Dems step on their Dicks again

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by delayjf

The Founding Fathers specifically applied this amendment to include the Senate and Congress, had wanted this to apply to the POTUS, they would have been more specific and listed the President in the amendment as well - they did not.

There is also the issue that President Trump has not been charged or convicted of insurrection. This will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

The Founding Fathers were dead for decades when the 14th Amendment was passed. Most of their children were not even alive. Right there you show your ignorance.

How does it make sense for the framers of this Amendment to exclude the President. Did they say, “Let’s pass an amendment to prevent people from overthrowing the government, but let’s not include the man who has the most power to do just that; the man who is commander in chief of the nation’s armed forces.they didn’t specifically mention The President because they could not comprehend that any one would be so stupid as to think the phrase “Officer of the United States “ would not include the President. Both the District Court ruling and the Colorado Supreme Court judgment went into this in detail.They looked not only at the Amendment itself, but the Congressional debate at the time.

This very question was raised more than once and the reply was always the same. “Of course the fourteenth amendment applies to a sitting President.

[xtb]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Section three of the 14th Amendment does not require that a person be convicted or even charged. The word used is engaged. If you read the decision or opened your eyes, you would see that Trump did exactly that. It only by his words and actions on Jan. 6, butt everything he said and did leading up to that date.

You're right Musty, "Peacefully and Patriotically make your voices heard" must be a call for an insurrection. Meanwhile, the real insurrectionist shuffles back and forth between the White House and Delaware, destroying our country.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by xtb

You're right Musty, "Peacefully and Patriotically make your voices heard" must be a call for an insurrection. Meanwhile, the real insurrectionist shuffles back and forth between the White House and Delaware, destroying our country.

They will gaslight you until the sun turns dark...but fortunately, they haven't been able to erase that video from the archives where Trump actually says those words out loud before anyone "stormed" the Capitol.

[MargieRose]

Let's get technical here:

"The Appointments Clause of the Constitution (Article II, section 2, clause 2), empowers the President of the United States to appoint "Officers of the United States" with the "advice and consent" of the U.S. Senate." Wikipedia

Is there someone who, in turn, appoints the President of the United States an Officer of the United States?

THIS will likely be the SCOTUS' opinion, in this matter:

Is the President an "officer of the United States" for purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?

There is a recent Supreme Court opinion discussing the scope of the Constitution's "Officers of the United States"-language. In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that "[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'" Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States."

Still, critics may argue that the meaning of the phrase "officer of the United States" in Section 3 is different from the meaning of the phrase "officers of the United States" in the Constitution's original seven articles. In other words, there was some linguistic drift or slippage between the 1788 ratification of the Constitution and the 1868 ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Let's assume that the President is not an "officer[] of the United States" for purposes of the 1788 Constitution. Under that assumption, it is possible that the President might be an "officer of the United States" for purposes of Section 3. Thus, a reader might take the limited position that the President is an "officer of the United States" for the purposes of Section 3.

This position is conceivable. In 2011, Tillman wrote that "[t]he stretch of time between the two events [1788 and 1868] was more than half a century. . . . It is hardly surprising that in the post-bellum epoch new meanings might have accrued to older language. Such linguistic slippage is common." (emphasis added). Still, absent contrary evidence, the default presumption should be one of linguistic stability, rather than of linguistic drift. In other words, the proponents of the view that Section 3's jurisdictional element applies to the presidency have the burden to show either (1) that the particular linguistic drift involving the Constitution's "officer of the United States"-language has actually occurred or, (2) at the very least, that Section 3's "officer of the United States"-language, in fact, extends to the presidency. Their position has not yet been supported in any comprehensive or systematic fashion. That position cannot simply be asserted or presumed, absent evidence, that the original public meaning of the phrase "officer of the United States" encompassed the presidency when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Advocates for Section 3 disqualification of President Trump have a burden of production and persuasion to come forward with at least some evidence supporting their view.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Section three of the 14th Amendment does not require that a person be convicted or even charged. The word used is engaged. If you read the decision or opened your eyes, you would see that Trump did exactly that. It only by his words and actions on Jan. 6, butt everything he said and did leading up to that date.

Which directly contradicts the due process portions of the same amendment.

You wingnuts are always invoking the “intent” of constitutional amendments but ignore it when it favors your position

The portion of the 14th Amend. the Colorado court relies on was obviously aimed at Confederates who had absolutely without doubt participated in an insurrection that lasted almost 5 years. There was no reason to doubt their allegiances

[PaceAdvantage]

LMAO

YouTube

[delayjf]

The Founding Fathers were dead for decades when the 14th Amendment was passed. Most of their children were not even alive. Right there you show your ignorance.

The fact that you equate the Civil War with Jan 6 shows your ignorance.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by delayjf

The fact that you equate the Civil War with Jan 6 shows your ignorance.

These guys are in LOVE with hyperbole.

[JustRalph]

Trump back on the ballot while courts look at it

Remember, this is the primary ballot

[Dick Whitman]

Twitter

[PaceAdvantage]

parking garage lawyer...

You people never learn

Why not just call her a 2-bit whore and get it over with, Mr. ME TOO MOVEMENT!

[Dick Whitman]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

parking garage lawyer...

You people never learn

Why not just call her a 2-bit whore and get it over with, Mr. ME TOO MOVEMENT

You’re absolutely right; Trump always surrounds himself with the best and brightest

https://www.rawstory.com/amp/alina-h...681-2666873681

[rastajenk]

Hadley Sheley's bio: 'Political junkie -Unhealthy obsession with Chuy’s jalapeño ranch -John Oliver is totally my ‘fake boyfriend’ -Dateline is my guilty pleasure #TheResistance'

Yeah, like, totally, a serious influencer whose views matter.