By Curt_Anderson September 12, 2023 12:48 pm Category: Law (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

The more time, money and energy Trump has to spend fighting lawsuits and criminal charges the better. Money spent on Trump's legal fees is money that can't be used to finance his presidential campaign. It's probably a reason why Biden has taken a two point lead over Trump in the latest presidential poll. Btw, the New York Times analyzed state presidential polls and concluded that Trump is overperforming in Red States while Biden is doing better in the swing states.

(Axios)A liberal group in Minnesota filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to bar former President Trump from the 2024 ballot, citing the the 14th Amendment's stipulation on engaging in an insurrection.

Why it matters: It's the second such lawsuit filed in less than a month as liberal groups and state election officials are seeking to use the 14th Amendment as a legal basis to block Trump's bid.

Driving the news: "Donald J. Trump, through his words and actions, after swearing an oath as an officer of the United States to support the Constitution, engaged in insurrection or rebellion ... as defined by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment," said the lawsuit, filed in Minnesota state court by Free Speech For People.

Cited and related links:

1. axios.com
2. pro.morningconsult.com
3. nytimes.com

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on September 12, 2023 1:00 pm A liberal group in Minnesota filed a lawsuit... Banana Republic. I just want to note that this is an off year. Can you imagine what it's gunna be like in 024!!!!!? Make sure that you are up to date on YOUR BP mess! Yeeeeeeeeeeeha! by Ponderer on September 12, 2023 1:23 pm "Banana Republic." -Hate So Bill... are you suggesting that it's Banana Republican of Minnesota to recognize and abide by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States...? by Ponderer on September 12, 2023 1:25 pm Who do you think is going to use this against Democrats? Anti-Constitutionalists? by oldedude on September 12, 2023 1:37 pm I'm going to interject that it's frivolous. Again, this is no better than the crap they pulled on Palin. Not that I really care for either of them, but chickenshitting them just shows the dims have nothing else they can do to stop him. Let everything play out that's already going. If he's guilty of the crime, then worry about it. For those of you who think only with their "feelings," you need to come down to earth once in a while. I'm really happy I don't have that much hatred in my life. What a waste of time. by Ponderer on September 12, 2023 1:50 pm "I'm going to interject that it's frivolous. Again, this is no better than the crap they pulled on Palin. Not that I really care for either of them, but chickenshitting them just shows the dims have nothing else they can do to stop him." -olde dude You know, olde dude. I have put up with a lot from you in here. And I have been more than forgiving in withholding the deserved scorn that many of your comments warrant. But I am not about to sit idly by this time and, with my patriotic outrage squelched, silently condone the fact of you blithely and traitorously committing the insurrectionist, anti-Constitutionlist slander of calling Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States "chickenshit". by oldedude on September 12, 2023 2:13 pm ahhhhhhh.... Don't get your knickers in a twist. You have to have proof. LEGAL proof, not your hatred spewed rhetoric. Of anyone that could charge a suit, I don't think this is the correct one. And there's already others that have filed. How many are going to jump on the homer bandwagon? You can't charge him 15 times for the same crime. IF he doesn't get convicted of the crime, using this is useless. There is no case. Period. End of story, and no, the courts really don't care what you "think" or "know in your heart." It just doesn't matter to them. by Curt_Anderson on September 12, 2023 2:21 pm OD, Where does the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 say there needs to be a conviction to disqualify a person from holding elective office? 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. by HatetheSwamp on September 12, 2023 2:22 pm You know, olde dude. I have put up with a lot from you in here. And I have been more than forgiving in withholding the deserved scorn that many of your comments warrant. Y'know, when my wife and I discuss po, we call her Job, in honor of that great Old Testament hero. by HatetheSwamp on September 12, 2023 2:38 pm Where does the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 say there needs to be a conviction to disqualify a person from holding elective office? That's what's being said but, as a practical matter, who doubts that, if one or more TDSers try this, it'll end up at the Supreme Court, which will either put its stamp of approval on this scheme, or not. I'll just go back to what my Legal Goober #1 said. If Dems can claim that Trump is an insurrectionist, GOPs can, with as much justification, claim the Doddering Old Fool's leading one, too. And, if the Court approves, my guess is that the GOPs will. pb's a huuuuuuuuuge fan of chaos. He's luvin this. by Ponderer on September 12, 2023 3:22 pm "I'll just go back to what my Legal Goober #1 said. If Dems can claim that Trump is an insurrectionist, GOPs can, with as much justification, claim the Doddering Old Fool's leading one, too." -Hate Oh how exquisite! That is just precious! MAGA Republicans have evolved in their genetic predisposition to projection by taking it to the level of a mania! What was Biden's "insurrection"? Stealing 8-million votes from Trump to make himself president? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! by HatetheSwamp on September 12, 2023 3:39 pm I've invited you several times to watch that brief video. What liberal DEMOCRAT Alan Dershowitz says is that "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" (well, Legal Goober #1 said Joe Biden) could be kept off the ballot by Republicans for leading an insurrection by failing to enforce US border laws. If you think that's silly, take it up with him. Don't shoot the messenger. by Curt_Anderson on September 12, 2023 3:47 pm That would be great if SCOTUS hears the 14th Amendment cases. That’s more time and money spent on Trump’s legal defense. Trump is scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to lawyers, so he would be in trouble if they defend him in the Supreme Court. by oldedude on September 12, 2023 3:51 pm For all the limousine liberal "lawyers." It doesn't. But you have to prove an act. If he's found not guilty, he'll run this thing as far as SCOTUS. "We had a trial on this VERY charge. I was found NOT GUILTY. These people just need to go pound sand." And it's actually a pretty good legal argument. It would have been better if there was no J6 trial. Because I'm thinking there are enough people that hate him so much they would convict him for eating that ham sandwich and call it a homicide. But like I told jjpo. Think what you want. Use that tweenage heart of a Hispanic, ginger female, and press on. It makes it fun for me. I get to kick back and say, "smile and wave, boys, smile and wave...." by HatetheSwamp on September 12, 2023 3:55 pm Curt, If it gets to the Supreme Court, it will be the actions of state bureaucrats, not Trump, that will be under examination. by Curt_Anderson on September 12, 2023 4:04 pm OD, “… shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof…” Convicted insurrectionists have said in their defense that Trump invited, requested, ordered and encouraged them to riot and disrupt the transfer of power. Incidentally, Trump is NOT being tried for insurrection, so there is no chance he will be found not guilty of insurrection. by HatetheSwamp on September 12, 2023 4:08 pm You're lying Curt. They said the opposite. Heck the J6 Committee couldn't even leading question anyone to implicate Trump. by Curt_Anderson on September 12, 2023 4:12 pm HtS, The J6 committee was not a judicial trial. They were an investigative committee. But a real one. by HatetheSwamp on September 12, 2023 4:20 pm Yeah. They brought Stalin to the US House. by Ponderer on September 12, 2023 4:41 pm Bill, Stalin never needed the mountains of evidence and bus loads of his former Republican White House staff testifying under oath to Trump's felonious activities that the J6 Committee had. He woulda just made something up. Are you actually implying that all the evidence and witnesses of the J6 Committee are made up? by Curt_Anderson on September 12, 2023 4:57 pm "Are you actually implying that all the evidence and witnesses of the J6 Committee are made up?" ---Ponderer What you said above, Ponderer, reminds me of former Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann's exasperated comments to the J6 committee about dealing with Sidney Powell and her bogus voter-fraud conspiracy theories, which were overwhelmingly shut down by judges. "She says, 'Well, the judges are corrupt,' " Herschmann recalled Powell saying. "And I was like, 'Every one? Every single case that you've done in the country you guys lost? Every one of them was corrupt? Even the ones we appointed?' I'm being nice. I was much more harsh to her." by oldedude on September 12, 2023 5:59 pm Convicted insurrectionists have said in their defense that Trump invited, requested, ordered and encouraged them to riot and disrupt the transfer of power. Incidentally, Trump is NOT being tried for insurrection, so there is no chance he will be found not guilty of insurrection. And again. First, no judge will go through with a 14th Amendment yadayadayadayada if he hasn't gone through that trial. I know you and jjpo have been trial lawyers for what? 40 years now each? If he's convicted in the first trial, all the rest disappears because by default, it's covered by the 14th amendment and he can't run. Granted, they may need a procedural trial to make the motion that he can't run. Don't know if the same judge would handle that or not. IF he isn't found guilty, it's going to stop in motions hearings. But like I told jjpo (and you, but you don't read my posts much so there's that). Think what you want. Use that tweenage heart of a Hispanic, ginger female, and press on. It makes it fun for me. by Ponderer on September 12, 2023 7:32 pm "What liberal DEMOCRAT Alan Dershowitz says is that "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" (well, Legal Goober #1 said Joe Biden) could be kept off the ballot by Republicans for leading an insurrection by failing to enforce US border laws. If you think that's silly, take it up with him. Don't shoot the messenger." -Hate I do think it's silly. But then I'm not the one posting his silliness here. You are. So you don't want me to blame you for the silly nonsense that you posted here... because someone else said it? You were only posting it here? As if that didn't make you look silly posting silly things? His broad self-definition of what "insurrection" means is doing him a disservice. It's making him look silly. Or... is he implying that Biden is letting all those immigrants in so he can sic them on the Capitol in a violent coup attempt...? by HatetheSwamp on September 13, 2023 3:55 am And again. First, no judge will go through with a 14th Amendment yadayadayadayada if he hasn't gone through that trial. Bang on. One thing this Court has done in the last two terms is rob progressives of the power of the 14th Amendment. For, what, 60?, 70? years, lib Supreme Court Justices applied the 14th Amendment to many issues to manufacture a lib interpretation of the Constitution. The truth is that there's a stark tension between what the 10th Amendment restricts the Federal government from doing and what Libs use the 14th Amendment to enable. What this Supreme Court has done is to rediscover the 10th Amendment and to...get this...undermine the reach of the 14th Amendment. Baha baha baha! AND, MORE GENERALLY, TO GET SERIOUSLY PICAYUNE ABOUT THE POWER OF THE WHOLE BILL OF RIGHTS! This, 14th Amendment scheme the TDSers have come up with? It denies due process to Trump. That's un-American. And, this Court won't allow it. Period. One characteristic of TDS is that there's a sort of hopeful hate that assumes every form of fascism is possible when it comes to Trump... ...but, this is still a constitutional republic. Citizens, even Donald J Trump, have the liberties and protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Still, it's a hoot to see them TDSers dream about their fascist world where Trump's treated like a Jew in Nazi Germany. I say, let em dream for now...but laugh. Baha. by oldedude on September 13, 2023 4:26 am I think there's this general lack of knowledge(?) or awareness that our constitution is different than commonlaw or any other constitution. Generally speaking, most constitutions are about what the people can do. Ours is specifically about what the government CANNOT do. Starting in the 1960's/ '70's, europe started catching up with us with things like search and seizure, Miranda, etc. by HatetheSwamp on September 13, 2023 4:46 am BANG ON, OD, in all caps!!!!! by Ponderer on September 13, 2023 8:49 am "This, 14th Amendment scheme the TDSers have come up with? It denies due process to Trump. That's un-American. And, this Court won't allow it. Period." -Hate Tell me, Bill... If a 32-year old wanted to run for president and a secretary of state just flat out denied allowing his name on the ballot because he was simply too young to meet the legal age requirement of 35, should he get his day in court to explain and prove why the age requirement doesn't apply to him? If a person who was born in... oh... Kenya let's say, and he wanted to run for president of the U.S. and his ballot application was turned down because one of the legal requirements is that a candidate must be born in this country, should he get a trial to explain how his being born in a foreign country doesn't matter and he should be allowed to run? If a person who organized a violent insurrection against the government of the U.S. that everyone saw and heard him prime and set off, if we all heard him give aid and comfort to the violent insurrectionists he organized who everyone watched attack and ransack the U.S. Capitol building in order to stop the lawful counting of ballots and even hang the VP if they get the chance, if he tried every illegal way any of his gang of deranged minions could come up with in order to get Secretaries of State to make up votes for him and we heard him and others of his gang doing it on tape, if we heard and watched him try to force the vice president to engage in totally illegal activity to stop the legal counting and finalizing of legal votes, and if he was under indictment for a good deal of the crimes that all America witnessed him commit against our country and its government, and this guy wanted to be on the ballot for president in the 2024 election, should he get his day in court to defend his belief that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment shouldn't apply to him and he should be allowed on the ballot? In all three of these hypothetical scenarios, the blatant facts themselves and the constitutional requirements simply make that hypothetical person ineligible to run for president. And a trial to determine their ineligibility is not required or called for. Bill, there is nothing in the 14th Amendment that says anything about an ineligible candidate needing to be tried or convicted of any insurrectionist activities before being deemed ineligible. They just need to have engaged in such activities to be deemed ineligible. And we all watched and heard him engage in it like a madman possessed. by HatetheSwamp on September 13, 2023 9:56 am 1st paragraph, no. 2nd paragraph, no. 3rd paragraph, yes. Two questions for you, po. Is Trump actually charged with any crime that has the word "insurrection" in its name? What's your problem with the Bill of Rights and its notion that any and every citizen is innocent until proven guilty? by Ponderer on September 13, 2023 11:19 am "Is Trump actually charged with any crime that has the word "insurrection" in its name?" -Hate Not that it matters in any way whatsoever, No. Did you think you had a point? Because I don't know how many more times it has to be explained to you that being charged with anything has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment or it being necessary to use it against someone. "What's your problem with the Bill of Rights and its notion that any and every citizen is innocent until proven guilty?" -Hate I have no problem at all with it. It's simply irrelevant here. Trials establishing qualification or disqualification don't take place. If Trump wants to sue any states that keep him off the ballot, he's free to do so until he runs out of other people's money. This has nothing to do with the criminal aspects of Trump's insurrectionist acts. Conviction of a felony or felonies is not a disqualification for being on a presidential ballot. It doesn't say anywhere in the constitution that a presidential candidate who has been convicted of a felony of any sort is disqualified. So obviously, Bill, conviction of a crime is irrelevant to qualification for the ballot. MAGA Republicans have been giddily throwing around the fact that he could legally be president from prison. So merely being convicted of a crime and imprisoned for it is irrelevant to ballot qualification. However, it clearly states that "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." -Sec. 3, 14th Amendment And again, Bill, there is no way to deny that he engaged in insurrection or rebellion since the entire country watched him do it. He tried to overturn the results of a valid, legal, and official presidential election for fucksake. We watched and heard him do it. You don't think that's at least "rebellious" against this country? The Bill of Rights in no way gives everyone and anyone the civil right to be on a presidential ballot. It's not an issue of rights being denied here. But anyone who runs for president must meet the basic requirements. Which, by virtue of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, excludes Donald Trump. It simply does. But hey, Bill. On a positive note for you and all the other MAGA Republicans... According to Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment, if you can get two thirds of the House and Senate to remove engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or having given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof as a disqualification for being on a ballot for president, you and your MAGA Homies are free to knock yourselves out! by HatetheSwamp on September 13, 2023 11:33 am Did you think you had a point? Because I don't know how many more times it has to be explained to you that being charged with anything has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment or it being necessary to use it against someone. I can't wait for when one of you TDS lot tries to splain that to the Justices of the Supreme Court. "What's your problem with the Bill of Rights and its notion that any and every citizen is innocent until proven guilty?" -Hate I have no problem at all with it. It's simply irrelevant here. I can't wait for when one of you TDS lot tries to splain that to the Justices of the Supreme Court. And again, Bill, there is no way to deny that he engaged in insurrection... All of us bring our preferences and prejudices to every moment of our lives. ...if you can get two thirds of the House and Senate to remove engaging in insurrection or rebellion... Wrong. That's not how the Constitution is amended. by Donna on September 13, 2023 12:00 pm "Wrong. That's not how the Constitution is amended" - Hate No, you're wrong. What my wife just posted about 2/3 of Congress being required to prevent Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from being used to disqualify individuals from holding office was taken directly from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That's different than amending the Constitution, which requires the votes 3/4 of state legislatures. by Ponderer on September 13, 2023 12:09 pm "I can't wait for when one of you TDS lot tries to splain that to the Justices of the Supreme Court." -Hate It's hard to imagine how they are going to find anything in the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that says anything about being charged or convicted of insurrection when no one else can see it because it isn't there. And again, Bill, there is no way to deny that he engaged in insurrection... "All of us bring our preferences and prejudices to every moment of our lives." -Hate Which in no way distracts from the fact that everyone saw him engage in insurrectionist actions. You can deny seeing it, or even try to spin what it was that you saw, but you saw it. Everyone did. Look Bill, I'm sure you are going to feel a lot better about all this once the guilty verdicts start coming in. by Ponderer on September 13, 2023 12:13 pm It's funny 'cuz it's exactly what Trump did. by HatetheSwamp on September 13, 2023 12:22 pm I'm happy to believe that. Just document. by HatetheSwamp on September 13, 2023 12:37 pm FYI, pb's Legal Goober #3 will be chatting with that gay Guy Curt never heard of on Fox News Radio at 3:50 EDT today, presumably about this TDS 14th Amendment scheme. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page