by oldedude on January 8, 2024 8:01 pm
I'm going to take the spin off of this. (3d paragraph)

MAGLIOCCA: Well, Congress has the power to give someone an exemption from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment with a two-thirds vote in each house. They can do that at any time. And that means, in part, that it's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the law applies to Trump, but only the law. And any other reason for giving someone an exemption has to be made by Congress, such as you think it's in the best interest of the country to let someone run in spite of what they've done.


In a nutshell, Congress has the power to exempt trumpster by a 2/3 vote from both houses.
My spin? good luck with getting 2/3 vote from both houses on anything that doesn't give congress more money, more days off, better insurance, getting richer easier by the stockmarket, etc.

I wonder though about making a law to suit one person. That's what one of the states got caught doing and the law was nullified. I'm not sure if Ex post facto would apply though, because it suits trumpster🤔. An amnesty ex post defacto law may work, but still a shot in the dark and honestly would be one of the worst things congress could do for the country. I would start sounding like po if they cut him loose on that.


SCOTUS, like I've been saying all along, is looking at the law and it's very clear. SCOTUS will say it's illegal without a trial. My question to you sheep. Again. Why don't you just get a federal court to try him? How hard is that? There are several states that want to do it, surely you can illegally judge shop in those districts. I'd really like someone to explain it. It's the easiest. Not that it's fast, but you have everything set up by the J6 that ought to be a good "starting" point. I don't see what the resistance is.

All of this we've talked about before.