Jump to content

Fourteenth Amendment | Section 3 - Disqualification from Holding Office


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Wow 

 

 

"The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution — not to 'support' the Constitution," said the filing by Trump's attorneys. "Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to 'support' the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President."

 

 

F8MId0mWYAAJYBf?format=jpg&name=small

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
22 minutes ago, Roundybout said:


Yeah doubt SCOTUS lets this stand but he’s gonna waste money and resources appealing.


At a cursory glance it seems pretty spot on, but I agree that the chances of SCOTUS upholding it are pretty remote. 
 

I’m a bit conflicted because I believe it’s:
1. Correct on the facts and law
2. Unlikely to be upheld by SCOTUS (though this is far from certain)
3. Great in the short term if it’s upheld
4. Bad in the long run if it’s upheld

Edited by ChiGoose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t want to hear a peep from the “threat to democracy” crowd. 
 

Id love for him to be removed from the ballot, but I also recognize lawfare is not the way and is emblematic of the type of third world bs we claim to be against in developing nations.  

  • Eyeroll 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SCBills said:

I don’t want to hear a peep from the “threat to democracy” crowd. 
 

Id love for him to be removed from the ballot, but I also recognize lawfare is not the way and is emblematic of the type of third world bs we claim to be against in developing nations.  

 

 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SCBills said:

I don’t want to hear a peep from the “threat to democracy” crowd. 
 

Id love for him to be removed from the ballot, but I also recognize lawfare is not the way and is emblematic of the type of third world bs we claim to be against in developing nations.  

Nobody cares who you want to hear from.  A person that supported fake electors should absolutely not be eligible to run for office, even middle school class president.   We'll see if the SC upholds it may be a moot point but shove your faux outrage over to your qanon buddies who will swallow it whole.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Nobody cares who you want to hear from.  A person that supported fake electors should absolutely not be eligible to run for office, even middle school class president.   We'll see if the SC upholds it may be a moot point but shove your faux outrage over to your qanon buddies who will swallow it whole.


Ahh yes … must be Q MAGA to oppose a former President being removed from a ballot via lawfare. 
 

Good luck with this .. you just handed that clown a mountain of ammo to win back the normies. 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SCBills said:


Ahh yes … must be Q MAGA to oppose a former President being removed from a ballot via lawfare. 
 

Good luck with this .. you just handed that clown a mountain of ammo to win back the normies. 


What does the actual amendment say?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...