What the law professors actually said is that “Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress.” At the state level, however, notice and an opportunity to be heard would be required before a secretary of state could disqualify Trump from the ballot and this determination, as you say, would be subject to judicial review. Any direct lawsuit in federal court (declaratory judgment that Trump is disqualified) would obviously also ultimately be reviewable by SCOTUS.
No way Section Three could trump Due Process which, of course, is mandated by the Fifth Amendment and in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Precisely what process is due, however, is another question. But you are making a big leap in assuming SCOTUS would not “approve” a Trump disqualification if the state provided the requisite process and proof. That would depend entirely on what the standard is for an insurrection and rebellion, or aid and comfort to enemies. The theory is valid- it is right there in the text. Tribe and the law professors are certainly wrong in arguing the words should be construed broadly – just the opposite is true. But, where that line is to be drawn, no one knows. I’d guess it will be drawn closer to the Civil War than to Trump’s January 6 Clown Show. That no prosecutor has charged “insurrection” is beside the point. Section 3 is civil -not criminal - with a much lower burden of proof than the criminal statutes prohibiting “insurrections.” My concern, however, is that if a blue state disqualifies Trump, a red state will disqualify Biden and the election will be plunged into chaos until SCOTUS sets a standard and then each state will have to determine whether the candidates meet that standard.That's what two conservative law professors and members of the Federalist Society say. They base their opinion on Article 3 of the 14th Amendment. And like all good righties they are "originalists." They believe the Constitution should be interpreted as it was at the time it was written.
http://www.vox.com/23828477/trump-2024-14th-amendment-banned
Meh, who cares what a couple of obscure ivory tower eggheads say, right? Well, how about Laurence Tribe and J. Michael Luttig? These two are polar opposites politically but they are among the most brilliant and respected legal minds among liberals and conservatives, respectively. They wrote an article TOGETHER agreeing with the two Federalist Society law professors.
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=138267
Who's going to disagree with Laurence Tribe and Judge Luttig? Let's see...willy, naturally. ROFLMAO!
…by that rationale the entire Democrat party should be removed from government since they backed the BLM insurrection.
But we both know that clause was put into place in the 14th Amendment so that after unification after The Civil War, you didn’t have Confederates going into government and trying to destroy it from within. You know, like what Obama did to the DOJ. I think the Civil War has been over for a while now, so I can’t see that applying. Especially for a political protest that Trump didn’t even attend.
In fact, since the Civil War, nothing even remotely resembles an insurrection with the sole exception of when BLM burned down half the country in over 500 riots.
1) It doesn't matter WHY the language in the 14th Amendment was put in place. It only matters that it's THERE. And as such, it applies to any future case.
2) There WAS no "BLM insurrection." First of all, the demonstrations and even riots were not organized by BLM, which simply participated, mostly peacefully, in them. An insurrection BY DEFINITION is intended to overthrow a government. You know, like Jan. 6. Show us ANY evidence that the post-Floyd murder demonstrations were intended to overthrow the government. You can't.
3) BLM did not burn "down half the country."
Please stop lying, Willy.
BLM destroyed police precincts, court buildings, businesses, and on July 29th tried to storm the White House to murder the President of the United States, injuring over 60 Secret Service agents in the process, who had moved the President to a secure bunker so he wouldn’t get killed. But that wasn’t an insurrection. But grannies waving US flags in front of the Capitol. Totally an insurrection.
Even if you’re delusional enough to believe that you still have the little problem that Trump wasn’t even present during the 1/6 protest.
1) Prove to us that it was really BLM behind the storming of "police precincts, court buildings, businesses." No such evidence exists. In fact, BLM as an organization barely existed and never actually planned anything.
2) Your biggest lie yet is one you've told before. There was NEVER any attempt by ANYONE "to storm the White House to murder the President." This never happened. No members of the Secret Service were injured, let alone 60. You're right "that wasn't an insurrection."
Please stop lying, Willy.
Well, most of his post is wrong- obviously, the 14th Amendment still applies. But it does matter “why” the “insurrection or rebellion” and giving “aid and comfort” disqualifications are in the amendment because these terms are inherently ambiguous. So we look to the drafters’ intent just as SCOTUS studied what the drafters meant when Justice Scalia construed the Second Amendment.
Willy’s core point cannot be denied –if you give a broad meaning to “insurrection or rebellion” and giving “aid and comfort” - and then allow partisan secretaries of state, or election boards, or atty general opinions to determine whether the standard is met, what happens? The red states will disqualify the Democratic incumbents, and the blue states will disqualify the Republicans. Obama unfroze billions of dollars and returned the money to Iran. He certainly gave “aid or comfort” to our enemies. Hasn’t Biden allowed a lot of “bad hombres” into the country with his immigration policies? Yep. Is either example constitutional “aid or comfort”? A very different story. Will this matter to the Repubs? Meanwhile, the Republican Congressmen, and even a few Senators who planned to object to the electoral count also gave “aid and comfort” to the bad guys. What about Josh Hawley’s fist pump that riled the crowd?
As applied to January 6, what is the difference between a “riot” that gets out of control, and a constitutional insurrection. Not easy questions.
So the standard has to be set very high and SCOTUS must set it. Supposedly CREW is planning lawsuits and various left wing groups have already filed petitions with a number of states seeking Trump’s disqualification. Who exactly has standing to sue now (since this would involve injunctive relief and harm must be imminent for injunctive relief standing-I think Trump has to be the nominee before anyone would have standing), who has the burden of proof, and what is the burden of proof? Can Trump really be disqualified under a preponderance of evidence standard-51%? Can these cases even get to SCOTUS before the election. The questions are endless.
Tribe is one of the co-founders of the liberal American Constitution Society, the law and policy organization formed to counter the conservative Federalist Society
Tribe is on the board of the Renew Democracy Initiative, an American political organization founded in 2017 to promote and defend liberal democracy in the U.S. and abroad
http://en.ikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Tribe
From the below article
“Biden on Tuesday called Tribe “a man I have enormous respect for” and someone who advised him “for a long time”
http://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/10/biden-adviser-14th-amendment-00096300
he is not a conservative so stop lying, don’t make me get the insurance salesman after you.
BTW there is no ARTICLE 3 to the 14th Amendment.
Let’s Go Dark Brandon
2024 = GOP All The Way
BPS did NOT call Tribe "a conservative." In fact, he called him "polar opposites politically" from Judge Luttig who the entire world (not you) knows is an arch conservative. So basically he called Tribe what he IS, a liberal.
His reference to "two conservative law professors and members of the Federalist Society " is right above the article about Baude and Paulsen, who actually ARE two conservatives and THAT'S what his reference refers to. Everyone but YOU understood this.
So all you have proven is you're a senile fool who can't read.
Please stop embarrassing yourself and get your wipers to change your Depends.
Sadly, you will still be just as clueless in the morning.
I ORDER you to act like the sniveling pussy you are and pull this post.
The first sentence of his post
“That's what two conservative law professors and members of the Federalist Society say”.
The last sentence of his post
“Who's going to disagree with Laurence Tribe and Judge Luttig? Let's see...willy, naturally. ROFLMAO!”
So of course he was talking about larry and luttig as you grasp at straws again
But as his fairy godmother I expect you to try to defend him. I hope he rewards you with a reach around.
BTW
You above all people know full well that post pulling is the trade mark of the cowardly insurance salesman when he humiliates himself which is/was often.
Let’s go dark brandon
which identified the "two conservative law professors and members of the Federalist Society."
If you had simply clicked the link you would have seen their names.
The first line of the SECOND paragraph dismisses the professors and identifies two DIFFERENT legal scholars. That paragraph was also supported by a link, you missing link.
You obviously don't know what "polar opposites" means and you clearly don't know what "respectively" means here:
",,,they are among the most brilliant and respected legal minds among liberals and conservatives, respectively."
Tick...tick...tick...you still have time to pull your post like the coward you are to avoid forever being branded as an imbecile with poor reading comprehension. Tempus fugit!!
-- Modified on 8/19/2023 9:33:16 PM
He has now descended into self-parody.
He's this board's Official Fool.
The bag twins, douche and scum, are at it again. Maintaining the lefty doctrine of projecting and lying then having a hissy fits comprised of lies and projection in an attempt to divert attention from the lies and projection.
I will give you two credit for being able to type and post while felching. Not a desirable talent, buy hey that’s all you two have.
Even you and your fairy god mother together cannot tell a convincing lie.
As for post pulling once again that is the specialty of the cowardly insurance salesman, just ask LiLmamasan.
I look forward to more twisting, wiggling, distorting, crying and whining from you two radical far left hacks.
Why you or anyone want, biden, that America hating decrepit old fuck for another term is beyond me.
But the means the America hating subversive radical far left militants you support is using to try to keep the opponent off the ballot shows the left has nothing to run on other than supposed accomplishments that have fucked up this country beyond belief.
Let’s Go Brandon
BTW do you still keep in touch with LiLmamasan?
Not content to have been unmasked as a lying fool, he comes back for more abuse, whining, sniveling and refusing to admit he's serially embarrassed himself.
Why would he be stupid enough to do this? And to make things worse, he's trotted out his usual litany of hackneyed old phrases as if he needed to once again demonstrate his incompetence and utter lack of game. He needs to make another visit to The Urban Dictionary.
Perhaps his beloved Yankees' nine--game losing streak has made him even more addled than usual?
But even the Yankees' losing ways are dwarfed by swallow's losing streak, which is years-long.
Hissy fits claiming I keep using the same lines and phrases.
Well lil boy you keep using the same old tired lines and phrases whining about it.
Here you go…Hypocrite. Look it up, it is a real word and applies to you and what you post.
o yeah and Projection too...
At post PULLER lil inky we laugh
When a post is edited it goes into moderation until it's approved. Not only that, when it reappears there's a note at the bottom reading "Modified" and giving the date and time. You will see that when my corrected post reappears.
So that's not pulling a post, proving you are either stupid, or a liar or both.
The only way to "pull" a post is to report it to TER and ask them to remove it.
Please stop lying, swallow.
You have embarrassed yourself enough for one day.
You didn’t scramble to modify the post until I called you out on pulling the post.
The fact is that you did not know “incept’ is a word, until someone pointed it out to you, and you tried to weasel your way out of it by pulling the post ( did the insurance salesman help) then scramble to modify it when called out.
Asking TER to remove a post is not the only way to remove a post. Anyone can pull their own post if done within 4 hours (I’m pretty sure that is the time limit) of putting the post up.
It is fun watching you lie, slither, twist squirm and contort yourself as you wallow in a puddle of your own diseased penis pus trying to hide your lies.
Let the whining and crying continue and of course a few of your same hypocritical lines about me using the same lines.
At Lying Post Puller inky We Laugh.
You really are a gutless clown. I PROVED you were wrong and now you are either simply lying or totally unable to read the English language.
Either way, you have branded yourself a FOOL before the entire board.
The only reason you didn't pull your embarrassing post is that I dared you to do it.
You have no balls.
Send for your wipers.
still on Hillary's payroll?
Interesting articles from a theoretical standpoint, but in practicality there’s no shot that an attempt to keep Trump off the ballot would be approved by SCOTUS.
It seems you didn’t read the articles carefully. Yes, an election official could move to strike Trump from the ballot. Yes, such a move will absolutely be struck down in the courts.
4 prosecutors, multiple indictments. Not one of them for insurrection. Any hack election official trying to take Trump off the ballot will be nuked when it gets to court.
Election officials don't have to "attempt" to keep Trump off the ballot; self-executing means they have the inherent power to do it.
The Supreme Court can't "approve" of a fait accompli - they can only disapprove of it.
Now please go self-execute yourself.
If he was a lawyer, he’ld be disbarred for such stupidity.
What the law professors actually said is that “Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress.” At the state level, however, notice and an opportunity to be heard would be required before a secretary of state could disqualify Trump from the ballot and this determination, as you say, would be subject to judicial review. Any direct lawsuit in federal court (declaratory judgment that Trump is disqualified) would obviously also ultimately be reviewable by SCOTUS.
No way Section Three could trump Due Process which, of course, is mandated by the Fifth Amendment and in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Precisely what process is due, however, is another question.
But you are making a big leap in assuming SCOTUS would not “approve” a Trump disqualification if the state provided the requisite process and proof. That would depend entirely on what the standard is for an insurrection and rebellion, or aid and comfort to enemies. The theory is valid- it is right there in the text. Tribe and the law professors are certainly wrong in arguing the words should be construed broadly – just the opposite is true. But, where that line is to be drawn, no one knows. I’d guess it will be drawn closer to the Civil War than to Trump’s January 6 Clown Show.
That no prosecutor has charged “insurrection” is beside the point. Section 3 is civil -not criminal - with a much lower burden of proof than the criminal statutes prohibiting “insurrections.”
My concern, however, is that if a blue state disqualifies Trump, a red state will disqualify Biden and the election will be plunged into chaos until SCOTUS sets a standard and then each state will have to determine whether the candidates meet that standard.
Deadline White House that a Secretary of State absolutely can disqualify a candidate from the ballot. The onus would then be on the candidate to seek relief - first in the state courts and on up to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Ladies and gentlemen: in this corner we have Judge Luttig, one of the most respected conservative legal minds in the country. In the other corner we have an anonymous perpetual 1L named marikod who only knows hornbook law. Oh, and also cks175 who knows as much about the law as he does about anything else, i.e., NOTHING!
Who are supposed to believe - Judge Luttig or marikod & cks175? ROFLMAO!! (Hint - the "175" in cks175 does NOT stand for his IQ. It's about 100 points lower than 175).
Try listening to the CNN interview
Of course the secretary of state, or other state agency charged with enforcing ballot access rules, can disqualify Trump under Section 3, just as he can disqualify any candidate who does not meet ballot access requirements. Duh. Everyone agrees with that. But he cannot decide the night before ballots are distributed –“I think Trump engaged in an insurrection” and remove him from the ballot. Instead, he must follow state procedures for disqualifying a putative candidate. At a minimum, this means giving Trump notice and an opportunity to be heard. At the hearing, the state would present evidence of the insurrection and Trump would present evidence January 6 was a riot that got out of control. If the state determined Trump was disqualified, the determination would be subject to judicial review as CKS pointed out. What would be “reviewed”? The record created at the hearing.
All you need to do is listen to the CNN interview. The first thing Tribe said is that the secretary of state would make the determination pursuant to “whatever process is appropriate.”
I will say that the CNN anchor at one point said “so disqualification is automatic,” and neither of those bozos corrected her. She then turned to Luttig – who is a disaster on live TV- who gave a confused, rambling response and skipped straight ahead to the judicial review. Dershowitz also got it wrong on his Get Trump podcast yesterday but for a different reason. He said Section 3 does not mean what it says because the Constitution provides no procedures for this kind of disqualification. The procedures - aka due process – of course are provided by the state. Then there is judicial review typically under an arbitrary and capricious standard.
So CKS was absolutely correct on this point. If you are interested in this topic, check out any state’s ballot access laws. You will find there are many state requirements for ballot access and a procedure to contest the disqualification.
That Democrats, even after locking people in their homes for bullshit reasons, and burning down half the country, and then doing every legal back flip they can think of to prevent Trump from running, that Trump ends up winning re-election and becomes the President again. Can you imagine just how mad that would make them?
When was that, Willy? Cuz when all the lockdowns happened was during a lot of 2020. And who was President then, Willy?
Take a guess.
Oh! I know!!! It was the Democrats at the CDC! And who did the CDC report to? You guessed it! TRUMP!
Where does the buck stop, Willy?
Please stop lying, Willy.
When was that, Willy? Cuz when all the lockdowns happened was during a lot of 2020. And who was President then, Willy?
Take a guess.
Oh! I know!!! It was the Democrats at the CDC! And who did the CDC report to? You guessed it! TRUMP!
Where does the buck stop, Willy?
Please stop lying, Willy.
Now get back under that rock, Looooser
The only mandate from the feds was to send the federal workforce home and have them telecommute instead. Every single shutdown that locked people in their homes was done at the state level. Some of the red states never locked down. And never wrecked their economies. And never intentionally tried to make people as miserable as possible, just to try to get Trump out of office.
This indictment is a joke. A RICO. It’s a mockery of our justice system. The democrats are hellbent on squandering our unity as a nation to but the Cheeto man is prison.
was used by Rudy Giuliani in many of his cases as a Federal prosecutor? It's how he made his reputation.
the mob and organized crime families. The only organized crime family left in the US is the Bidens. Is that who we should use RICO on?
running any charity in NY? Who is the only ex-President to be found liable to sexual battery? Also, try reading any of the 91 counts against Trump. Then compare that to Comer and his fantasies and you'll see who the TRUE organized crime family is.
that the Bidens are an organized crime family. Nice dodge.
You debate like you're on a High School debating team.
once person involved. You are only citing charges against Trump. The Trump family members are not charged with anything, whereas a Biden "family" member already have, and there may be more to come. The Biden crime family already exists. Trump is a single individual, so how do you get to RICO?
It doesn't require "family" members. It just requires a group conspiracy, which is why more than a dozen people were indicted in GA with Trump.
Geez, man, stop embarrassing yourself. You're getting as bad as swallow.
they were all in on the planning since the beginning, the will not satisfy the elements of RICO. Adding charges for someone that pressed Trump's pants or held the car door for him does not make them a co-conspirator, and that's what you need for RICO. Look up some cases where RICO was successfully defended or dropped by the prosecution, and you will see what I mean.
He clearly has no clue what RICO is. Also, I'm pretty sure none of these people pressed Trump's gigantic pants.
valet has been indicted, too. Did you miss that on CNN? So I'll ask you again, how can you build a RICO case around a man and the valet who presses his pants in the morning? Was his dresser trying to take over the world, or what?
With every post you simply prove you don't understand it. How come you don't hear any of Trump's defenders making the point you are incompetently trying to make? Because his behavior fits perfectly under the GA RICO statute.
Sorry you don't get it but please stop digging.
STOP! Walt Nauta was indicted by the Feds in Florida in the "Mar-A-Lago documents" case. "Nauta was charged with six counts related to the documents investigation, including conspiracy to obstruct justice and concealing records. Five of those counts named Trump as a co-defendant." When Yuscil Taveras was shown the videotape evidence of his complicity, he got rid of his Trump lawyer (Stanley "It's OK to say you don't remember" Woodward), he got a new lawyer, and recanted his previous FALSE testimony to the Feds. Taveras now confirms that they plotted to obstruct justice, hide documents, and destroy evidence.
.
Nauta WAS NOT CHARGED by Willis in the Georgia (state) RICO case.
.
Nauta might dump Woodward, get a new lawyer, and try to avoid 20 years in prison by making a deal with the Feds.
valet has been indicted, too. Did you miss that on CNN? So I'll ask you again, how can you build a RICO case around a man and the valet who presses his pants in the morning? Was his dresser trying to take over the world, or what?
I stand corrected.
Seriously, at best it’s straw grasping!
LS1