Posted on 03/05/2024 9:30:37 AM PST by SeekAndFind
It is instructive for all Americans that the U.S. Supreme Court just ruled unanimously in President Trump’s favor, concerning what should have been an obvious legal fact in constitutional law. The Court asserted that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (an “insurrection” disqualification, originally aimed at post–Civil War Confederate candidates who might otherwise have had differing views on whether, or from whom, there was an “insurrection”) is not within the purview of the states and is, rather, a potential congressional judgment.
The more conservative justices also noted that such a potential latitude of Congress is still subject to judicial review, which not surprisingly provoked the liberal justices to complain separately as to what unilateral federal remedy would remain to disqualify a candidate (meaning, how could the DNC otherwise still illegally block a candidate).
But there is more. While the justices did not venture into an opinion as to what merits may exist vis-à-vis presidential culpability in a January 6 insurrection claim, it is nonetheless a Supreme Court opinion stemming from an appeal over just that assertion.
Since President Trump cannot be proven culpable under standards of actual evidence (the left’s fallacy of assertion is not evidence of proof, which is why leftists have been obsessed with “intent”), nor can an insurrection itself be defined and proven (versus mere trespass), the entire fraudulent January 6 DNC program is effectively dead.
Contrary to mainstream media assertions, the Supreme Court did not just make a simple technical ruling: it was obligated to contemplate the entirety of the appellate case, while pushing the issue of Article 3 evidence, effectively beyond state partisan electoral tactics, and into broader congressional territory, while preserving judicial review as a further, albeit imperfect safeguard.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I know they’ll try, but, how can Trump be held liable by any new legislation by congress for Jan6, when he was already acquitted by congress through the impeachment process?
I forget where I saw it first, but it said something like Trump was President and in power on Jan 6th 2020, he cannot insurrect his own position or administration.
He may have wondered his options in light of the questionable stuff about the election but he wasn’t trying to over throw himself or the government of which he was the Executive.
bookmark
p
The U.S. Department of Justice has effectively been elevated to the level of a fourth branch of the Federal government. This idea that a President can be prosecuted by an executive branch department that is subject entirely to his authority as President is nonsense. It's the equivalent of giving a corporate legal counsel the power to bypass a company's board of directors and fire the CEO.
The U.S. will not be long for this world if this isn't fixed -- and soon.
does that mean he will have an actual defense attorney and witnesses? That is no Democrat judicial fairness.
That's not my understanding of how they ruled, at all. My understanding based on many reports I’ve seen and read is they ruled that ONLY congress can determine 14th amendment qualification, but completely left it up to congress on how to determine the enforcement mechanism it wants to use. Which is why Raskin is already putting out the draft of a potential bill to disqualify Trump.
Congress will decide, in the manner it chooses to decide, whether the evidence is one sided, or even if there is no evidence at all, or not. And their chosen manner of determination, could be very liquid depending on which way the winds are blowing in congress, at any given time. In other words, expect more turbulence.
-PJ
A president does control the DoJ by authority, they have just been reluctant to assert that power, Trump included. Political pressure, primarily in the threat of impeachment, in order to give the DoJ the appearance of independence, is primarily why. When you find the combination of a president willing to stand up to congress, along with an issue that keeps the pressure on congress by the American public, maybe it will change, but it could still be for just that one instance.
Excellent point.
Even if that is fixed we still have a problem: if the Democrats win back the House, they can (and will) refuse to certify a Trump win on January 6, 2025.
The Republicans could have refused to certify Biden’s “win” 1/6/2021, but three things stopped them:
1) Mike Pence was too much of a pussy
2) The Jan 6 Fedsurrection was engineered to interrupt the process.
3) The Republican House was full of RINOs… who knows how they would have voted.
The Democrats will not have any of those obstacles. VP Harris and House Democrats will be a united front. There will be no fedsurrection to interrupt the vote - and Trump’s win will not be certified.
We MUST hold onto the House and even pick up some seats to account for RINOs.
“if the Democrats win back the House, they can (and will) refuse to certify a Trump win on January 6, 2025.”
That could happen—but as Teddy Kennedy said “we will cross that bridge when we get to it”....
Agree. The opinions basically said that the part concerning Congress wasn’t necessary but is in the decision now.
I thought it was “We will report that accident when we get around to it”
This whole discussion over the last 3+ years has been retarded.
I never thought of that. If you don’t mind I’m going to borrow it. :-)
Nice Try, Thanks for Playing!
Article I
Section 8 Enumerated Powers
Clause 6 Counterfeiters
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States
Exactly.
The ONLY legal case against Trump for inciting insurrection was the single charge of his second impeachment.
AND HE WAS ACQUITTED!
No do-overs.
The impeachment process is the ONLY appropriate way to adjudicate such accusations against a SITTING PRESIDENT.
And double-jeopardy forbids trying him again for the same crime.
No J6er has been charged with insurrection. So, even the idea that an insurrection has occurred is debatable. The Leftwing Media keeps LYING by saying they were part of an insurrection.
But a court with a jury of our peers is the appropriate place to adjudicate such accusations for anyone who is not president. And such a conviction would require 12 jurors to unanimously agree.
An impeachment trial is not that way. It’s not majority rule. Nor does it require a unanimous jury. It requires 2/3 of the Senate to convict. If Trump had been convicted, it would have required a separate vote (simple majority) to bar him from office. That did not happen.
I tend to look gift horses in the mouth so I suspect this unexpected unanimous decision foreshadows an anti-Trump decision in the Presidential immunity case. Roberts is always concerned about the court looking too “partisan” so he may have made a deal with the 3 RAT justices. Vote pro-Trump on the ballot case and he and others will vote anti-Trump on immunity. I hope I’m wrong.
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.