Devaluing the Dollar is a GOOD thing for me. Oil is priced in dollars, the less the dollar is worth the more dollars it takes to buy a barrel of oil. Thank you Dems.
As for open borders, I guess that's a bad thing for people on the lower end of the wage scale, but for employers like me lower wages are a GOOD thing too. Not to mention I am sure there are thousands of hot Latinas crossing the border too, more cheap pussy for me, yet another GOOD thing. lol Thank you again Dems. Hmmm, maybe I will join the Democrats, they seem to be very good for my business. Have you checked out oil prices lately? Hopefully we will have open borders with Korea too, who could argue against more K-Girls? Well I suppose the OTHFBC might disagree, but who cares what a bunch of overpriced, overweight white women think? lmao
and he makes a very good case, along with former Missouri Senator Jack Danforth. These two former legislators believe Trump should be barred from ever holding office again and the 14th Amendment only requires a majority vote. Based on the fact the Senate voted 57 to 43 to convict Trump it certainly suggests such a vote would pass. Of course, Trump will continue to cause trouble, but....
don't have jurisdiction, because he was already acquitted of this charge in the Senate trial, and I think that would be even a bigger black eye for the Dems than not getting the votes for impeachment. At least they can blame that on the GOP.
Two different situations: a vote on a specific Article of Impeachment, and a vote on whether an Amendment to the Constitution was violated. Two different votes on two different questions.
Explain again why that’s a matter of jurisdiction.
applied to the offices named in the article, and it must be a conviction, not a mere allegation. If Ted Cruz was charged with killing his wife, but there was no body, and so he was acquitted, could they use Article 14 to prevent him from running for re-election? I think not. No conviction, no Article 14. Likewise with Trump, unless the DOJ wants to charge him criminally and win a conviction, Article 14 is not violated. Its not rocket science, its first-year law school.
The bottom line is that, unless he is convicted of the CRIME of insurrection, Congress does not have jurisdiction to invoke Article 14. The OPINION of 57 Senators does not meet the threshold of 67 for a conviction. I think we would all agree on that. I could say it slower if you didn't understand it fully. Lol
Being a legal scholar is only a hobby of mine, not my profession, but thanks for the compliment anyway.
I think it's time for you to get a new hobby. You are incorrect. No conviction is required. No person may hold any office under the United States who having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. A simple majority vote in both the House and the Senate is required.
It's like the self described 'legal scholar' is just making shit up. Every statement, every conclusion was 100% wrong. I guess that might qualify him to represent the former occupant of the White House who will be seeking legal representation soon.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
