14th Amendment Supreme Court Brief (1 Viewer)

[Pat Hartman]

There are now 2 major categories that Democrats want no evidence required to convict: sex crimes and insurrection.

Tax evasion doesn't require any evidence either. All you have to do is to take advantage of the tax code to take all the deductions you're "entitled" to.

It was written to prevent insurectionists from holding office. Then and in the future, the future being now. Trump incited an insurection, ergo.....

I guess you can't read either. How sad Do you think the authors "forgot" to mention the job of President. They mentioned a lot of other offices. Why "forget" to mention President? Geeze, maybe it was intentional. Duh! Maybe they weren't being stupid. Duh! We won't go into the part about being guilty just because jpl458 doesn't like you. Why not just accuse Trump of murder? You've accused him of everything else. Simply saying j'accuse should be sufficient in "your" democracy since "your" democracy bears no resemblance to "our" republic established by "our" Constitution. Most people with TDS can't think this far into the logic but I'm pretty sure that the reason "President" was omitted deliberately (as it is in other sections of the Constitution) because logically, a President cannot commit insurrection. Why not? Because HE IS THE GOVERNMENT. Who is he fighting with? Himself?

Who knew in 1868 that they should have written "but not President" because in 2024 people are going to think the authors were too stupid to remember to add "President" in the list of jobs. Sure wish they had thought that Amendment through a little more since they made FOUR other egregious mistakes in the ONE SECTION. They didn't foresee the the way illegal aliens would be taking advantage of our current misinterpretation of the intent of section 1 to
1. award birthright citizenship to a child born on US soil whose parents had no legal right to be here at all and therefore was not "under the jurisdiction thereof".
2. Ignore completely the sentence about "No State shall (SHALL!!!! is emphatic in the understanding of the era) make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United states unless it has to do with the 4th Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
3. nor shall (there's that pesky SHALL again) any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law - unless his name is Donald J Trump or he is a supporter of DJT.
4. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws - unless his name is Donald J Trump or he is a supporter of said DJT.

 

[jpl458]

There was no insurrection. It's a figment of your imagination. You need to be checked-out by a medical professional for TDS.

Read the law, then read the indictments, and if you want to get personal look up lobotomy.

you want to get personal

 

[Steve R.]

Read the law, then read the indictments, and if you want to get personal look up lobotomy.

you want to get personal

Cite the law.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Cite the lawsuits that charge Trump with insurrection. You can't just say there was an insurrection because some Talking Head said that on Jan 6 in their excited reporting. If it bleeds, it leads. That is their mantra and they just kept harping on it and making up stuff and here we are 3+ years later and the lie still lives in the minds of those with TDS, facts be damned. Yes, there were a few crazies there who thought they were going to an insurrection. Not sure why they left their guns at home though. Did they really think they were going to occupy the building without any? A lot of Trump supporters happen to own guns but they apparently forgot to bring them. So, unless you have proof - and none has turned up in 3+ years, that Trump organized an "insurrection", then maybe you should give it up and move on to one of the other cases and hang your hat on that one for a while.

The 14th Amendment doesn't apply. The writers would not have omitted the job of "President" accidentally so it was intentional. And since Trump was never accused of insurrection anyway (except by talking heads and Democrat Congress members), you can't automatically convict him because in your heart you KNOW that was his intent and then use that non-conviction as the reason for applying the non-applicable 14th.

Personally, I think that Biden has committed Treason. That is a death penalty sentence.

 

[Steve R.]

Cite the lawsuits that charge Trump with insurrection. You can't just say there was an insurrection because some Talking Head said that on Jan 6 in their excited reporting. If it bleeds, it leads. That is their mantra and they just kept harping on it and making up stuff and here we are 3+ years later and the lie still lives in the minds of those with TDS, facts be damned.

@jpl458: When and where was the trial held? Who was the presiding federal judge and who was the federal prosecutor?

 

[moke123]

Cite the lawsuits that charge Trump with insurrection.

Cite the law that says you need to be charged. It's self executing. The remedy is a vote from congress to remove the bar.

When and where was the trial held?

Colorado. Here's the judges decision https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...ver_District_Court/11_17_2023 Final Order.pdf

The Court concludes, based on its findings of fact and the applicable law detailed above, that Trump incited an insurrection on January 6, 2021 and therefore “engaged” in insurrection within the meaning of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. First, the Court concludes that Trump acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means; specifically, by using unlawful force and violence. Next, the Court concludes that the language Trump employed was likely to produce such lawlessness. 289. Regarding Trump’s specific intent (either purpose or knowledge), the Court considers highly relevant Trump’s history of courting extremists and endorsing political violence as legitimate and proper, as well as his efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 election results and hinder the certification of the Electoral College results in Congress. Trump’s history of reacting favorably to political violence committed at his rallies or in his name, as well as his cultivation of relationships with extremist political actors who frequently traffic in violent rhetoric, is well-established. Trump has consistently endorsed violence and intimidation as not only legitimate means of political expression, but as necessary, even virtuous. Further, the Court has found that Trump was aware that his supporters were willing to engage in political violence and that they would respond to his calls for them to do so. 290. In addition to his consistent endorsement of political violence, Trump undertook efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election well in advance of the election, making accusations of widespread corruption, voter fraud, and election rigging. These efforts intensified when the election results were returned showing that he had lost the election, despite a complete lack of evidence showing any such fraud and his knowledge that there was no evidence. As the electoral college votes were cast, and the certification date drew closer, Trump further intensified his public efforts at disrupting the certification, even as violence, intimidation, and calls for political violence escalated. In the wake of this, Trump supported calls for protests in Washington, D.C., and focused his call on the date of the certification, January 6, 2021. Trump continued to inflame his supporters with false accusations of historic levels of election corruption. Leading up to January 6, 2021, federal law enforcement and security agencies identified significant threats of violence associated with the planned 92 January 6, 2021 rallies. Despite these warnings, Trump undertook no effort to prepare law enforcement or discourage violence among the prospective attendees. Importantly, he did not tell law enforcement he intended to direct the crowd to protest at the Capitol.

 

[Steve R.]

Cite the law that says you need to be charged. It's self executing. The remedy is a vote from congress to remove the bar.



Colorado. Here's the judges decision https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023 Final Order.pdf

Dershowitz disagrees. It was a rogue court, consumed with TDS.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Cite the law that says you need to be charged. It's self executing. The remedy is a vote from congress to remove the bar.

This is a circular argument. You can't just say someone is guilty of something and then proceed to act on that. Moke is a murderer. Let's skip all the intervening steps and just put him in the chair and light him up. Also, the people who wrote the 14th Amendment did NOT accidentally forget to list "President" in the positions that the section applied to therefore, they did NOT intend for this to apply to the position of "President".

If you have a reason to think that the authors of the Amendment didn't know what they were doing, please share it with us. Why do you think they would mention a number of offices that this amendment applied to but conspicuously absent is the office of President?

We seem to be back to "j'accuse". If I say you are guilty, you are guilty and that is that. No charging, no trial, you're guilty because I said you were. PERIOD.

Whether the law is self executing or not is irrelevant.
1. It does not apply to the office of President
2. and if somehow it did because someone found a typo that exists in all the Constitutions printed in the past 160 years, Trump did not commit insurrection except in the minds of those with TDS.

 

[moke123]

If you have a reason to think that the authors of the Amendment didn't know what they were doing, please share it with us. Why do you think they would mention a number of offices that this amendment applied to but conspicuously absent is the office of President?

Sure thing. Here ya go.

This is the brief filed by a group of civil war historians. You know, the guys who have extensively studied the civil war era when the 14th amendment was drafted.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/298895/20240126151819211_23-719%20Brief.pdf

During the congressional debates, Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, a Democratic opponent of the 14th Amendment, challenged sponsors as to why Section 3 omitted the President. Republican Senator Lot Morrill of Maine, an influential backer of congressional Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment, corrected the Senator. Morrill replied, “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office civil or military under the United States.’” Senator Johnson admitted his error; no other Senator questioned whether Section 3 covered the President.

It also goes into why it is self executing and that the president is an officer of the US. Good reading. Enjoy.

 

[Pat Hartman]

People with TDS frequently talk about what Trump actually means. Since Trump is living rent free in their heads they believe that they can channel his inner thoughts. So, it matters not what he said on that day nor the fact that no communications that would indicate anything to the contrary have turned up in three years, they KNOW what was in his heart and they KNOW it was an insurrection.

 

[Steve R.]

Many Constitutional experts affirm that Trump can't be disqualified from being on the ballot. Add one more to the growing list.

Will the Supreme Court let Colorado bar Trump from the ballot? | Fox News Video

Paul Gigot interviews former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Steve R.]

Dershowitz once again asserts that the 14th Amendment can't be used to disqualify Trump from any ballot. Note Dershowitz first question, which asks why the office of President was not mentioned by the framers of the 14th Amendment. Moreover, if the specifics didn't call out the office of the President, you shouldn't use the criteria of a general statement as the basis to add the office of the President into the criteria of the specific statements since the framers of the 14th Amendment purposely left out the office of the president from that specific list. (At the 5 minute mark.)

‎The Dershow: Will Supreme Court disqualify Trump? on Apple Podcasts

‎Show The Dershow, Ep Will Supreme Court disqualify Trump? - Feb 7, 2024

podcasts.apple.com

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[Isaac]

Cite the lawsuits that charge Trump with insurrection. You can't just say there was an insurrection because some Talking Head said that on Jan 6 in their excited reporting. If it bleeds, it leads. That is their mantra and they just kept harping on it and making up stuff and here we are 3+ years later and the lie still lives in the minds of those with TDS, facts be damned. Yes, there were a few crazies there who thought they were going to an insurrection. Not sure why they left their guns at home though. Did they really think they were going to occupy the building without any? A lot of Trump supporters happen to own guns but they apparently forgot to bring them. So, unless you have proof - and none has turned up in 3+ years, that Trump organized an "insurrection", then maybe you should give it up and move on to one of the other cases and hang your hat on that one for a while.

The 14th Amendment doesn't apply. The writers would not have omitted the job of "President" accidentally so it was intentional. And since Trump was never accused of insurrection anyway (except by talking heads and Democrat Congress members), you can't automatically convict him because in your heart you KNOW that was his intent and then use that non-conviction as the reason for applying the non-applicable 14th.

Personally, I think that Biden has committed Treason. That is a death penalty sentence.

Never mind lawsuits, tort law is garbage.

Cite the criminal charges he was convited of for insurrection?

 

[Steve R.]

Trump wins the ballot issue! Supreme Court ruling attached.
This case, is but one case in the numerous questionable lawfare, lawsuits the fanatical irrational Democrats are tossing at Trump.
As many commentators have already remarked, the Democrats who claim to be the party of democracy are subverting democracy in the name of saving it by persecuting Trump so that he cannot be reelected. Very Orwellian by the Democrats. This was a bogus lawsuit that should never have been brought. Essentially, it was an extreme desperate attempt by the Democrats to once again rig and election to favor them. Moreover Democrats never seem to comprehend that if they had won a case, such as is one, that that could be used against them in the future. Furthermore, the Democrats are involved in voter suppression, the very thing that the Democrats falsely accuse Republicans of doing. Democrats are shortsighted hypocrites.

Alan Dershowitz podcast:
Trump wins in SCOTUS- professors and pundits lose!

 

[Isaac]

Unanimous. When does the winning start again, @jpl458 ?

 

[Steve R.]

Though the U.S Supreme Court has tossed the faulty assertion that the 14th Amendment can be used to disqualify Trump from running for office, there is another case (below) that demonstrates that Democrats have no respect for the law, especially laws that don't support their agenda. For Democrats, the law is a tool to be used to achieve political objectives, such as persecuting Trump. Laws that Democrats do not like, such as immigration, are openly ignored. Democrats when they claim they support the law and that no one is above the law are hypocrites.

Arizona AG Says She Will Not Enforce 1864 Law Banning Most Abortions

Arizona's Democrat Attorney General says she will not enforce a law that was upheld by the state Supreme Court banning nearly all abortions.

www.breitbart.com

Ms. Mayes may not like the law, but the Supreme Court ruled that the law is still valid. Her job is to enforce the law. If she does not want to enforce it, then she should resign.

 

[moke123]

Her job is to enforce the law. If she does not want to enforce it, then she should resign.

Even these laws?

Top craziest laws still on the books

Did you know it's illegal to educate dogs in Hartford, Connecticut? Or fall asleep under a hair dryer in Florida? In most states, you'll find a number of bizarre laws like these still exist on the books.

www.legalzoom.com

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Well, time to toss in the stink bomb. The disqualification clause is actually only for those who successfully start - and then LOSE - an actual insurrection. Because the 2nd amendment is meant to keep the public armed if the current government DESERVES to be "insurrected." Look it up. It was part of the discussion when the 2nd amendment was created.

However, I'm still working on the OTHER question. How does 1200 people (in a country of 300 million+) count as a real insurrection and what is the difference between a real insurrection and a simple riot? I'm asking because of the BLM and antifa riots that occurred. And DON'T say they didn't occur! First, you have to show that what happened is differentiable from a riot over someone passing a law they didn't like or some judge convicting someone who was the "darling" of some extreme group.

And while we are at it, explain to me how folks who swore oaths to defend the constitution have participated in actions to undermine the 2nd amendment by trying to keep effective weapons out of the hands of the general public when in fact the 2nd amendment is exactly about that idea. Why are such persons not being tried for violations of THEIR sworn oaths?

That should stir up the pot a little.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Looking directly into the article, I see some interesting issues.

"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; Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." The state offices were added to the final language, so merely broadens the scope of the law.

The question remains, how are state and federal anti-gun officials not being charged with rebellion against the constitution through their defiance of the 2nd amendment? Also, this might affect the ability of people in executive or judicial offices from exercising their rights of free speech, at the very least the "aid or comfort" portion.

In section III-A of the amicus document, there was a section that noted the opinion by a judge (much closer in time to the events than we are) who decided that the clause was NOT self-executing. The problem is that pesky 5th amendment, which includes the "due process" clause. A self-executing impairment (that affects the "liberty" segment of "life, liberty, and property" called out by that clause) seems to violate due process. So I'm sorry, but the there seems to be good grounds to state that the 14th amendment violates the 5th amendment. (Yet another opportunity for some good lawyers to make a lot of money litigating this idea.) I don't claim that the 14th does or doesn't run afoul of the 5th - but a reasonable reading indicates that it MIGHT.