By Curt_Anderson December 30, 2023 10:17 am Category: Education (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

Before this year, when was the last time you read the 14th amendment?

Really reading and really understanding the constitutional requirements to hold public office is in itself a valuable exercise. The 14th amendment raises some interesting issues and tests our adherence to democracy.

“Removing him from the ballot would, on its face value, seem very anti-democratic,” said Washington’s Secretary of State, Steve Hobbs. “But so is trying to overthrow your country.”

This is also a test for secretaries of state, judges, and other public officials. Does their sworn oath to uphold their state and United States Constitution mean anything? Should they let their own knee-jerk instinct that the voters should decide who is qualified to run for president or should they follow the unambiguous words of the constitution?

The United States Constitution is explicit in the few requirements to be president. A person does not need to be “convicted“ of insurrection. The constitution says “engaged” in insurrection.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had a lot of supporters across the country, could not be president because he was not born in the United States, a constitutional requirement. He did not need to be convicted of not being born in the United States. Nor was Schwarzenegger given a special “due process“ and a day in court to argue the native born requirement.

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on December 30, 2023 12:22 pm "A person does not need to be “convicted“ of insurrection. The constitution says “engaged” in insurrection." Thing is, by votes of the Congress on the United States, Donald Trump was not "engaged" in insurrection. Based on acts of the United States Congress, accusing Donald Trump of engaging in insurrection is a false accusation. So, Curt. Be honest. Do you think that the United States Supreme Court will side with those four judges in Colorado and Maine's Secretary of State? If so, how do you get around Congress not impeaching Trump? How do you splain Section 5? by Curt_Anderson on December 30, 2023 1:39 pm HtS, see comment #27 at link below. I told you what I expect SCOTUS to do. You argue that Trump did not engage in the insurrection because he was incommunicado for 187 minutes and not rampaging the Capitol with the others. The 14th, section 3 covers the non-active participants: "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." If elected, Trump promised to pardon January 6th rioters. The insurrectionists appreciate his offer of aid and comfort. As for section 5 of the 14th, here is what it says: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. "Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment vests Congress with the authority to adopt “appropriate” legislation to enforce the other parts of the Amendment—most notably, the provisions of Section One" --Constitution Center Even if you broaden the meaning of the 5th section to cover the 3rd section covering insurrection, it only gives Congress the power to enforce NOT undo or undermine the 14th amendment. If you are looking for a way for Trump to overcome his ineligibility, see the last sentence of the 3rd section "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." selectsmart.com constitutioncenter.org by oldedude on December 30, 2023 2:03 pm Before this year, when was the last time you read the 14th amendment? College in a Constitutional Law course. Really reading and really understanding the constitutional requirements to hold public office is in itself a valuable exercise. The 14th amendment raises some interesting issues and tests our adherence to democracy. I agree. It would be great if you actually understood the laws and how they're applied equally and with due process. Which is required. “Removing him from the ballot would, on its face value, seem very anti-democratic,” said Washington’s Secretary of State, Steve Hobbs. “But so is trying to overthrow your country.” I disagree. IF he were found guilty first, I would not have any problem with it at all. The fact that many want to discard due process from our Constitution is sickening and is a move only despot leaders do to their adversaries. Putin among them. And you agreed with Putin doing the same thing. This is also a test for secretaries of state, judges, and other public officials. Does their sworn oath to uphold their state and United States Constitution mean anything? Should they let their own knee-jerk instinct that the voters should decide who is qualified to run for president or should they follow the unambiguous words of the constitution? I agree with this in whole. You really need to look at the mirror with this. YOU are the one with "their own knee-jerk instinct that the voters should decide who is qualified to run for president" and you "should follow the unambiguous words of the constitution." The United States Constitution is explicit in the few requirements to be president. A person does not need to be “convicted“ of insurrection. The constitution says “engaged” in insurrection. But due process MUST, by the constitution, Bill of Rights, and Laws of the US, be applied to EVERY case (without exception) where you are limiting someone to do an otherwise legal enjoyment of citizenship. That is the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT of anyone and everyone in the US. by islander on December 30, 2023 2:54 pm ”Thing is, by votes of the Congress on the United States, Donald Trump was not "engaged" in insurrection. Based on acts of the United States Congress, accusing Donald Trump of engaging in insurrection is a false accusation ~ Hate Congress did no such thing. You know better than that, Hate…Or you should know better. The legislative branch, “the Congress of the United States”, cannot conduct a criminal trial so of course they could not find Trump innocent (or guilty) of engaging in an insurrection. Again, an impeachment trial is not a criminal trial, it’s simply NOT a trial that is legal in nature. An impeachment trial is not a criminal proceeding but a constitutional one reserved to the legislative branch of the federal government. The Senate could not convict Trump, the penalty for which is removal from office, since Trump was not in office, he was a private citizen. Mitch McConnell made that perfectly clear right after Trump’s Senate’s impeachment trial. by HatetheSwamp on December 30, 2023 4:11 pm If you think that this Supreme Court... of the Dobbs decision's "by the people and their elected representatives" fame... is going to pretend away the second impeachment, my guess is that you're truly are deranged. We, of course, will see. The time will come when this will no longer be a matter of opinion. pb's confident that you are wrong...but, we will definitely see. by oldedude on December 30, 2023 6:01 pm I notice the sheep don't want to engage facts. That tells me a buttload. You're the prince of darkness's butties. just espouse yourself. He has taught you to glorify his fame. just do that. say the words so we know you are his. by islander on December 31, 2023 4:34 am Hate wrote: If you think that this Supreme Court... of the Dobbs decision's "by the people and their elected representatives" fame... is going to pretend away the second impeachment, my guess is that you're truly are deranged. Wow ! Where did that come from and who are you talking to ??? by HatetheSwamp on December 31, 2023 5:10 am You, specifically, isle. But, the universe, in general. by islander on December 31, 2023 6:04 am You’re just full of non sequiturs today, Hate. LoL !! What has the Dobb’s decision which is about women’s reproductive rights, have to do with Trump’s second impeachment trial ? And why would anybody imagine SCOTUS would pretend away the second impeachment? by islander on December 31, 2023 6:21 am "I notice the sheep don't want to engage facts. That tells me a buttload. You're the prince of darkness's butties. just espouse yourself. He has taught you to glorify his fame. just do that. say the words so we know you are his." ~ oldedude Whew !!! I think both od and Hate are becoming a bit unhinged !!! 🙄 by Ponderer on December 31, 2023 6:47 am "Thing is, by votes of the Congress on the United States, Donald Trump was not "engaged" in insurrection. Based on acts of the United States Congress, accusing Donald Trump of engaging in insurrection is a false accusation." -a Rabid Trump Defender "Again, an impeachment trial is not a criminal trial, it’s simply NOT a trial that is legal in nature. An impeachment trial is not a criminal proceeding but a constitutional one reserved to the legislative branch of the federal government." -Isle Isle, are you aware of any criminal trials where a 60% majority of the jurors are required to vote to find a defendant guilty? I'm not. If the vote against him had been 65%, he would have been "convicted" by Congress and thrown out of office. He would have been found "guilty" by Congress. Yet the requirement for a federal criminal case is that the jury has to be unanimous in its verdict. The way these Trump defenders here are so all fired up to equate the impeachments with actual trials, had the vote been 65% against and he was thrown out of office, I dare say that these Trump defenders here would be crying their eyes out over how it wasn't a "real" conviction. He wasn't really found guilty, because the "jury" wasn't unanimous. Yo0u know they would. And they would still expect him to be on the ballot. There's no winning with these people. Since they always insist on having everything both ways. by islander on December 31, 2023 7:17 am Ponderer, I think Curt is right when he said, "America is getting a civics lesson. That’s a good thing" ! From their participation in this thread I think oldedude and Hate now have a better understanding of why a senate impeachment trial is not a criminal trial and why. "The Constitution gives the Senate “the sole Power to try all Impeachments” but is silent about the trial’s mechanics. In practice, Senate proceedings have come to differ dramatically from court trials on everything from the admissibility of evidence, the form of punishment and the possibility of appeal." * * by islander on December 31, 2023 7:20 am This might work thehill.com by Ponderer on December 31, 2023 7:21 am "Whew !!! I think both od and Hate are becoming a bit unhinged !!! 🙄 " -Isle They do get that way when they lose arguments and have nothing to actually make their cases with, don't they? Sad. by Ponderer on December 31, 2023 7:24 am BTW, I meant a greater than 2/3 majority in my example. So like 65% or more. by Ponderer on December 31, 2023 7:26 am Coffee is not working this morning. 67% or more. 😁 by islander on December 31, 2023 7:46 am Have another cup !! 😃 by oldedude on December 31, 2023 9:41 am They do get that way when they lose arguments and have nothing to actually make their cases with, don't they?🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I cite experts that back my statements. You, on the other hand are still wrapped up in "I believe it so it MUST be true! Which is a total crock of s.... by Indy! on December 31, 2023 9:55 am Even if Trump was convicted and currently residing in jail OD and peebs would be defending him. That's how cults work. by Ponderer on December 31, 2023 11:04 am Exactly, Indy!. by oldedude on December 31, 2023 2:15 pm I am hoping the dims could pull their heads out of their collective asses and go to court on this. I want him off the ballot. He's too toxic. I've said that many times princess. But of course in your hatred you can't see that....🤣 by Ponderer on January 2, 2024 7:32 am This issue is going through the courts, od. We all want him off the ballot and out of the lives of this country's population. But when it gets to the US Supreme Court, their decision may not go that way. I actually respect your calls for fairness and an accurate determination of the law in Donald Trump's various criminal cases. I second that. Even though that based on all of the evidence that we have all already seen, it is a slam-dunk, forgone conclusion that he's guilty in all of them, it still needs to be determined in court. I do understand where you are coming from as far as that goes. I have no issue with that. I just wish that you could extend that same consideration to Joe Biden. There has not even been a legitimate accusation or indictment of a single crime that the GOP can hang on him. They haven't even found any charges to charge him with yet. It's just that, as far as expressing opinions of guilt in his direction, I just wish that you could, you know... not be such a flaming bald-faced hypocrite about it. There are mountains of blatant evidence, legal charges, and actual felony indictments against Trump. But you wish to withhold your opinions as to his guilt. Sure. Fine. If that's how you want to play it. But there is no evidence or any legal charges of any crime against Joe Biden at all. And yet your opinions as to his guilt for crimes are... let's just say, not held so closely to your chest. There is ample talk of the "Biden crime family" that you seem happy to engage in with your unfettered opinion. Biden is guilty in your mind already. And you have held no compunctions about voicing such an opinion, without any trials or hearings or without anyone even discovering any specific crimes to accuse him of yet! But Trump? Oh my goodness! Opinions about his guilt must be withheld until the very last guilty verdict drops. Innocent until proven guilty and all that you know. I predict that even after the asinine circus hearings that the GOMP is putting up the tents for, they still won't have concocted a single law that was broken by Joe Biden. It's all about just making him look bad just before the elections. They just want to get up in public and talkshit and cast baseless aspersions at him. What's really going to be entertaining about those hearings is how at every mention of something bad that they think Biden did, the Democrats there will be presenting examples of similar crimes that Trump has actually committed and there is evidence for that are 100 times worse than anything they want to pretend that Biden did. The Republicans are going to be handed many more lunches than they can eat. That's for sure. They shall all have the cleanest clocks in town. by oldedude on January 2, 2024 8:26 am This issue is going through the courts, od. We all want him off the ballot and out of the lives of this country's population. But when it gets to the US Supreme Court, their decision may not go that way. Where is being charged with the insurrection? I'll take any of the offshoots of "insurrection." Sedition, etc. by Ponderer on January 2, 2024 9:10 am "Where is [he] being charged with the insurrection?" -olde dude insurrection [ in-suh-rek-shuhn ] noun 1. an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government. "Not that it's relevant to your discussion here, olde dude, but don't worry about that part. I got it. Nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment specifies a charge or conviction for the specific crime of insurrection to be kept from holding public office. Just that there was engagement in what could be defined as insurrection. Glad I could help." by HatetheSwamp on January 2, 2024 9:57 am Just that there was engagement in what could be defined as insurrection. Glad I could help. But, po. According to whom? 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