Post: Questions po won't answer...

Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage

Turley: The "haymaker" in Supreme Court arguments. Chief Justice Roberts. "Openly mocking of DC Circuit."
Law by HatetheSwamp     April 26, 2024 5:59 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (5 comments) [148 views]

pb's Legal Goobers #s 2 & 3: The NY v Trump case is collapsing
Law by HatetheSwamp     April 26, 2024 3:43 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (4 comments) [26 views]

The Oval Office Oaf calls for "Four more years. Pause."
Entertainment by HatetheSwamp     April 24, 2024 2:56 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [80 views]

Republicans: Do you know where your political donations are?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 6:12 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (7 comments) [333 views]

The latest general election polls from this weekend reveal something interesting.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 22, 2024 11:03 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (10 comments) [423 views]

So Ukraine got money.
Military by oldedude     April 24, 2024 3:58 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (6 comments) [92 views]

Donna may be getting her wish granted: Gateway Pundit to file for bankruptcy
Law by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 7:28 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [35 views]

James Comer hopes for divine intervention to save him from embarrassing impeachment fiasco.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 7:05 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (2 comments) [81 views]

Trump, Giuliani, Meadows are unindicted co-conspirators in Michigan fake elector case, hearing reveals
Law by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 4:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (3 comments) [42 views]

Russia is even more furious over vote by Congress to support Ukraine than MTG.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 21, 2024 6:09 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (11 comments) [641 views]

Law selectors, pages, etc.

Questions po won't answer...

By HatetheSwamp
January 2, 2024 7:35 am
Category: Law

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

...at least that I've seen. And, I have asked.

1. In the post Civil War era, if someone aspiring to be a US Senator or Representative or Elector of the President or Veep...and was accused of participating in the southern rebellion...did the accusation have to be verified, or was the accusation itself adequate grounds to prevent them from serving in office?

2. Does the accusation that Trump participated in an insurrection have to be verified...or can judges and bureaucrats simply decide that for themselves...and for all of America?

Can someone help po out?

Comments Start Below

The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.

Comments on "Questions po won't answer...":

by oldedude on January 2, 2024 8:18 am
The ONLY folks that did not have to have a trial, were a small group of confederate soldiers LTC and below. Those Colonel and above, and politicians and some "business people" by name. curt cherry picked them in his post about confederate soldiers that did not have a trial. ALL of those soldiers, LTC and below were given (pretty much) wholesale pardons. IF they were to be charged with sedition, etc. they would be tried.

by oldedude on January 2, 2024 8:22 am
Sorry. The other issue is the Union knew the senior officers and politicians. The fact that you wore the uniform and directed men to kill the Union forces was enough.

by Ponderer on January 2, 2024 8:55 am

And again, od... Pardons, schmardons.

So those Confederate soldiers were pardoned and didn't have to serve jail time or be executed for their insurrectionist engagements? How nice for them.

But under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, had it been in effect at the time of their pardonings, they would still be disqualified to run for public office.

Just as they would have been even before the pardons or any trials were held. If it was blatant and common knowledge that everyone was perfectly aware of that they engaged in insurrectionist activities, then their engagement in insurrectionist activities has already been established and verified as far as the 14th Amendment would have been concerned. Again, had it been in effect at that time.

Accusations don't enter into it, od. They engaged in insurrectionist activities. Saying that the moon orbits the Earth is not an accusation. It's just an expression of a simple, inarguable fact. Just as it's a simple, inarguable fact that Donald Trump engaged in insurrectionist activities and gave aid and comnfort to others engaged in insurrectionist activities against the government of the United States of America in their attempt to overthrow it.

If you want to put him in prison for it, you'll need a guilty verdict from a trial.

If you want him kept out of the office of president, no more than his well established, verified, corroborated, and universally witnessed engagement in insurrectionist actions is sufficient, by virtue of the 14th Amendment.

by Curt_Anderson on January 2, 2024 9:32 am
HtS,
Don�t you have access to Google or a library? If you could find historical evidence that �verification� of engagement in an insurrection was required to disqualify former confederates from office, that would bolster your argument in support of Trump.

From what I�ve read, the obvious after the Civil War did not need to be verified. If you or OD know different, show us.

by HatetheSwamp on January 2, 2024 9:43 am

So, say, a disgruntled mistress could accuse a man and he'd be busted, no questions asked?

by oldedude on January 2, 2024 10:06 am
If you or OD know different, show us.

I've addressed this a couple of times. Pardons were granted for soldiers below the rank of LTC.
Any politician of the south, ranks of Colonel or above, or spies were on a case by case basis. This was the entirety of the group you posted.

Persons pardoned or not charged must be brought to trial.

by Curt_Anderson on January 2, 2024 10:07 am
HtS,
If the evidence of the mistress�s accusation was not obvious, then the onus would be upon her to make the case.

That is essentially what happened with Donald Trump�s Birther smear against Barack Obama. Trump was never able to prove that Barack Obama was born somewhere other than within the United States.

by HatetheSwamp on January 2, 2024 10:10 am

If the evidence of the mistress�s accusation was not obvious, then the onus would be upon her to make the case.

So,...

...it WOULD have to be verified?

That is essentially what happened with Donald Trump�s Birther smear against Barack Obama. Trump was never able to prove that Barack Obama was born somewhere other than within the United States.

So. The accusation couldn't be verified? Ain't?

by islander on January 2, 2024 1:12 pm
"Does the accusation that Trump participated in an insurrection have to be verified...or can judges and bureaucrats simply decide that for themselves...and for all of America?" ~ Hate

Judges do make those decisions.The secretary of state is tasked with the authority of ensuring whether a candidate qualifies or is not qualified to be on the ballot in that state.

If a candidate thinks the Secretary of state was in error by disqualifying him or her that person can appeal the decision and the courts will have the final say.

by HatetheSwamp on January 2, 2024 1:23 pm

Fine, isle, but I think you're saying that the accusation must be verified and that judges and bureaucrats do not have the right to foist their opinions on the rest of us?

On what basis do you imagine that your Maine bureaucrat and the Colorado judges'll be held accountable?

by islander on January 2, 2024 1:27 pm

No, Hate, I'm not saying that at all. See post #9.

by HatetheSwamp on January 2, 2024 2:06 pm

#9:

If a candidate thinks the Secretary of state was in error by disqualifying him or her that person can appeal the decision and the courts will have the final say.

Please splain how #10 mischaracterized #9. This is beyond ol pb. It's as po's been saying for years. I'm just not smart enuff to be a progressive.

by oldedude on January 2, 2024 7:06 pm
Judges do make those decisions.The secretary of state is tasked with the authority of ensuring whether a candidate qualifies or is not qualified to be on the ballot in that state.

If a candidate thinks the Secretary of state was in error by disqualifying him or her that person can appeal the decision and the courts will have the final say.
But in this case, the law is very clear. the candidate is required to be given due process if running for a federal office. That's what the laws says.

by islander on January 3, 2024 5:11 am
�But in this case, the law is very clear. the candidate is required to be given due process if running for a federal office. That's what the laws says� ~ olddude

The problem is that the laws in this case are NOT clear.

This is why I have continually said Federal Elections should be uniform in all 50 states, but that�s not how it was set up.

Trump is not being denied any of his rights

The Secretary of State has the authority and duty to determine whether a candidate is or is not qualified to be on the ballot in his or her own state. Maine�s Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, did just that.

If Trump feels that her decision was wrong, he has the right to �Take it to court� as the saying goes and that is what he is doing.

Trump and the courts are all following the proper procedure and, unless he is denied a fair trial and that's not the case here, Trump�s right to due process has not been denied him.

by oldedude on January 3, 2024 6:25 am
All Amendments to the constitution, and US laws are put in a format. The first part is who it affects, when it affects those people, and the span of control of the law. This is the most important part of the law. It tells you who the law covers. To disregard it is to completely disregard the law to use it to your own end. This applies to dictatorships.

The problem is that the laws in this case are NOT clear.
If you actually knew 6th grade civics. There are several overarching issues we are guaranteed in US law. Since you don't understand that, the case becomes muddled and mucked up.

This is why I have continually said Federal Elections should be uniform in all 50 states, but that�s not how it was set up.
And we do have the ability to change that, so the better point is "that's not how it is set up." We kind of agree on this, but save it for later.

Trump is not being denied any of his rights
The first right, as stated in the 14th Amendment (section ONE) is the RIGHT to due process. If this were something new, or a "whim" by our founders it might be different. It isn't. (I'm going to channel meagain for a sec, and there's a reason).

Due process has been used in nearly all civil cultures since tribal society. It was formalized in the Magna Carta. Every person has the right to hear the crimes which they are accused, be heard to provide a defense (or a plea bargain as it were) and be sentenced or released. It's not something anyone is making up.

The Secretary of State has the authority and duty to determine whether a candidate is or is not qualified to be on the ballot in his or her own state. Maine�s Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, did just that.
Also in section ONE of the 14th Amendment is WHO IT COVERS. What you said was correct, but you didn't mean it that way. FEDERAL CANDIDATES are not at her whim. AND there must be a trial to eliminate them from the candidacy per the states' laws.

IF a candidate is otherwise legally able to be a candidate for the position, there must be "DUE PROCESS" in eliminating them from the position. It says that right there in section ONE.

If Trump feels that her decision was wrong, he has the right to �Take it to court� as the saying goes and that is what he is doing.
Because of the constitutional violation, either he can, or the GOP in the state can do that as a violation of the US Constitution.

Trump and the courts are all following the proper procedure and, unless he is denied a fair trial and that's not the case here, Trump�s right to due process has not been denied him.
He is being denied a fair trial, by violating the due process clause, which oversees ALL rights in the Constitution. Both the state and federal governments must provide due process in their laws.

by Ponderer on January 3, 2024 6:43 am

"I've addressed this a couple of times. Pardons were granted for soldiers below the rank of LTC." -olde dude

And it's been addressed that this is utterly irrelevant to this section 3 of the 14th issue.

"The Secretary of State has the authority and duty to determine whether a candidate is or is not qualified to be on the ballot in his or her own state. Maine�s Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, did just that." -Isle

The Secretary of State was never the final word. She did not have unilateral authority to simply take him or anyone off the ballot. She did her job precisely to the letter and even facilitated the way for the appeals to commence. From there the Supreme Court of the state will eventually make the final decision.

And thusly, Legal Due Process has been totally and compliantly served!

You know it really warms my heart that we are all able to help you with this stuff so much, od. No need to thank us.

by HatetheSwamp on January 3, 2024 6:43 am

isle: The Secretary of State has the authority and duty to determine whether a candidate is or is not qualified to be on the ballot in his or her own state. Maine�s Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, did just that.

However, Section 5 of her 14th Amendment, gives the US Congress the power to "enforce" what's insurrection. [See link]
constitutionallawreporter.com

by HatetheSwamp on January 3, 2024 6:45 am

From there the Supreme Court of the state will eventually make the final decision.

In your dreams. See link.

constitutionallawreporter.com

by Curt_Anderson on January 3, 2024 10:19 am
"However, Section 5 of her 14th Amendment, gives the US Congress the power to "enforce" what's insurrection." --HtS

Boy, that's a tortured and convoluted rephrasing of "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." No judicial or legislative entity "enforces" what's an insurrection; but they might decide what's an insurrection.

Section 5 was not included to protect insurrectionists' "rights", but the civil rights of former slaves.

In enforcing by appropriate legislation the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees against state denials, Congress has the discretion to adopt remedial measures, such as authorizing persons being denied their civil rights in state courts to remove their cases to federal courts, and to provide criminal and civil liability for state officials and agents10 or persons associated with them who violate protected rights.

We know what the framers intended regarding the insurrectionists, would-be office holders. They were explicit: "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
constitution.findlaw.com

by Ponderer on January 3, 2024 10:32 am

Right as always, Curt. Hate is flailing like a flounder on a flatiron.

by HatetheSwamp on January 3, 2024 10:42 am

Boy, that's a tortured and convoluted rephrasing of "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." No judicial or legislative entity "enforces" what's an insurrection; but they might decide what's an insurrection.

Again. I didn't clerk at the US Supreme Court. I'm offering nuthin original in these posts. Everything I post comes from one of more of my three Legal Goobers.

by Curt_Anderson on January 3, 2024 11:04 am
Thanks Ponderer!

I am skeptical that even HtS's favorite legal pundits are making the ridiculous arguments that he posts here.

by HatetheSwamp on January 3, 2024 11:11 am

And, of course, you wouldn't know. You don't check the links I provide and your "news" only comes from sources that fuel the flames of the preferences and prejudices that you bring with you to every moment of your life.

Go To Top

Comment on: "Questions po won't answer..."

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart^® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page