|
Unkempt posted:Trump hadn't been elected on Jan 6th. He lost. The nation didn't elect him. This whole argument is ridiculous and that judge is an idiot, a coward or a fascist. That isn't the argument.
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
funeral home DJ posted:Trump’s Microplastic Army That is not a piss of honor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 16:49
|
|
|
Nipple buttons protruding… so disrespectful
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
Unkempt posted:Trump hadn't been elected on Jan 6th. He lost. The nation didn't elect him. This whole argument is ridiculous and that judge is an idiot, a coward or a fascist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
It’s kind of wild just how noticeably more boring weekend work became once we started getting trial shenanigans during the weeks. Where’s my LOLs
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 16:54
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:If trump were convicted would he go to adx florence? It is arguably the safest and most secure prison. Shanked to death by a hedge funder with a tomahawk steak bone after he lost it all on truth social
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They did bar executive officers. The president is separate from that, though. I’ve been saying this since the suit was filed. It’s the natural interpretation of the amendment. The absence of president must be considered deliberate since they could have included it but actively chose not to do so. This comports with all the other constitutional definitions of officers of the United States. It seems like when they wrote it, they didn't think a current President could ever be considered to be barred, so why bother including him into it. Aren't these followed by general intent? If we went by strict wording, 2A would be removing guns from everyone who wasn't in the military, or at the very least we would have a poo poo ton of regulations added overnight? Can't really have it both ways? Yet here we are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 16:56
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Shanked to death by a hedge funder with a tomahawk steak bone after he lost it all on truth social I prefer blood loss from C&BT from an escort. I’ll also take slipping while walking and smashing his head on a corner of a table.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They did bar executive officers. The president is separate from that, though. I’ve been saying this since the suit was filed. It’s the natural interpretation of the amendment. The absence of president must be considered deliberate since they could have included it but actively chose not to do so. This comports with all the other constitutional definitions of officers of the United States.  because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn't explicitly say that the a candidate for President of the United States should be disqualified, they don't want to (in their view) expand the reach of Section 3
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
I’d have much rather the judge ruled he couldn’t be barred from ballot access on the grounds that technically he hasn’t been convicted (yet). Saying a sitting president has the right to commit insurrection during the time period between losing an election and their successor being sworn in seems bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:07
|
|
|
Rod Hoofhearted posted:Saying a sitting president has the right to commit insurrection during the time period between losing an election and their successor being sworn in seems bad. mannerup fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Nov 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Maybe I'm missing something, but the Colorado case was about disqualifying Trump from the ballot. It wasn't about if it was legal to do an insurrection or not, and it wasn't about him being the president, but about being the president in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:13
|
|
|
Unkempt posted:Trump hadn't been elected on Jan 6th. He lost. The nation didn't elect him. This whole argument is ridiculous and that judge is an idiot, a coward or a fascist. I know. The 14th is about preventing future holding of office. If he was running for Colorado senate, he would be removed from the ballot. The lawsuit was to prevent Trump from being on the ballot in Colorado under the 14th amendment. Unfortunately, it just doesn't apply to the president. This is not news, and quite a few people, myself included, predicted this exact outcome. Constitutional interpretation is a motherfucker sometimes, but the judge was right. She is not an idiot, coward, or fascist. She applied the law in the manner that it is supposed to be applied. The 14th was not designed to restrict the president, and the rest of the constitution's language supports that analysis. The president and vice president were on one of the original drafts of the 14th, and they were removed from the final version. That is active choice to remove those positions from the amendment. While I agree that the drafters were dumb by doing that, the judge is not because she reached that conclusion. US Constitution Amendment 14 Section 3 posted:No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. In the original draft, it started like this: "No person shall be qualified or shall hold the office of President or vice president of the United States, Senator or Representative in the national congress..." It is possible that removal of the President and VP was because of surplusage, and there is a comment from a single senator during debate that says that when someone pointed out that removal of them exempted them from the amendment. However, one statement from a single senator does not override everything else nor standard constitutional/legislative interpretation. By choosing to leave out President and VP, the drafters chose to exempt them from the amendment. There is further strong constitutional evidence that the president is not an officer of the united states. Five different provisions of the constitution distinguish between the president and officers of the US. I'm just going to copy/paste from the court's opinion here: Anderson v. Griswold paragraph 311 posted:The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 distinguishes between the President and officers of the United States. Specifically, the Appointments Clause states that the President “shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2. This isn't a judge loving up, being a coward, a fascist, or anything of the sort. This is just the natural result of standard constitutional analysis even if it feels wrong from a modern reading. One funny note about this - if Arizona agrees with the judge's definition of insurrection, Jacob Chansley's will not be seated in the US house even if he wins his election. He honestly should not even be allowed to be on the ballot. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Nov 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:14
|
|
|
kazil posted:Maybe I'm missing something, but the Colorado case was about disqualifying Trump from the ballot. It wasn't about if it was legal to do an insurrection or not, and it wasn't about him being the president, but about being the president in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
kazil posted:Maybe I'm missing something, but the Colorado case was about disqualifying Trump from the ballot. It wasn't about if it was legal to do an insurrection or not, and it wasn't about him being the president, but about being the president in the future. You are 100% correct. And the judge came to the right result - the 14th doesn't provide for disqualifying someone from running for president even if they were an insurrectionist. It does apply to people like Chansley, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
kazil posted:It's called fashion, look it up (but don't look up how he paid for it) This post got me thinking. Dudes weird for sure but u have to think. In this political climate is it really surprising that someone said I bet I could be elected as an R saying i care about hot button issues. Then steal a bunch of money but less than trump so i dont get too noticed. Then lie and deny and get away scott free because the Rs will defend me and deny my wrong doings. It's really the perfect crime on paper. Of course he's an idiot who got too greedy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:17
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:This post got me thinking. Dudes weird for sure but u have to think. In this political climate is it really surprising that someone said I bet I could be elected as an R saying i care about hot button issues. Then steal a bunch of money but less than trump so i dont get too noticed. Then lie and deny and get away scott free because the Rs will defend me and deny my wrong doings. It's really the perfect crime on paper. Of course he's an idiot who got too greedy. Sounds like a lot of work!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
I'm not sure winning the election was part of Santos's plan though lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
Like I said before, there WAS discussion in Congress whether A14 applied to the president when it was written and we literally have transcripts from the time saying the intent was for it to apply. LegalEagle did a video on this topic and actually reads those transcripts. The intent of the original lawmakers is crystal clear. Unfortunately that’s not necessarily relevant in a constitutional challenge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:27
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I know. The 14th is about preventing future holding of office. If he was running for Colorado senate, he would be removed from the ballot. The lawsuit was to prevent Trump from being on the ballot in Colorado under the 14th amendment. Unfortunately, it just doesn't apply to the president. This is not news, and quite a few people, myself included, predicted this exact outcome. Constitutional interpretation is a motherfucker sometimes, but the judge was right. She is not an idiot, coward, or fascist. She applied the law in the manner that it is supposed to be applied. The 14th was not designed to restrict the president, and the rest of the constitution's language supports that analysis. The president and vice president were on one of the original drafts of the 14th, and they were removed from the final version. That is active choice to remove those positions from the amendment. If you swore an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, you're an officer covered by this amendment. This is absolutely the most straightforward reading of the plain text. But I've belabored the point and I'm not the one to whom the question is posed as a binding legal matter so whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
this guy sure knows a lot about how lifter shoes work https://packaged-media.redd.it/xp3l...1c45d5a6fe9#t=0
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
There’s a distinction in language that came up with A14 regarding officers being appointed and the elected positions being “officials”. This is a huge part of why this is a conversation in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:33
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:I feel like this is the kind of stupid linguistic hair splitting that is what I talked about; the decision cited talks about whether the president is an officer under or of the United States and it goes through a whole lot of verbal juijitsu to make some distinction that only a lawyer brain could love. "No office, civil or military," is pretty loving inclusive. The ordinary meaning of "officer" would naturally include the presidency because it's an office. It's the office. You can have a distinction between some of the lesser officers of the United States who may be appointed by the president, and that's fair. But it defies completely plain language reading that the chief officer is not an officer that is "civil or military." The president doesn't swear an oath or affirmation to support the constitution, though. The president's oath is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The senate and house members constitutional oath, on the other hand, explicitly says they will "support" the constitution. The president's does not. Similarly, all officers of the united states, both civil and military, swear they will support the constitution. Again, the president is different than everyone else. The office of President is not just an officer of the united states. They are the United States. And of course I love linguistic hair splitting. I was a lawyer, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:33
|
|
|
In the end, we're discussing what a bunch of (I would assume relatively) intelligent men, several hundred years ago, tried to work up to have ye old checks and balances and proper punishment if someone broke the rules, or too many rules, slamming into the fact that they could have never even begun to think about what issues would arise in the future. It's like asking Leonardo Da Vinci to figure out a modern computer's inner programs. He has zero context in every respect on what the hell he should do, no matter how smart he might have been for his time or in humanity's history in general. Made worse by the fact that this inability allows abuse if the people who make the calls so want it. It's very easy to go "Well it DOESN'T say" split hairs if you don't want to punish someone, and the reverse is also true. Trust me, if Barack Obama was in Trump's place, they would have twisted themselves into pretzels saying that the Constitution and Bill of Rights and whatever else says he should be hung, drawn, and quartered and his whole family and all his friends should be put to death alongside him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:34
|
|
|
Cornwind Evil posted:In the end, we're discussing what a bunch of (I would assume relatively) intelligent men, several hundred years ago, tried to work up to have ye old checks and balances and proper punishment if someone broke the rules, or too many rules, slamming into the fact that they could have never even begun to think about what issues would arise in the future. It's like asking Leonardo Da Vinci to figure out a modern computer's inner programs. He has zero context in every respect on what the hell he should do, no matter how smart he might have been for his time or in humanity's history in general. This is spot on. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today he'd be completely aghast that we were still using the OG constitution. The framers expected this poo poo to get tossed out and updated regularly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
The founders never would have expected that the president, who pledges to uphold the constitution, would actively undermine it and/or try to use it to destroy the country. It just didn't seem possible. Like why would someone do that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
Taken as a whole, that oath sounds very much like an oath to support the constitution, but I know the legal arguments that say because the comma is a comma splice it's not actually carrying it over and I want to lay down and die.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
Toxic Mental posted:The founders never would have expected that the president, who pledges to uphold the constitution, would actively undermine it and/or try to use it to destroy the country. It just didn't seem possible. Like why would someone do that? They really had way too much faith in the good of man. kw0134 posted:Taken as a whole, that oath sounds very much like an oath to support the constitution, but I know the legal arguments that say because the comma is a comma splice it's not actually carrying it over and I want to lay down and die. I mean, it implies that he would support it for sure, but the words "support the constitution" are explicitly included in every other oath but excluded from the president's. Please don't die, though! Your posting is needed. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Nov 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
Eat poo poo Abbot https://twitter.com/TexasTribune/status/1725643099836231991?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
Catastrophe posted:The important tidbit to keep in mind is that at least he isn't, GOD FORBID, wearing a sweatshirt to work there. BUT HES NOT WARING A FLAG PIN!!!!!  Remember when Republicans were losing their minds over that? A more innocent time. Before the GOP became literal terrorists bringing death to America. LOL! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UpMuGMOS7U
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
Unkempt posted:Trump hadn't been elected on Jan 6th. He lost. The nation didn't elect him. This whole argument is ridiculous and that judge is an idiot, a coward or a fascist. Counterpoint: Libs hate the fact that Trump won 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
Toxic Mental posted:The founders never would have expected that the president, who pledges to uphold the constitution, would actively undermine it and/or try to use it to destroy the country. It just didn't seem possible. Like why would someone do that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The president's oath is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, If there is an Office of the President then who is its officer?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:If there is an Office of the President then who is its officer? The president holds the office, but the president is not an officer of the united states. Those are subordinate to the president. I posted five different examples upthread from the constitution that highlight this distinction. It's stupid hair splitting. I do not disagree - but there is more constitutional support for the position the court took over any other. The fault here isn't the judge. It's that we're trying to run a country in 2023 based upon a document penned almost 250 years ago. There are only a couple governments in the world today that are operating on an older source of law. The overwhelming majority of extant governments were formed in the 20th century. Only a few governments today predate the telephone. The USA is one and has the most intractable constitution of the lot. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Nov 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
Could there be another 14th amendment case in a different state that finds differently than Colorado?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The president holds the office, but the president is not an officer of the united states. Those are subordinate to the president. I posted five different examples upthread from the constitution that highlight this distinction. What a smart and good country we have
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
kazil posted:Could there be another 14th amendment case in a different state that finds differently than Colorado?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
kazil posted:Could there be another 14th amendment case in a different state that finds differently than Colorado? Yes! Another judge could rule the other way. I'm curious to see what Arizona does with Chansley, for example. I don't know of any other insurrectionists running for covered office off the top of my head so he's my go-to example. I think the present SCOTUS agrees with Judge Wallace here, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:What a smart and good country we have it's really almost impressive how hosed we are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
its not how recent people set a govt up, its more understanding that the system by which you create laws and run the country should be flexible and change with the times, as has happened everywhere all the time, its not a world shattering event to update an addendum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 18:13
|
|
