeals,and it is taken by the Supremes, any deadline is irrelevant except Nov 5, 2024, and time to print ballots
I think the Courts will in the end block Trump and many others..Remember these Judges are not your friend...
"Federal Court Asked to Address 14th Amendment Effort to Bar Trump"
Although the following thread mentions pending cases, it is still good news imo.
US Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Block Trump in 2024 (10.2.23)
Could it be that articles on this issue are generally not showing Section 3 of 14th Amendment (14A) because that section doesn't actually reference POTUS imo?
"14th Amendment, 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 [emphases added] 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."
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters [emphasis added]; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Not only does Section 3 not reference POTUS, but why would drafters of Section 3 include banning POTUS from office since the POTUS can be impeached impeached and removed from office anyway?
Also, I think that "or hold any office" in Section 3 is intended to mean appointed offices, not popularly elected or Senate offices, 17th Amendment not existing when 14A drafted.
Here's an example.
"Article I, Section 6, Clause 2: No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States [emphasis added], which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."
As a side note to electing POTUS, please consider this. Probably the main reason that we hear media complaints about the electoral college is the following.
The electoral college is now the only thing stopping the corrupt political parties from permanently establishing a puppet presidency that will unquestioningly sign unconstitutional taxing and spending bills into law.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles [emphases added].” — Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2 (1833).
From the congressional record, consider the following statement by Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
“Republican” John Anthony Castro is judge shopping to get Trump removed from ballots.
If the Supreme Court rules these law experts to be wrong, ALL of them should face the SAME charges as Eastman is being accused of for advocating an unconventional legal opinion.
One point I never see discussed is that the 14th says taking office, which would mean they were elected by the people. Until elected the 14th has no authority. There must be an election first. A state can not deny a place on the ballot for a “violation” of the 14th which has not occurred yet, (must have been elected before the disqualification applies).
Griswold is excited to ban Trump from running for re-election.
Oh, I’m sure she is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.