Jump to content

Fourteenth Amendment | Section 3 - Disqualification from Holding Office

BillStime

By BillStime
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 729
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TSOL
TSOL

Wow '16 really did break you guys badly huh 

ChiGoose
ChiGoose

He should be prosecuted in accordance with the law.   But there is a tendency to look for someone to "save us" from Trump that seems to try to downplay the reality that the only sure thing t

wnyguy
wnyguy

They should start cracking skulls.

Posted Images

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
BillStime Hall of Famer

BillStime

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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...
ChiGoose Veteran

ChiGoose

Posted
Posted (edited)
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
SCBills Hall of Famer

SCBills

Posted
Posted

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
BillsFanNC Hall of Famer

BillsFanNC

Posted
Posted
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
L Ron Burgundy Veteran

L Ron Burgundy

Posted
Posted
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
SCBills Hall of Famer

SCBills

Posted
Posted
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
BillStime Hall of Famer

BillStime

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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
B-Man Hall of Famer

B-Man

Posted
Posted

TRUTH:

 

 

 

This is what an *actual* attack on democracy looks like: in an un-American, unconstitutional, and *unprecedented* decision, a cabal of Democrat judges are barring Trump from the ballot in Colorado. Having tried every trick in the book to eliminate President Trump from running in this election, the bipartisan Establishment is now deploying a new tactic to bar him from ever holding office again: the 14th Amendment. I pledge to *withdraw* from the Colorado GOP primary unless Trump is also allowed to be on the state’s ballot, and I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley to do the same immediately - or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver which will have disastrous consequences for our country.
 

 Today’s decision is the latest election interference tactic to silence political opponents and swing the election for whatever puppet the Democrats put up this time by depriving Americans of the right to vote for their candidate of choice.  
 

The 14th Amendment was part of the “Reconstruction Amendments” that were ratified following the Civil War. It was passed to prohibit former Confederate military and political leaders from holding high federal or state office. These men had clearly taken part in a rebellion against the United States: the Civil War. That makes it all the more absurd that a left-wing group in Colorado is asking a federal court to disqualify the 45th President on the same grounds, equating his speech to rebellion against the United States.
 

And there’s another legal problem: Trump is not a former “officer of the United States,” as that term is used in the Constitution, meaning Section 3 does not apply. As the Supreme Court explained in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), an “officer of the United States” is someone appointed by the President to aid him in his duties under Article II, Section 2. The term does not apply to elected officials, and certainly not to the President himself.  
 

 

The Framers of the 14th Amendment would be appalled to see this narrow provision—intended to bar former U.S. officials who switched to the Confederacy from seeking public office—being weaponized by a sitting President and his political allies to prevent a former President from seeking reelection. Our country is becoming unrecognizable to our Founding Fathers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
L Ron Burgundy Veteran

L Ron Burgundy

Posted
Posted
1 hour 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. 

Doing things by the law vs breaking the law.  You seeing no difference says a lot.  I don't think it will get held up but it should.   Imagine a scenario where he gets held off a bunch of ballots (meaning this is upheld and then other states follow). Trump drops out then Biden follows.   Win-win.

 

Biden said he's mostly running because Trump though who knows.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JaCrispy All Pro

JaCrispy

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Doing things by the law vs breaking the law.  You seeing no difference says a lot.  I don't think it will get held up but it should.   Imagine a scenario where he gets held off a bunch of ballots (meaning this is upheld and then other states follow). Trump drops out then Biden follows.   Win-win.

 

Biden said he's mostly running because Trump though who knows.  

Really? Biden actually said he would only run if Trump did?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orlando Tim All Pro

Orlando Tim

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:


He was not found guilty of a crime. Being found guilty of a crime isn’t a requirement. 

Do you actually believe a simple accusation is enough? By that standard Obama found not run because Hillary claimed he was born in Kenya. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Irv Veteran

Irv

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:


He was not found guilty of a crime. Being found guilty of a crime isn’t a requirement. 

This is so wrong.  Stripping voting rights that you jokers B word about 24 x 7.  ***** hypocrites.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
L Ron Burgundy Veteran

L Ron Burgundy

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

Really? Biden actually said he would only run if Trump did?

Wasn't super specific but I found what I recall.  So, if that's true.   Trump getting bounced would be amazing.  

 

If Trump wasn't running, I'm not sure I'd be running," Biden said at a fundraising event for his 2024 campaign outside of Boston. "We cannot let him win." Biden's striking self-assessment comes as even staunch Democratic voters express concerns about the president's age.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
L Ron Burgundy Veteran

L Ron Burgundy

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Irv said:

This is so wrong.  Stripping voting rights that you jokers B word about 24 x 7.  ***** hypocrites.  

Woo you went to whining pretty quick.  Unfortunately for you if that's the law that's the law.  We know people like you would vote in scum of the earth - you already did.  You just bitched about this more than the fake electors.  Why?  Because you are the hypocrite.  You don't give af when your people try to cheat.  

38 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

Do you actually believe a simple accusation is enough? By that standard Obama found not run because Hillary claimed he was born in Kenya. 

Huh?  

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

ChiGoose

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

Do you actually believe a simple accusation is enough? By that standard Obama found not run because Hillary claimed he was born in Kenya. 


Oh no, an accusation is definitely not enough. 
 

You’re right on point with the claims about Obama. What happens if a presidential candidate is potentially ineligible under the constitution?

 

Generally, some party will sue their state to remove the candidate from the ballot. Maybe they aren’t 35. Maybe they were born in Panama. Maybe they are Jefferson Davis in disguise. 
 

The legal process will then play out to adjudicate the claims. Frivolous nonsense will get dismissed. More serious claims may make it farther along. 
 

This particular issue has been in the courts in several states. This is the only time in which one of those courts has found in favor of the plaintiffs. 

52 minutes ago, Irv said:

This is so wrong.  Stripping voting rights that you jokers B word about 24 x 7.  ***** hypocrites.  


Lol. You know absolutely nothing and love to show it. ***** moron. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...