Below is my column in the New York Post on the next step in the effort to disqualify former president Donald Trump in the 2024 election. I believe that the Colorado opinion will be set aside, but it is not finality but clarity that we need from the United States Supreme Court.
Here is the column:
In his book Profiles of Courage, John F. Kennedy discussed figures who answered the call of history and how such defining moments are “an opportunity that sooner or later is presented to us all.” That moment will now be presented to nine justices of the United States Supreme Court after a divided decision of the Colorado Supreme Court to disqualify Donald Trump in the 2024 election.
The test for the U.S. Supreme Court is not just what they should do, but how they should do it. As an institution, the Court is often called upon to seize such moments to bring unity and clarity on our core values. That is why this insidious opinion must not only be unequivocally but unanimously overturned.
The Colorado decision to bar Donald Trump from the ballot will be overturned because it is wrong on the history and the language of the 14th Amendment.
Dead wrong.
The question is whether the US Supreme Court will speak with one voice, including the three liberal justices.
As with the three Democratic state justices who refused to sign off on the Colorado opinion, these federal justices can now bring a moment of unity not just for the court but the country in rejecting this shockingly anti-democratic theory.
For years, the disqualification theory has been treated like some abstract parlor game for law professors.
While Democrats called for the disqualification of 120 House members, it was treated as a fringe theory.
It has now lost its charm as a legal brain teaser.
As I have previously written, the disqualification of Trump is based on the use of a long-dormant provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
After the Civil War, House members were outraged to see Alexander Stephens, the Confederate vice president, seeking to take the oath with an array of other former Confederate senators and military officers.
They had all previously taken the same oath and then violated it to join a secession movement that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
That was a true rebellion.
January 6, 2021, was a riot.
That does not excuse those who committed crimes that day — but it was not an insurrection.
The majority on the Colorado Supreme Court adopted sweeping interpretations of every element of the decision to find that Trump not only incited an insurrection, but can be disqualified under this provision.
It does not matter that Trump has never been charged with even incitement or that he called for his supporters to go to the Capitol to protest “peacefully.”
In finding that Trump led an actual insurrection, the four justices used speeches going back to 2016 to show an effort to rebel before Trump was ever president.
There are ample grounds to summarily toss this opinion to the side.
However, that would not answer the call of this historic moment.
What these four justices did was a direct assault on our democratic process in seeking to bar the most popular candidate in the upcoming election.
Whatever the view of Trump, this is a decision that should rest with the voters.
No only are these four justices seeking to bar the votes of millions of voters (even barring the counting of write-in votes), but they are doing so in the name of democracy.
It is the ballot cleansing that is usually associated with authoritarian countries like Iran, where voters are protected from “unworthy” candidates.
Justice Robert Jackson once observed that he and his colleagues “are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final.”
A decision on Colorado could put this theory to rest by the sheer finality of the appeal.
However, it is not the finality that is needed at this moment. We need clarity. Clarity of purpose and principle.
The Supreme Court plays a unique role in our system at times like these.
It must at times defy us in rejecting racism as cases such as Brown v. Board of Education.
At other times, it has protected in rejecting government overreach as in cases such as Katz v. United States, demanding warrants to overcome the reasonable expectation of privacy.
This is a time where it can unify us.
The court holds the ultimate “bully pulpit” that can educate citizens on what defines us as a people.
Most people understand intuitively that what these four justices did in Colorado was wrong.
However, the court can speak as one — conservatives and liberals — in reaffirming the core values discarded by these state justices.
In that sense, it may be the greatest test of Chief Justice John Roberts.
Roberts once observed that “the most successful chief justices help their colleagues speak with one voice.”
Past chief justices from John Marshall to Earl Warren struggled to secure unanimous votes on fundamental cases to reaffirm such defining values.
The court could help unify this country in a way that may be unparalleled in its history.
It can show that justices who hold vastly different ideological views can be unified on core principles.
It can remind us that, as citizens, the Constitution is ultimately not a covenant with the government but with each other.
It is a leap of faith that, as a free people, we can decide our shared destiny and protect our shared identity.
The moment has come for nine justices to speak in one voice.
An American voice that transcends the personalities and divisions of our time.
It is a voice that speaks not to what divides us but what defines us as a people.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University, where he teaches a course on the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
The Proud Boys chose FAFO (f*** around and find out) as their slogan. Trump is in the “find out” stage.
Spoken like a true fascist
Spoken like a scared little kunt^^^^^
You should be.
Trump is the fascist here. He’s the one threatening to jail those who aren’t sufficiently loyal to him, to fire federal employees en masse and install loyalists, echoing Hitler, …
Go trump
As President who did Trump jail ?
Did Trump “Lock her up” ?
The left went appoplectic and impeached Trump because he asked for an inquiry into the misconduct and corruption of the Biden’s in Ukraine. Conduct that stinks more and more with each passing day.
Yet, before Trump took office in 2017 – Democrats had already weaponized the government to take him out – based on a HOAX.
We endured years of investigations into the collusion delusion – while those driving the investigation KNEW it rested on a collection of hoaxes from Hillary Clinton.
We learn that under Obama the left started using Government funds to empower government contracts to censor political opponents.
That this secretly continued under Trump – with our government funding private groups that were actually censoring the party in power – that was how corrupt the left is.
Under Biden the Democrats in power are engaged in open warfare against political enemies wantonly using the power of government not merely to target political oponents – but anyone that disagrees with them.
Modern democrats make Hoover and MacCarthy look like Amateurs. They atleast went after communists – who though still entitled to free speech actually are incredibly dangerous.
Why are communists dangerous – For EXACTLY the reasons that Democrats are dangerous right now.
Because they will weaponize the power of government against political enemies.
He’s the one threatening to jail those who aren’t sufficiently loyal
Threatening? More like making a promise to carry out the current administration policy of jailing their political foes.
What are the names of these political foes of Biden that you claim Biden is jailing?
It will be 6-3 as usual
I would be surprised if it isn’t 5-4 with Roberts voting with the libs.
Maybe you should read the ruling, and notice how it cites then-Judge Gorsuch.
maybe you should read the ruling and mis-cites Gorsuch, cuz thats what activists do
Roberts is on the record in 2010 saying that the 14th amendment does not apply to the president.
Of course his own prior opinions and statement have not stopped him before.
Although the Colorado case ‘should’ result in a 9 to 0 Supreme Court decision, the Colorado case may also prove that woke activism has seeped into the Supreme Court.
Not seeped…Its been there for ages
The disqualification is premature. SCOTUS cannot afford to aid the cover-up of post-Jan 6th plans Trump was making to hold onto power. The cover-up of the Willard Hotel war-room activities is still airtight, and daylight will only happen sometime in mid-2024 when the DC and GA trials get into direct testimony from insiders like Mark Meadows.
The voters deserve to know the full truth about the lengths Pres. Trump was willing to go to to remain in power beyond his term. SCOTUS would seriously undermine its credibility to delay these revelations by even one day, since primary voters deserve to know the unvarnished truth.
The violence at the Capitol is NOT the insurrection. It was plans going out beyond Jan 6th which utilized mob violence and militias, and breakaway actions of rank& file military and law enforcement in defiance of their brass. JT is building a strawman defense of Trump to narrowly define “insurrection” as only that which we saw at the Capitol riot. There are uglier parts we haven’t seen yet.
steaming turd^^^^^^
+100
“The voters deserve to know the full truth”
PbinCA, why don’t you tell us of those plans and include the plans for violence? Do you think they will be like the Antifa and George Floyd violent riots where they attempted to burn federal buildings down with people inside? Was he planning to use the DOJ and IRS to attack Americans? Was he going to let criminals and cartels through our border to wreak havoc on the people?
You can’t mention the specifics because what Trump did was legal and done before. What you are really thinking about is the bad things the leftist imagination has done or wants to do to the American public.
Take note, it was the left that created an unreliable and broken election where so many illegal and inappropriate things were done. We still don’t know how many votes Biden got that were illegal. What we do know is that the numbers are high and climbing.
I wait for you to educate all of us with a modicum of proof as to what terrible things Trump was going to do. Like always, I expect that we will not hear answers and will have to satisfy ourselves with our fantasies.
Thoughts where one cannot provide a basis for those thoughts is known as FANTASSY.
Collusion Delusion Redux.
We heard all this same Nonsense from the left for years on Russian collusion, or now that there is no evidence of Biden corruption, or that the laptop is Russian disinformation, or a right wing conspiracy or ….
Your nose has grown 2ft. You have no cloths. You have cried wolf too often and the wolf is coming to eat you.
Democrats, The wing nut J6 committee, the media, DOJ FBI, numerous state governments have investigated all of this and FOUND NOTHING
Whether you like it or not there is a point at which absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
You make these bold claims – So if Trump and cronies conspired with factions of the military – Who are these conspirators ? Where are their communications ? Emails etc ? Where are their plans ?
There is plenty of evidence that idiots like Miley and Pelosi were paranoid nutjobs terrified of the things you claim. But there is absolutely ZERO evidence to support this idiotic argument.
If Meadows etc. were busy runnign a command post for the takeover of govenrment – where are the plans ? Were are the guns ?
Over 100,000 protestors came to the elipse without an AR-15 among them. Thus far the only firearms found at the capitol were with uincharged individuals because they are Federal agents. No one has been charged with posession or use of a Firearm in the capitol or on the capitol grounds.
You claim that Smith and Willis are going to deliver evidence that no one else has ever been able to produce.
No one else has ever found any of this even many of those you claim feared it have ultimately testified they were wrong.
Further if Biden wants to win the election and win convictions of Trump – that would be trivial – produce this evidence NOW.
Criminal cases are NOT supposed to be trial by surprise. Prosecutors are required to provide the evidence they have long before trial.
You are claiming that Smith and willis have damning evidence,. that Trump has that evidence.
But none of that has been made public.
And that despite the FACT that almost no one would defend or Vote for Trump if this evidence you claim to have was real.
Sorry we are all tired of left wing nut shell games.
You have nothing. Just as you did with the collusion delusion and all the other lies you have told.
Greaqt – some common ground – the J6 protests were not an insurrection.
Glad we are past that nonsense, though I doubt that the other left wing nuts here are.
I will also be happy to agree that the assorted things you claim happened would at the very least be serious crimes, demanding severe punishment – if they had occured.
But we all watched at the time. We heard people like Miley and Pelosi claim they acted in FEAR of such actions, But we have ZERO evidence of your fears.
3Years past J6 and you still think that Smith or Willis is going to deliver secret evidence that no one has yet seen ?
Is your claim that the J6 committee was completely incompetent and could not find the forest for the trees ?
Are you claiming that given the oportunity in 2021 to impeach and eliminate Trump for good, to send him to jail,
that instead Democrats held off until the last desparate moment befroe Trump obliterates them in 2024 ?
This sounds an awful lot like the QANON conspriacy theories that some tiny portion of those on the right bought.
Except those had more substance to them.
Are you trying to claim that Trump – from the WH constantly surrounded by Secret Service and others managed to concoct this coup attempt.
That for some reason either he did not go forward with it, or that it failed while leaving no trace of evidence that it occured ?
Those of you on the left constantly claim Trump is stupid. While at the same time arguing that he has concocted elaborate often global conspiracies that every news outlet in the world, and the entire US intelligence, law enforcement and special counsel could not detect.
Aparently in your view Trump is an idiot Savant. Dumb as dirt while more cunning and capable than a Bond villian.
Are u retarded?
“Plans” are not violence.
2 impeachments. Failed! Local DA’s prosecuting him. So far not very successful. A states Attorney General going after him. Not much success here yet either. Now the state Supreme Court in Colorado. This will be shot down. I think he’s right. He’s one indictment away from being re elected. I’m going to enjoy seeing him up on the podium being sworn in again. After his swearing in ceremony I hope he gives everybody the Italian salute.
If there is one thing libtards can be counted on, its to miscalculate the ramifications for their actions.
If it weren’t for Harry Reid, there’s a good chance this ridiculous ruling would stand.
“2 impeachments. Failed”
Nope. He was successfully impeached twice. Impeachment occurs in the House, not the Senate. He was not removed by the Senate. A majority of the Senate voted to convict him in the second impeachment, but it wasn’t the required supermajority. Several Senators said they wanted to leave it up to voters. Voters chose Biden.
“A states Attorney General going after him. Not much success here yet either.”
On the contrary, he was already found liable for fraud.
“This will be shot down”
Maybe, maybe not. Learn patience.
LOL at this one. Cry us a handful, mr patience
Poor Anon,
Pelosi rammed them thru w little or no evidence.
Trump did nothing impeachable and considering what is known now thanks to the GOP controlled House…
He shouldn’t have been impeached in the first place.
In terms of the riot… it wasn’t an insurrection.
Note that Pelosi could have called it an insurrection and called upon the National Guard if she so desired.
Yet she didn’t.
No one was charged under 18 USC 2383.
And of course Trump didn’t call it an insurrection.
So if neither Congress or Trump called it an insurrection… you don’t have an insurrection.
Could a court have called it that? Maybe if someone was being charged under 18 USC 2383.
-G
The fact that you are arguing this garbage is a poor reflection on you.
He was “Found” guilty of Fraud by Red Queen Justice – “sentence first — verdict afterwards”
Engron proclaimed Trump was guilty before any of the actual evidence was presented.
None of us have much to learn from you.
And no – we are NOT patient with with abuse of power.
We are delaing with the collusion delusion over again.
Perpitrate a hoax, use that to justify an investigation.
Scream quilty guilty guilty, then as things go to schiff blame the rest of us for not being patient.
There was no basis for Cross Fire Huricane – it was abuse of power pure and simple.
There was even less of a basis for the Mueller SC investigation – again an unconstitutional abuse of power.
You impeached Trump for seeking inquiry into a corrupt politician where it is CRYSTAL clear that inquiry is necescary – more unconstitutional abuse of power.
You lied and lied and lied – about Covid, about The Biden’s
You censored the truth – worse still you used government power to do so – again illegal unconstititonal abuse of power.
You did so to rig an election – and people RIGHTLY grasp that when you must win by any means necescary – you can not be beleived when you claim there was no election fraud.
You then impeached Trump – becuase he and half the country are angry about a rigged election – so you impeached him again.
You abused power to steal documents from him that are his – that has been true of every president since Washington. It remains true afdter the PRA – as your own Judge ABJ determined in JW V NARA, and now you are prosecuting him for possession of his own property – something that has never been done with a president before.
You pulled this idiotic Fraud nonsense. As atleast on decent lawyer pointed out – the FL AG has grounds to prosecute James using the same idiotic legal theory she used against Trump. The property is in FL, the Valuation is in FL, the property Taxes are paid in FL, the Mortgage was for a FL property. The loans were repaid in full. The bank agressively sought Trump’s business.
They would have loaned him the money if he had Half the assets, There is no Fraud – only abuse of power.
Over and over we have left wingnuts engaged in Lawfare in loeft wing nut hell holes, prosecuting Trump and others for non-crimes that occured elsewhere,
Are you so stupid that you do not understand that Two can play that game ?
Even WaPo grasps you are way over your skis, that you have jumped the shark.
You ranted at us that we needed to get rid of Trump to return to normal, to return to peace and quiet and sanity.
But it is now self evident to all – some of us understood this long ago
that YOU are the source of the chaos.
This is not about Trump – Trump is just your #1 target. This is about YOUR lawlessness.
About YOUR chaos, anarchy. About YOUR willingness do do whatever it takes to get whatever you want.
It appears that the CO SC decision is the finall straw for many people.
We will see. Some of us grasped you were nuts and dangerous long ago.
Maybe the CO SC decision is not the last straw – just another step in that direction.
Again we will see.
And WE have a great deal of patients.
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,”
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ”
There are two paths forward. Either our institutions come to grips with your lawlessness and right themselves.
Or ultimately this leads to violence. Lest you be ranting “insurrection, Insurection, insurection”,
the violence with near certainty will start with you – the left has ALWAYS been violent. By any means necescary presumes that violence is justified, as is fraud, and all other forms of lawlessness.
But it is not likely that you will end the violence.
You demand patience – what does that mean ? That we should continue to endure your lawless unconstitutional abuses of power ?
You are terrified that Trump will take office in 2025. Because what ? Because he MIGHT do to you a fraction of what you have done to him ?
the CO SC decision was so broad, so stupid so illconceived that it took only a few moments for even many on the left to go “Oh Schiff, ! nothing in this decision would prevent red states from doing this to Biden, or to our representatives. and senators”
The last time a presidential candidate was excluded fromt he ballot was Abraham Lincoln in 1860. The same people who Wrote the 14th amendment allowed hundreds of confederates to take public office – including one who was a Representative, Senator, and eventually Supreme court justice.
You have gone too far.
Democrats have no cloths.
People are not calling for the Supreme court to reverse this.
They are calling for the supreme court to reverse this 9-0 IMMEDIATELY
They are demanding that before this gets out of hand – no, this is already out of hand.
Even WaPo is saying this is too far.
The TX Lt Gov. Wants Biden off the TX ballot now.
People are fed up with this lawless nonsense.
If you are so worried about What Trump will do to you in 2025,
then you should NOT be off encourgaging the courts to endorse abuses of power with no limiting principle.
@Independent Boy…
Uhm hate to be the bearer of bad news… Trump lost to James in her case.
Engoron gave her a summary judgement.
That said… he can win on appeal.
Just being honest.
And yes it will be shot down.
It should be 9-0.
-G
Engoron failed to follow the law.
Summary judgement applies when there are no questions of fact in dispute.
When there are – you MUST hold a trial.
There are plenty of facts that are in dispute – the Post Summary judgement hearings were evidentiary hearings on factual claims that Engoron ignored to reach Summary judgement.
Regardless, this case never should have reached a court room.
𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐨’𝐬 𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
If the value of Popular Vote Influence is diminished by Ban of a Candidate (e.g.: a Colorado Ban), then the resultant answer of the Editorial College formula is skewed and produces a tabulation error (violation) in the process of 3 U.S. Code § 15 – Counting of electoral votes in Congress. [i.e.: When you ‘subvert’ the Ballot, it no longer adds up]
Hence a 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭 can be brought forth upon this issue in Federal Court (SCOTUS) to resolve this matter.
—
Electoral College Influence and Popular Vote Influence [Calculus]
Let ei represent the electoral votes in state i, which are all allocated to the winner of the popular vote in the state (with few exceptions, as noted). Thus, each state’s proportional contribution to the electoral vote is:
(1) The Mathematical Formula (.jpg)
[Link] cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/public/images/cato-journal/fall-2018/cjv38n3-unequat001.jpg?itok=n8kiuy-9
conditional only on the winner of the popular vote in the state. I will use Ei as the measure of a state’s electoral vote influence. (Other measures of influence are considered below, but as a starting point I focus on shares.)
Now consider the distribution of popular vote influence across the states. At first, a state’s popular vote influence might seem to be an artificial construct. Each vote counts the same toward the national popular vote regardless of the voter’s place of residence. Nonetheless, the state remains the relevant locus because whether a state prefers the electoral college can only be determined by the state and in consideration of an alternative. In particular, I analyze the most commonly suggested and plausible alternative — namely, whether a state would prefer to have the election determined by the electoral college or by the national popular vote. To answer that question it is assumed that a state will prefer the system that maximizes the potential influence of its voters, as represented by the state’s popular vote majority, on the outcome of an election.
With regard to a state’s popular vote influence, it will help to define some basic measures. Start with two political parties, designated as the D party and the R party.
(2)
: votes for the D party in state i
(3)
: votes for the R party in state i
(4)
: the positive vote difference (the margin) between the parties in state i, which is accorded to the winning party
(5)
: the vote total in state i
For each state the popular vote margin in percentage terms is the difference in the vote between the two parties, relative to the total votes cast:
(6)
: state i’s percentage popular vote margin.
With
(7)
: state i’s share of the national vote,
it follows that the difference in the total vote within a state relative to the total vote in the country is given by
(8)
Thus, every state’s contribution to the national popular vote margin is the popular vote margin in the state multiplied by the relative size of the state. In terms of the popular vote, the state margin and state size are multiplicative. And not surprisingly, abstracting from the margin (an a posteriori concept), each state’s share of the national population (βi) is a direct measure of its potential (a priori) influence on the election under a national popular vote.
References:
[Link] cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2018/determining-state-preferences-electoral-college-1788-2016#
[Link] archives.gov/electoral-college/electors#restrictions
[Link] uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&path=%2Fprelim%40title3%2Fchapter1&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title3-section15&num=0&saved=L3ByZWxpbUB0aXRsZTMvY2hhcHRlcjE%3D%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGUzLWNoYXB0ZXIx%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7Cprelim
Note: Supreme Court cases begin with an incident, Colorado is your ‘incident’.
Sweet Surrender
𝐃𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞: 𝟏𝟕𝟖𝟖–𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟔 [PDF]
By: Paul E. Godek ~ Fall 2018 • Cato Journal
https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2018/9/cj-v38n3-5.pdf
The Democrats intent to subvert the 2024 Presidential Election by ‘skewing’ the Electoral College.
Colorado is the Proof[.]
The plain language of the 14th amendment says nothing about indictment or conviction of a crime. The party that yells loud and long about plain language is now saying something different. They are constantly talking about being convicted of a crime. The plain language of the amendment is clear.
Funny how when the shoe fits they want to go bare foot.
The plain language of 18 USC 2383 says nothing about indictment or conviction.
Bill G is a retard
Section 3—–>Section 5—–>18 USC 2383
Plain language. End of story.
No, sections 3 and 5 do not lead inexorably to 18 USC 2383. Plain language of the 14 A. End of story.
Your favorite masterbatory fantasy.
That’s occurring in your own head.
“No, sections 3 and 5 do not lead inexorably to 18 USC 2383, because I never learned how to read.”
Finished that for ya. Yep…ALL of the “plain language of 14A”
Go see what text is REFERENCED in 18 USC 2383. Or just take a wild a$$ guess.
Oh i get it, you dont care about that either.
“Don’t bore me with inexorable facts”
Funny how when the shoe fits Bill G wants to put it in his mouth.
Here is your plain language, dipsh!t. Section 3 doesn’t exist in a vaccum, other than in your head.
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.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
The plain language does not render the provision dormant until Congress passes legislation on Section 3. There is no conditional language, that only makes the provision operable if / when Congress regulates it.
The plain language does state that a candidate for office must be convicted of the criminal insurrection statute for the provision to be operable.
Try again.
The plain language does *not* state that a candidate for office must be convicted of the criminal insurrection statute for the provision to be operable.
See above. Try again.
Nobody said it was dormant retard. That’s precisely where u lose.
Congress did what section 5 allowed. Section 5 authorized Congress to execute it. And only Congress. And in 1948, they did. I’m real sorry that doesn’t fit your little wet dream.
18 USC 2383 a)uses the exact same language as 14A, b)references 14A, and c)provides the exact same remedy as 14A (and more, as allowed by section 5)
You think that’s an accident or coincidence. I think you’re an idiot.
Notice that 18 USC 2383 doesn’t say “convicted”, “charged”, “indicted”, “accused” or any of those other cutesy a$$ words you wanna use. I guess that makes it “self executing”. Bwahahahaha
If it was “self executing”, they wouldn’t need a court to uphold it. What a 3rd grade argument.
Look at any statute. Just like that plain wording, they don’t use those purposely ignorant words either. Another example??? How about 2 USC 192
Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.
Do you see the words “convicted”, “charged”, “indicted”, “accused” in there? Huh? So stupid its not even worth arguing. Hell, according to your “plain language” argument, we don’t even need a trial. If you refused to testify you “shall be deemed”. Game over. Self executing.
I guess if a Florida state court rules that “We want them to surge to the border”—Joe Biden, was inciting an insurrection, for right or wrong, and the FL SC upheld it, that’s A-OK. Such weak sauce. Pitiful really. And you’ll soon see why.
How does the improperly ratified and unconstitutional 14th Amendment define “insurrection?”
If you are without an understanding and definition of insurrection, Merriam-Webster is there for you.
The unbound and free individuals that conducted a riot on Jan 6 were admonished by President Trump to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“AN ARMED UPRISING THAT QUICKLY FAILS OR SUCCEEDS”
________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
RIOT
noun
ri·ot ˈrī-ət
1a: a violent public disorder – specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent
b: public violence, tumult, or disorder
2: a random or disorderly profusion – the woods were a riot of color
3: one that is wildly amusing – the new comedy is a riot
________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
INSURRECTION
noun
in·sur·rec·tion ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
Choose the Right Synonym for insurrection
rebellion, revolution, uprising, revolt, insurrection, mutiny mean an outbreak against authority.
REVOLT AND INSURRECTION IMPLY AN ARMED UPRISING THAT QUICKLY FAILS OR SUCCEEDS
revolt and insurrection imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds.
– a revolt by the Young Turks that surprised party leaders
– an insurrection of oppressed laborers
Systematically interfering with the peaceful transfer of power, as described in detail by the January 6th Committee, is a dramatic example of insurrection.
Citation please.
as described in detail by the January 6th Committee,
Democrats have been decribing in detail all the crimes Trump has committed for 7 years. The details just happen to raw fiction.
“The plain language of the 14th amendment says nothing . . .”
But the 6th says everything. And it limits *all* such government action.
When you cherry-pick the Constitution, you can conclude anything or nothing.
I am astounded by the level of ignorance regarding our governing system and the constitution by which it is formed and assembled. And that doesn’t even begin to address the total delusion we have about the roles and responsibilities of our government officials and how our government functions, which includes the role and responsibility of the Supreme Court to adjudicate conflicts and disputes between the States and any petitions for redress for grievances submitted to the united States, in congress assembled, the Union and Established Government Authority.
However, before I begin to enlighten you, let’s review what was expected from the amendments to our governing system established by the Articles of Confederation, which was considered to be Perfect, that’s why the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States says, “in order to form a More Perfect Union, and to have a more perfect Union, the Union it amended must have itself been perfect, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t have inherent defects in equality and equality.
Colorado’s Supreme Court is not empowered to make any decisions about any processes that do not comply with the Constitution of the United States. There jurisdiction only extends to whether Colorado is following the Constitution of the United States or if Colorado isn’t following the Constitution of the United States, they have absolutely no jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution of the United States, and for that matter, they have no authority to interpret the Constitution of Colorado, and the same is true of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, which only can rule on whether Colorado is or isn’t complying with the Constitution of the United States.
If you are following along, then you will immediately understand that no court decision, Colorado’s or the United State’s Supreme Court, can ever make a mutable decision. Meaning no Supreme Court decision can ever be overturned by a later court, all decisions must decide the disputes and conflicts immutably, and all decisions are final. The States have already agreed to abide by all decisions made by the Supreme Court to resolve their conflicts and disputes between two or more States. The same is true of a State, all the counties or other districts used to form the State of Colorado agree to comply with all laws they participate in making, and to abide by any decisions by the court to resolve their conflicts and disputes, or any other petitions for redress for redress of grievances which may arise when making laws in a properly assembled and operated legislative assembly.
So the only question that remained is are we following the process to elect the President in every State in the United States?
The simple answer is no, because the State legislature only has the power to determine the manner of appointing the State’s electors, not determine the persons identified on each elector’s ballots, and the appointment of the electors must be simultaneous in every State, then the electors give their votes by ballot on the same day, which precludes national candidates or a national choice, it must be a consensus choice where each State makes a list of choices which are then considered by all the States in Congress, where the top persons identified on the aggregate list of electors choices are deliberated by the States and the States determine the choice by vote, 1 vote per State, and a majority of All The States, is necessary to the Choice.
[Article. II. Section. 1. clause 4
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.]
We also don’t have the required number of electors because we don’t have the required whole number of representatives in Congress, which based upon the 2020 census must be 11,021 representatives, the whole number which does not exceed 1 representative for every 30,000 persons which reside within each State, which would result in 11,121 electors, not 538, and by the way, there is absolutely no constitutional justification for apportioning Washington DC 3 electors, they are not a State, and therefore are not entities to any Senators or Representatives in the Congress.
We cannot change, abridge, interpret, or amend the Constitution of the United States by congressional statute, state or federal, and Article 1 which determines the whole number of representatives each State is entitled cannot be changed even by Federal Constitutional Amendment, because is dependent on the number of inhabitants in each State as a percentage of the aggregate population of the Union, which percentage must be converted into a whole number of representatives, and each State’s percentage of the whole number of representatives must equal the percentage determined by the enumeration, and that can only be determined by a proportionality constant which is applied to each State, and that proportionality constant is 1 representative for every 30,00p persons who reside within each State, and there must be boundary conditions to address any fractional representatives calculated. The first boundary condition is not to exceed the proportionality constant, which requires that any fractional representatives calculated must be truncated, because rounding up to the next whole representative would exceed the boundary condition. The second boundary condition is for the specific case where a State has a population less than the proportionality constant which would only calculate a fractional representative which would be truncated by the first boundary condition leaving that State with zero representatives, and in that specific case, that State is entities to 1 representative.
The congress can only determine the manner of taking the census, which must be an accounting of all the free persons residing in each State irrespective of demographics, not the number of representatives apportioned to each State!
We have this same problem with the appointment of electors and determining the electors vote, no State have the authority to determine the electors votes, they only can determine the manner of appointing the electors, and that must be determined by a properly assembled State Legislature where the Most Numerous Legislative Branch is an assembly of an exact representation of the people of the the Stare, “The People of the State in their Collective Capacity”, which makes it impossible for any State to assemble electors who will all agree on one national choice for either President or Vice President, and not forming a list of app persons who received votes from the electors and the number of votes for each office, is a further violation of Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States which requires that list to be formed by each States electors.
What’s a ballot, and who is responsible for identifying and vetting the persons who are indicated on the ballots?
@nfpNone
The time to be astounded was 20 years ago. Where you been? We could have nipped this all in the bud, we very decidedly chose not to. We even chose to argue loudly in opposition to the notion. Now we are where we are and if we are very, very lucky, we can pick up the pieces. It irks me when anyone presents these protestations as though something happened out of the blue – none of this did, and anyone that believes that has not been paying attention for a long, long time, possibly as long as 30 years. Wake up. The world is not what it was. We have to deal with it somehow. Institutions are bad enough; that it has gotten as far as poisoning our courts is unacceptable. Lots of us tried to persuade back when, and we were ignored. We still are by large swaths of the population. Nothing but total and complete collapse will seem to suffice.
“IF YOU’RE HALF RIGHT, YOU’RE HALF WRONG, IF YOU’RE HALF WRONG, YOU’RE ALL WRONG.”
LINCOLN WAS ALL WRONG, CAUSING AMERICA OF 2023 TO BE ALL WRONG.
The U.S. Constitution and American freedom stopped at Abraham Lincoln’s egregious breach of constitutional dominion and his “Reign of Terror.”
Secession was and is not prohibited, fully constitutional, and historically and globally ubiquitous.
Every act of Lincoln subsequent to his unconstitutional denial of constitutional secession was and remains invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional to this day, including, but not limited to, the “Reconstruction Amendments” dictated by Abraham Lincoln’s fellow traveler, Karl Marx.
Criminal acts shall not beget the furtherance of criminal acts.
The Supreme Court acted retroactively by 50 years to correct the high-criminal act of corruption by the Supreme Court of 1973, returning abortion to the States, squarely where the Constitution puts it.
The Supreme Court must now act retroactively by 150 years to correct the illicit and unconstitutional acts, effects, and consequences of Abraham Lincoln and his successors, including, but not limited to, the “Reconstruction Amendments,” and the antithetical and unconstitutional progressives and communists he engendered; the entire communist American welfare state being invalid, illegitimate, and unconstitutional.
___________________________________________________
“They consider…that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”
– Karl Marx Letter to Abraham Lincoln, 1865 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
George, do you know what happens when you mix spoiled milk with fresh milk? You end up with spoiled milk, and that is what has happened to everything you write. What a waste.
It is impossible to discern a cogent and compelling rebuttal here.
Thank you for your inescapable concurrence regarding the immutable constitutionality of secession.
Now we may all stipulate that crime may not beget crime and that every effect and consequence of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s initial crime was and remains to this day invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional, requiring abrogation and reversal, including, but not limited to, the “Reconstruction Amendments” dictated by Lincoln’s fellow traveler, Karl Marx, and constituting the antithesis of the Constitution.
Oh, and thank you for your audience and patronage, which I am desperately in need of.
“Thank you for your inescapable concurrence regarding the immutable constitutionality of secession.”
George, neither spoiled milk nor secession pass inspection.
I may occasionally travel with you on this blog, but as I documented, Lincoln never traveled with Marx. That you endlessly repeat what is proven to be false doesn’t help them recognize the true things you say,
“I am desperately in need of.”
Yes, it is clearly evident that you are desperate.
There are so many errors in this I don’t know where to begin… How bout these:
“We cannot change, abridge, interpret, or amend the Constitution of the United States by congressional statute, state or federal,”
– Ever heard of a constitutional amendment? Who passes that one?
“[The Colorado Supreme Court has] no authority to interpret the Constitution of Colorado.”
– What? This is literally one of its primary functions.
“Meaning no Supreme Court decision can ever be overturned by a later court, all decisions must decide the disputes and conflicts immutably, and all decisions are final.”
– While stare decisis is important, cases are overturned all the time. Ever heard of Plessy v. Ferguson? It also has no relevance here as this was a case of first impression.
A constitutional amendment is not a congressional statute. I think I will stop there because it seems that you have never even read The Constitution of the United States, much less comprehend what it established!
Trump interfered in multiple ways with the peaceful transfer of power. This is described in detail by the January 6th Committee’s criminal referral to the DOJ. Interfering with peaceful transfer of power is an example of insurrection, which is a fundamental threat to our democracy. Article 3 of the 14th Amendment is an essential safeguard and a wise addition to the qualifications of all our elected officials.
We don’t have a transfer of power in the United States, peaceful or otherwise! All distribution of power through rights of suffrage is specified unalterably by the Constitution of the United States! There are no seats that can be won to determine the composition and control of our governing institutions through competitive partisan elections!
You spout tired old Yankee propaganda when you rant “(Confederates) had all previously taken the same oath and then violated it…” But that’s a lie. No Confederate “violated” any oath. Every single one of them ***resigned their offices***, and left the Union. You cannot “violate” an oath that you are not bound by. No oath is permanent. Lee didn’t “violate” any oath; neither did Stephens or any other Confederate, military or civilian.
And no Confederate was a “traitor”, nor did any of them commit “treason” either. Again, no oath is permanent. You can openly and publicly repudiate it. I swore to uphold the Constitution when I enlisted, for example. But if the Biden regime called me back into service today, I’d refuse, because this regime doesn’t uphold the Constitution.
And Confederates believed (correctly) that their secession was “legal” and right, and that Lincoln was in the wrong to use violence to force them to remain in the Union. No Confederate “violated” any oath.
Tom, for the most part the Confederates acted with a degree of honor and integrity that is almost totally missing from our present government, particularly the Democrats but also some Republicans.
They were traitors. No honor, no dignity.
Every one of them? Even a hapless private soldier?
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.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Anything debated, discussed, argued, beguiled, theorized, pontificated, dreamed about, spewed, or “ruled” beyond this is a huge steaming turd, null and void.
Oh look…18 USC 2383 doesn’t say “charged” or “convicted”. It must be self executing.
Welllllll, at least he didnt start the trend! 12,000 to 1
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2023/12/21/the-dukes-of-hazzard-star-john-schneider-to-joe-biden-i-believe-you-are-guilty-of-treason-and-should-be-publicly-hung-your-son-too/
Dukes of Hazzard star John Schneider has called for the public execution of President Joe Biden, saying the commander in chief should to be “publicly hung” for treason. The actor also called for Hunter Biden to be executed.
John Schneider posted the X message in reply to Biden’s recent post in which he called former President Donald Trump a “threat” to democracy.
“Mr. President, I believe you are guilty of treason and should be publicly hung. Your son too. Your response is…?” the actor wrote.
Schneider’s call for Biden’s execution comes after years of left-wingers calling for violence and even the assassination of then-President Donald Trump.
A report in 2017 from the left-wing Mashable found more than 12,000 tweets calling for Trump’s assassination. The report ran just several days after Trump’s inauguration. It remains unclear if anyone was held accountable for those tweets.
Some Hollywood celebrities have called for violence against Trump, usually without negative repercussions to their careers. In 2o20, Bette Midler encouraged Joe Biden to kick the then-President Trump “in the nuts” during the first presidential debate, adding that Biden should pummel the president.
My guess is, Bette could take Joe’s lunch money
It is likely that the Court will rule against the Colorado decision in large part because so much informed and public opinion is against it rather than because of an actual matter of law. They will dress it up as law though.
Lately the record of the courts at most levels has been cowardly. First they wet their fingers to see which way the wind is blowing.
The Chauvin/Floyd trial appeared to have many problems that I thought would be addressed at the appellate level but all of them, even the Supreme Court justices, appeared to hide in the closet behind their hangered robes rather than address the significant issues.
The election disputes were avoided by issues of standing, ripeness, laches or whatever else kept actual evidence at a distance.
The J6 prisoners have been treated in a way I used to think was impossible in America.
The George Zimmerman [Trayvon Martin] prosecution was bizarre and unwarranted from the beginning and I thought the trial judge was less fair than she should have been, though that is only my impression. But for superb defence lawyers and a jury with integrity, including one black woman, Zimmerman would be unjustly in prison.
The Duke Lacrosse obscene prosecutions of three innocent men were finally stopped by an extraordinary intervention by the attorney general and didn’t owe much to judges.
The legal system is showing the symptoms of the same disease that has corrupted Harvard and other universities. It is possibly no mere coincidence that the Colorado justices are products of the Ivy League.
Professor Turley is right. In this issue the Court has not only to decide correctly but also to decide with a note of brilliant clarity that will ring through the entire legal system.
But it may be too late to heal the corroded reputations.
We will see.
Once
TrumpBiden incited the mob at theCapitolborder it automatically disqualifies him according to the theory.—Mr PeetapeSee how easy that is.
Retards
“We want them to surge to the border”.—-Joe Biden (Sept 2019)
Then there were the lynch mobs. No judge or jury. Mistakes were made.
The Colorado Supreme Court has declared Trump guilty of insurrection without any due process of law which is unconstitutional plus they are b-a-s-t-a-r-d-i-z-i-n-g the United States Constitution by ruling to ban Trump when they have no legal jurisdiction to do so.
Take it away Alan Dershowitz…
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skIdaNSAFdE&w=950&h=532%5D
Here comes Svelaz, to school Dershowitz
Where you at, twat?
Cue up Svelaz, to claim he know more than Dershowitz too
Incorrect. They did not declare Trump “guilty” of anything. This was not a criminal proceeding…
Are you aware of the difference between civil and criminal proceedings?
I dont see the word “guilty” anywhere in his post. Gaslight much?
“This was not a criminal proceeding…”
So “insurrection” is *not* a crime?! It’s just a civil thingy?
Sure would be nice if the Left would make up its mind.
There was a trial before the state court judge re: whether Trump had engaged in insurrection. Trump presented his evidence. He lost on that point. You think there was no due process, but both the state court judge and the Supreme Court of CO justices disagree with you. And they have legal jurisdiction to rule on whether Trump will appear on the CO ballot.
“There was a trial before the state court judge re: whether Trump had engaged in insurrection.”
LIE
Insurrection is a CRIME, detailed in 18 USC 2383, not a civil offense. The state court judge has no such unilateral authority.
“Trump presented his evidence. He lost on that point.”
Another LIE
There are strict evidentiary rules for finding someone “engaged” in a crime. They were not followed, because there was not criminal trial.
“And they have legal jurisdiction to rule on whether Trump will appear on the CO ballot.”
Not a lie, but totally irrelevant, since the state court usurped authority in this case.
And the SCOTUS will send this toilet paper back to the cesspool it came from.
Anonymous wrote, “they have legal jurisdiction to rule on whether Trump will appear on the CO ballot.”
Watch the Dershowitz video and learn why only Congress has the power to strip someone of that right.
“I need two Viagra before I can get an insurrection”—Joe Biden
Well that’s pretty clear.
See below another steaming turd from Svelaz VVVVVV
It does not matter to Professor Turley that numerous Republicans & January 6 defendants say he is dead wrong about his characterization of Trump’s January 6 Ellipse speech. In Trump’s second impeachment, ten House Republicans voted to impeach Trump for inciting an insurrection. Seven Senate Republicans voted to convict Trump for inciting an insurrection. McConnell & McCarthy both blamed Trump for the storming of the Capitol.
McConnell: “There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day, The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president.”
McCarthy: “The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump.”
Over twenty January 6 defendants testified that they believed they were following orders from President Trump when they broke into the Capitol. 140 police officers were assaulted & injured during the storming of the Capitol. 59 defendants were charged with destruction of government property.
Turley insists it doesn’t matter that Trump ended his Ellipse speech by calling for his supporters to march down Pennsylvania: “And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Meanwhile, Turley has spent the past year relentlessly lobbying Republicans to impeach Biden–which, of course, would disqualify him from the 2024 election. Ah, yes, in your books, that’s the true call of history, right, JT?
steaming turd^^^^^
+100
See the steaming turd from Dennis below VVVVVV
Good Lord, MOST Republicans agree that January 6th was FAR less than “insurrection.” It was a riot, and even that might be a stretch. Now, by comparison let’s consider the BLM RIOTS. Now THAT was violence and destruction…and where are the many thousands of convictions for silly things for participants in those true riots.
The fact that you can dig up a few idiot Republicans with appealing credentials and erroneous beliefs does more to undermine them then make the point you’re trying to make.
see the steaming turd from Dennis belowVVVVV
Ought to give credit to the Democrats & RINOS for having staged an Oscar winning performance to further the fundamental transformation of the American constitutional republic.
See the steaming turd from Dennis belowVVVVVVVV
Jonathan: Finally, you have weighed in on one of the most important cases facing the SC. Whether DJT is banned from the ballot in Colorado under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. But as a professor who teaches the Constitution you don’t bother to do a textual or constitutional analysis of that Section.
Conservative constitutional scholars like J. Michael Luttig, Michael Stokes and William Baude have already opined back in September that DJT is barred from office under Section 3. They concluded the Section 3 is “self enforcing”. Other constitutional scholars have made the same analysis. During this time you have remained strangely silent. Now the Colorado SC has arrived at the same conclusion. DJT is barred from the ballot because he engaged in “insurrection”. Another court in New Mexico similarly concluded by banning a local official because he participated in an “insurrection” on Jan. 6.
You seem to put all your cards on the argument that Jan. 6 was just a “riot”. But that flies in the facts. A “riot” is generally defined as a spontaneous outburst of violence. Jan. 6 was quite different. It was well planned in advance by DJT, his lieutenants and violent insurrectionist groups like the Proud Boys. Enrique Tarrio, the head of the PB and four of his lieutenants, were found guilty of “seditious conspiracy”. Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years in prison. The Colorado SC found DJT planned and executed a conspiracy to overturn a legitimate election with violence to stay in power. That’s the very definition of “insurrection”.
Most legal observers say the SC will overturn the Colorado SC decision saying DJT should not be barred from primary ballot in Colorado. It should be left to the electorate to decide. But DJT is not out of the woods. If Jack Smith’s case goes to trial in March and DJT is convicted will voters want to vote for a “convicted felon” in the general election? That’s a decision only the voters can make, not the Supremes.
This is a clear violation of due process. The Constitution demands that for someone to be declared guilty of any infamous crime requires trial by jury. That’s basic stuff. Furthermore, the section barring people from the ballot gives Congress the authority to legislate the enforcement mechanism, which it has. There is a criminal statute defining insurrection and bars people from holding political office if they are convicted of it.
Trump hasn’t even been indited under that statute.
Due process is to be afforded to everyone, not just people we like. Should school shooters be simply executed without giving them a trial? Because logically if Donald Trump should not be granted due process, then neither should school shooters.
Your are arguing in favor of despotism. Arbitrary rulings designed to support whoever the ruler is, rather than following the law. Perhaps Democrats hold that power for now, but would you be okay with a Republican court being able to declare Democrats traitors and banning them from the ballot?
Trump has not been “declared guilty” of anything…
If a civil defendant is found to be liable of civil fraud, would you say that proceeding “declared” the defendant “guilty” of criminal fraud?
You f*cking retards have said it more times than I can count here on this very blog. “Trump was found guilty of rape” until my ears bled.
What he said and you seemingly missed is that Congress (and only Congress) can enforce the provision. And they DID…USC 2383. Before you drop another turd, I dont care wtf happened before 1948. That is moot now. Wouldn’t matter since then either, because unconstitutional sh!t is/was done all the time. That’s why SCOTUS will slap this ruling into the turd hole it came from.
Steaming turd^^^^
On the 4th day of Christmas, Turley seems to have a lot of confidence and faith in Scrooge SCOTUS’ past. .. but I’m not so sure.
*If you disqualify genocide Joe, I will disqualify the Trump monkey Apostle .. . and there will be the peace.
“will voters want to vote for a “convicted felon” in the general election?”
Asks the twat who hasn’t been paying attention…
The answer is yes, twat
It is a stirring article, but I doubt whether the SCOTUS will rise to it.