40+ Informants Told FBI of Biden Criminal Activity (Page 2/3)
rinselberg NOV 08, 07:27 AM
"It disqualifies former President Donald Trump..."

quote
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.


"The Sweep and Force of Section Three"
William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, Forthcoming.
Originally dated August 9, 2023.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=4532751

William Baude is a Professor of Law and the Faculty Director of the Constitutional Law Institute at the University of Chicago Law School.

Michael Stokes Paulsen is Distinguished University Chair and Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas, in Minneapolis.

Perhaps these two "worthies" will be testifying in support of the lawsuits that are designed to prohibit Donald John Trump from being on the ballot again for President of the United States.

You can imagine them starting with "Despite the mindless blather about 'Leftoids' from those who are mindless enough to blather about 'Leftoids'..."

You can imagine them closing with "The only viable interpretation of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is to prohibit the name of Donald John Trump from ever appearing again on a ballot as a candidate for the office of President of the United States."

Can you say it will not happen?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-08-2023).]

olejoedad NOV 08, 08:23 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

"It disqualifies former President Donald Trump..."
"The Sweep and Force of Section Three"
William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, Forthcoming.
Originally dated August 9, 2023.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=4532751

William Baude is a Professor of Law and the Faculty Director of the Constitutional Law Institute at the University of Chicago Law School.

Michael Stokes Paulsen is Distinguished University Chair and Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas, in Minneapolis.

Perhaps these two "worthies" will be testifying in support of the lawsuits that are designed to prohibit Donald John Trump from being on the ballot again for President of the United States.

You can imagine them starting with "Despite the mindless blather about 'Leftoids' from those who are mindless enough to blather about 'Leftoids'..."

You can imagine them closing with "The only viable interpretation of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is to prohibit the name of Donald John Trump from ever appearing again on a ballot as a candidate for the office of President of the United States."

Can you say it will not happen?





It seems to me that they may be 'worthies', but they don't sit on the Supreme Court.

Doesn't that make your argument 'worthless'?

[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 11-08-2023).]

82-T/A [At Work] NOV 08, 08:57 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

"It disqualifies former President Donald Trump..."
"The Sweep and Force of Section Three"
William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, Forthcoming.
Originally dated August 9, 2023.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=4532751

William Baude is a Professor of Law and the Faculty Director of the Constitutional Law Institute at the University of Chicago Law School.

Michael Stokes Paulsen is Distinguished University Chair and Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas, in Minneapolis.

Perhaps these two "worthies" will be testifying in support of the lawsuits that are designed to prohibit Donald John Trump from being on the ballot again for President of the United States.

You can imagine them starting with "Despite the mindless blather about 'Leftoids' from those who are mindless enough to blather about 'Leftoids'..."

You can imagine them closing with "The only viable interpretation of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is to prohibit the name of Donald John Trump from ever appearing again on a ballot as a candidate for the office of President of the United States."

Can you say it will not happen?





I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that a Federal court just ruled against a NH candidate that was trying to keep Trump's name off the ballot for this very reason. So I think it's pretty much settled that what you say above, isn't going to happen. The next point would be an appeal, and I doubt seriously that the Supreme Court would go against this lower court ruling.

So, I'm just saying... I think it's unreasonable to think this is a thing. Not to mention that you'd need to prove Trump committed an insurrection. The fact is, he did anything but... he didn't command those people to break into the Capitol building... he actually told them NOT to and told them to remain peaceably outside. So unless someone has some secret recordings of him stating otherwise... I think this is a folly.

Most people will recognize that what's going on in court right now is political theater... but you can make up your own mind about that.
ray b NOV 08, 10:20 AM
job title is CEO, CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CiC,OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT and others

WIESEL WORDS WILL NOT SAVE HIM

he did the crime
will be CONvicted of the CRIME
williegoat NOV 08, 10:48 AM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

job title is CEO, CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CiC,OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT and others

WIESEL WORDS WILL NOT SAVE HIM

he did the crime
will be CONvicted of the CRIME


"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win."
(falsely attributed to Mohandas Gandhi, but truth, just the same)
cliffw NOV 08, 11:43 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
Can you say it will not happen?



Has your former President been convicted of insurrection ?
rinselberg NOV 08, 12:07 PM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
Has your former President been convicted of insurrection?


Some of the "worthies" say that Section Three of the 14th Amendment was set up to be self executing. They elaborate on this by saying that Section Three calls for the disqualification of someone—in this case, Donald Trump—irrespective of whether they have been convicted on charges of Insurrection by a court of law.

I provided this abstract of this forthcoming article in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

The abstract offers the option to download the full text of the article, which runs to over 100 pages. There's an extensive chapter on Donald Trump and the evidence that he is guilty of Insurrection, even though he's not been convicted in a court of law or even charged by any prosecutor with Insurrection.

I registered (for free) which enabled me to download the entire text—it's now a treasured "Jan. 6" resource on my hard drive!

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-08-2023).]

82-T/A [At Work] NOV 08, 12:32 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Some of the "worthies" say that Section Three of the 14th Amendment was set up to be self executing. They elaborate on this by saying that Section Three calls for the disqualification of someone—in this case, Donald Trump—irrespective of whether they have been convicted on charges of Insurrection by a court of law.

I provided this abstract of this forthcoming article in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

The abstract offers the option to download the full text of the article, which runs to over 100 pages. There's an extensive chapter on Donald Trump and the evidence that he is guilty of Insurrection, even though he's not been convicted in a court of law or even charged by any prosecutor with Insurrection.

I registered (for free) which enabled me to download the entire text—it's now a treasured "Jan. 6" resource on my hard drive!




Ok, so, we've already determined that the court system has no bearing on this... to that point, the a Federal district court said this is a NO GO... meaning Trump cannot be prevented, and this will most assuredly be upheld by the Supreme Court if it's appealed.

So then I address this quote:

"They elaborate on this by saying that Section Three calls for the disqualification of someone—in this case, Donald Trump—irrespective of whether they have been convicted on charges of Insurrection by a court of law."

... and I ask, who then makes this decision? I'd imagine this would be the House of Representatives. So I ask then, do you think it likely that the House would pass such a law? It's a Republican majority, and for that matter, has a pro-Trump Speaker of the House ... so that's a big no.

But let's say for arguments sake that the House did decide to do this (which we know will never happen)... the Supreme Court has already stated that they do not view this situation as constitutional, and a lower district court has ALREADY ruled that this does not apply to Trump. So we know the Supreme Court would support this and overturn this.


... and, all of this is predicated on the idea that Trump's convicted of insurrection (or something???) at the Federal level. Which, unless you're aware of some additional evidence that hasn't been put forth, then I don't see that happening either. This is political theater, and you're allowing yourself to get caught up in it.
rinselberg NOV 08, 03:42 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
... and, all of this is predicated on the idea that Trump's convicted of insurrection (or something???) at the Federal level. Which, unless you're aware of some additional evidence that hasn't been put forth, then I don't see that happening either. This is political theater, and you're allowing yourself to get caught up in it.


Yes. I am allowing myself to get caught up in it, to the extent that I choose to comment about it on this Pennock's forum.

I doubt that Section Three of the 14th Amendment will be invoked to keep Trump's name off the ballot. Despite the modest amount of reading that I've done about it, all of which I consider to be recreational, serving me only as the "feedstock" for my forum posts, I don't have much understanding of how it could work. Could there be a situation where Trump is on the ballot in Georgia but not in Colorado? Etc.?

I have this filed on my hard disk, along with the "One-Electron Universe" theory, which it's possible you could remember, but unlikely that you would.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-08-2023).]

williegoat NOV 08, 04:35 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

I have this filed on my hard disk, along with the "One-Electron Universe" theory, which it's possible you could remember, but unlikely that you would.



Much like the "One Democrat party"?