-->
@FLRW
Childish irrelevant comment spamming/trolling this thread.
Should trump be disqualified as president for rebellion against the constitution?
Posts
Total:
288
The only person that the 14th Section 3 would apply to are those who served as "a Senator or Representative of Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who have previously taken an oath..."Tarrio never held "any Office" in the US Government, Trump did.
Are you stupid? Is that why you’re unemployed?
The comparison of Tarrio and Trump was to illustrate they both engaged in insurrection despite the fact both of them were not at the capital.
Tarrio was convicted. Trump will be convicted.
That said, the 14th Amendment doesn’t require a charge or conviction to prohibit someone from serving. A person just needed to have engaged.
“shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same”
The only person that the 14th Section 3 would apply to are those who served as "a Senator or Representative of Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who have previously taken an oath..."Tarrio never held "any Office" in the US Government, Trump did.Are you stupid? Is that why you’re unemployed?The comparison of Tarrio and Trump was to illustrate they both engaged in insurrection despite the fact both of them were not at the capital.Tarrio was convicted. Trump will be convicted.
BWAAAAHAAHAAAHAAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!!
Your ignorance of the subject matter is boundless!!!!!
Please, keep demonstrating your ignorance with these stupid double dumbass retorts proving just how fucking stupid you are on point, and your lack of reading comprehension skills!!!!
the 14th Section 3, the subject of this thread, does not and CANNOT apply to ANYONE other than those clearly identified within that Section. Normal average citizens do not apply. Period.
Ignorance irrelevant comparison (false equivalence fallacy).
You're dismissed, Fanchick!!!
Normal average citizens do not apply. Period.
You are stupid. I’m not talking about a normal an average citizen, I’m talking about Trump. Trump engaged in insurrection the same way Tarrio did.
Trump is therefore banned from serving. Tarrio is not banned from serving so when he gets out of jail, he can run for state or federal office.
Thank God your genes end with you being childless eunuch that you are.
Normal average citizens do not apply. Period.You are stupid. I’m not talking about a normal an average citizen, I’m talking about Trump. Trump engaged in insurrection the same way Tarrio did.
NO!!!! YOU are fucking stupid!!!!!! You used Tarrio as an equal comparative example to Trump, APPLES TO ORANGES, double dumbass!!!
Tarrio is not subject to 14/3 as idiots like you claim Trump is.
Trump is therefore banned from serving. Tarrio is not banned from serving so when he gets out of jail, he can run for state or federal office.Thank God your genes end with you being childless eunuch that you are.
Trump is NOT banned from serving office again, and never will be under 14/3, MORON FANCHICK!!!
14th Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:
"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."
First key legal term in that criteria is "shall": Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive.
Second key term here is "engaged": involved in activity; involved especially in a hostile encounter
Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
The final legal term (phrase) in that criteria is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy": SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.
"The two branches of treason, "levying war," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," are distinct, and do not embody synonymous actions."
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."
"...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power."
President Donald J. Trump did NOT (shall have) directly engage in an armed insurrection "in a hostile encounter" against the United States Constitution for which he gave oath to support. Equally, President Donald J. Trump did NOT give aid and comfort to the enemy since there was no enemy (a foreign power) to give aid and comfort to on January 6, 2020. More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I. emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection. Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riot and/or directly engaging in said riot that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol.
"The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials."
No insurrection, as such no rebellion either.
No enemies (agents of a foreign power) were present at the events of J6 either. Therefore, no enemies for anyone to give aid and comfort thereto.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not apply where President Donald J. Trump is concerned.
He can and will likely serve another term as POTUS.
NO!!!! YOU are fucking stupid!!!!!! You used Tarrio as an equal comparative example to Trump, APPLES TO ORANGES, double dumbass!!!
No, you are a moron. Tarrio participated in insurrection just like Trump. You are clueless.
Trump will be banned because he participated in an insurrection just like Tarrio did. Trump had taken an oath of office so he’s banned from serving under 14/3.
Thank God your genes end with you being the childless eunuch that you are.
NO!!!! YOU are fucking stupid!!!!!! You used Tarrio as an equal comparative example to Trump, APPLES TO ORANGES, double dumbass!!!No, you are a moron. Tarrio participated in insurrection just like Trump. You are clueless.Trump will be banned because he participated in an insurrection just like Tarrio did. Trump had taken an oath of office so he’s banned from serving under 14/3.Thank God your genes end with you being the childless eunuch that you are.
NO!!!!! You continue to prove what a fucking idiot dumbass moron YOU ARE!
There was NO fucking insurrection, jackass. Even the FBI, as clearly noted in my analysis, declared there was NO insurrection on J6.
Not a single person charged with "insurrection"!
There was NO FUCKING INSURRECTION!!!
Trump participated in nothing regarding J6. The 14.3 requirement is "shall have engaged," which means, as noted, personal engagement. Trump wasn't there. No personal engagement. And the aiding and abetting criteria isn't met either since no foreign enemies were present that day.
You're a fucking moron doubling down, tripling down on your fucking stupidity.
Everything you throw at me in the way of ad hominems is nothing but pure intellectual cowardice and psychological projection.
FanDick!
From Trumps speech Jan. 6th
And you have to get your people to fight. And if they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight. You primary them. We're going to. We're going to let you know who they are. I can already tell you, frankly.
But this year, using the pretext of the China virus and the scam of mail-in ballots, Democrats attempted the most brazen and outrageous election theft and there's never been anything like this. So pure theft in American history. Everybody knows it.
But this year, using the pretext of the China virus and the scam of mail-in ballots, Democrats attempted the most brazen and outrageous election theft and there's never been anything like this. So pure theft in American history. Everybody knows it.
-->
@FLRW
Irrelevant garbage.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion […] or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”, says the US Constitution’s First Amendment. The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites lawlessness that is imminent and likely, which includes the advocacy of crime and violence. How did Donald Trump incite the violence that erupted when his followers stormed the Capitol on January 6?
Between December 19 and January 6, Trump seven times announced the “Save America”-rally he held in Washington DC on the day his followers stormed the Capitol. In the first announcement, he tweeted, “Be there, will be wild!”. “To be wild” is a circumlocution for the use of violence. The call to attend the meeting went viral among Trump’s followers on social media (Barry, McIntire and Rosenberg 2020). Far-right groups such as the Proud Boys, QAnon conspiracy theorists, The Oath Keepers, or Three Percenters joined. Some Trump followers brought guns, Molotov cocktails, or pipe bombs.
Between December 19 and January 6, Trump seven times announced the “Save America”-rally he held in Washington DC on the day his followers stormed the Capitol. In the first announcement, he tweeted, “Be there, will be wild!”. “To be wild” is a circumlocution for the use of violence. The call to attend the meeting went viral among Trump’s followers on social media (Barry, McIntire and Rosenberg 2020). Far-right groups such as the Proud Boys, QAnon conspiracy theorists, The Oath Keepers, or Three Percenters joined. Some Trump followers brought guns, Molotov cocktails, or pipe bombs.
-->
@FLRW
Fight is a subjective term.
I've fought the government myself many times, just not in "armed" ways. I used my words when fighting for the rights of disabled veterans to get their earned disability compensation.
Protesters that get permits to be where they are authorized to be and protests peacefully = fighting for their voice to be heard.
Context is important. And when Trump said "peacefully and patriotically," that gave the necessary context for J6.
So stop being a fucking idiot.
There was NO fucking insurrection, jackass. Even the FBI, as clearly noted in my analysis, declared there was NO insurrection on J6.
That’s a lie. As I’ve said before the FBI never said J6 was not an insurrection.
You are hearing what you want from an article in the Washington Times.
There was NO fucking insurrection, jackass. Even the FBI, as clearly noted in my analysis, declared there was NO insurrection on J6.
That’s a lie. As I’ve said before the FBI never said J6 was not an insurrection.
You are making shit up after reading an article in the Washington Times. Because you’re a dummy.
There was NO FUCKING INSURRECTION!!!
There is no difference between n insurrection and a seditious conspiracy.
Name one confederate leader (military officer or politician) from the Civil War who was charged with insurrection. You can’t. Does that mean the Civil War was not an insurrection? Of course not.
Trump participated in nothing regarding J6.
That’s a lie. As Mitch McConnell said Trump provoked the attack on the Capitol
“Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday there is "no question" that former US President Donald Trump was "practically and morally responsible for provoking" last month's deadly attack on the US Capitol”
“Senator Mitch McConnell flatly blamed President Trump on Tuesday for the violent rampage at the Capitol on Jan. 6, saying that the mob that stormed the building had been “fed lies” and “provoked by the president” to carry out its assault”
I've fought the government myself many times, just not in "armed" ways. I used my words when fighting for the rights of disabled veterans to get their earned disability compensation.
Haha, the great Republican welfare queen. You mean you cheated the taxpayers by faking a disability so you can live off the government.
Why don’t you just get a job you lazy bum?
and protests peacefully = fighting for their voice to be heard.
Oh they “protests peacefully”? Nice grammar again, genius
There was NO fucking insurrection, jackass. Even the FBI, as clearly noted in my analysis, declared there was NO insurrection on J6.That’s a lie. As I’ve said before the FBI never said J6 was not an insurrection.You are hearing what you want from an article in the Washington Times.
There was NO fucking insurrection, jackass. Even the FBI, as clearly noted in my analysis, declared there was NO insurrection on J6.That’s a lie. As I’ve said before the FBI never said J6 was not an insurrection.You are making shit up after reading an article in the Washington Times. Because you’re a dummy.
"You're hearing what you want from..." SAYS the jackass constantly cherry picking articles and spamming the forum with his pithy TDS trolling threads. Can't have your cake and eat it to, FanDick.
The FBI did say J6 was not an insurrection. No one has been charged with insurrection. No one.
There was NO FUCKING INSURRECTION!!!There is no difference between n insurrection and a seditious conspiracy.
Thank you for continuing to prove your utter ignorance on the subject at hand.
You're such an idiot. Never doing any research before sticking your leather shoes in your mouth.
Insurrection 18 USC 2383
Seditious Conspiracy 18 USC 2384
If there was no difference, there would be no need for two different statutes and/or definitions.
Name one confederate leader (military officer or politician) from the Civil War who was charged with insurrection. You can’t. Does that mean the Civil War was not an insurrection? Of course not.
This has absolutely nothing to do with present day circumstances and the assertion of using 14/3 against Trump, fucktard. Yet another false equivalency fallacy.
Regardless...
Kenneth H. Worthy, County Sheriff, Held local office in a Confederate state. Worthy was not accused of engaging in violence, Mandamus action by Worthy to challenge his disqualification by county commissioners under state law implementing Section 3. Court ruling: Yes. Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N.C. 199 (1869), appeal dismissed, 76 U.S. 611 (1869)
William L. Tate, County Attorney, Served as an officer in the Confederate Army, Mandamus action by Tate challenging his Section 3 disqualification by state judge. Court ruling: Yes. In re Tate, 63 N.C. 308, 309 (1869).
J.D. Watkins, District Attorney, “Engaged in the late rebellion” (unclear precisely what Watkins did), Quo warranto action filed against Watkins under state law and Section 3., Court Ruling: Yes. Louisiana ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631 (La. 1869). Reasoning: Court confirmed state courts can enforce Section 3 and that Section 3 is not a criminal punishment but a qualification for office.
Trump participated in nothing regarding J6.That’s a lie. As Mitch McConnell said Trump provoked the attack on the Capitol
A geriatric who seizes up under questioning. Yeah, real credible source there, FanDick.
His personal illegitimate subjective opinion is not LAW. Idiot.
I've fought the government myself many times, just not in "armed" ways. I used my words when fighting for the rights of disabled veterans to get their earned disability compensation.Haha, the great Republican welfare queen. You mean you cheated the taxpayers by faking a disability so you can live off the government.Why don’t you just get a job you lazy bum?
Emasculated psychological projection.
14th Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:
"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."
First key legal term in that criteria is "shall": Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive.
Second key term here is "engaged": involved in activity; involved especially in a hostile encounter
Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
The final legal term (phrase) in that criteria is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy": SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.
"The two branches of treason, "levying war," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," are distinct, and do not embody synonymous actions."
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."
"...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power."
President Donald J. Trump did NOT (shall have) directly engage in an armed insurrection "in a hostile encounter" against the United States Constitution for which he gave oath to support. Equally, President Donald J. Trump did NOT give aid and comfort to the enemy since there was no enemy (a foreign power) to give aid and comfort to on January 6, 2020. More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I. emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection. Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riot and/or directly engaging in said riot that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol.
"The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials."
No insurrection, as such no rebellion either.
No enemies (agents of a foreign power) were present at the events of J6 either. Therefore, no enemies for anyone to give aid and comfort thereto.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not apply where President Donald J. Trump is concerned.
He can and will likely serve another term as POTUS.
Trump hasn't been charged with sedition. Nor insurrection. Nor treason.
Trump hasn't been charged with sedition. Nor insurrection. Nor treason.
What’s your point? Oh, you don’t have one. That’s surprising
If there was no difference, there would be no need for two different statutes and/or definitions.
What’s the difference between a moron and an idiot? According to your “logic” there must be a difference.
Or is it two different words that have the same meaning?
Kenneth H. Worthy, County Sheriff, Held local office in a Confederate state.
The prohibition in 14/3 was for state and federal office you dipshit. Not county. Are you stupid? Are you a moron or an idiot? I can’t decide.
-->
@TWS1405_2
I ignored nothing. You simply do not know how to read legal statutes, Constitutional, federal, state or otherwise correctly. Which is exactly why I said to the author of this thread how/why everyone gets this topic wrong. Plain readings of the law never work. Period.
It was your definition. You do not have to be a law professor or constitutional scholar to recognize basic plain English.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
"Taking up arms traitorously against the government" - aside from the definition of arms (which I challenged you on and you made absolutely no effort to refute) you do not need a law degree to understand what this means. Those who literally attacked the US capitol certainly qualify.
"and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense" - "more correct" is again, basic English. It means the following is a clearer way of communicating the previous point (not a different point).
"rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued." - signifies... As in "means". "Forcible opposition" - literally what happened on January 6th. "To the laws and process lawfully issued" - as in the process of certifying the results of the presidential election.
Again, this was your definition, and it fits January 6th like a glove. There is no 1700's lingo that changes anything in this definition.
No, it is to YOU who does not understand the point of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, you ignoramus.What fucking part of this did you fail to utterly NOT comprehend:"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to itssettled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted,applies onlyto the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility withus. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their owngovernment." 8
Let's start with a reminder of the language in the 14th amendment in question here;
"shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof".
Note the word "or". So unless that means something different in the constitution, these are two different things, both of which qualify on their own. The part I just addressed was the former, this next part of yours addresses the latter, so they have nothing to do with each other.
But let's address it anyway, my other points notwithstanding.
The 14th amendment was drafted after the civil war, almost 100 years after the constitution. So the meaning of the term "enemies" at that point in time is not particularly relevant here. We just went through a situation where we learned that our enemies could be domestic as well. And let me reiterate what you ignored yet again...
The entire point of this amendment was to stop americans who engaged in rebellion from holding office in our government. If that was the entire point and entire reason this amendment was drafted, it is absurd to then suggest the amendment does not apply to americans who engaged in rebellion. Read this paragraph a few more times if you need to.
More intellectual cowardice denialism with fallacious retorts. Pure fucking childish ignorance. You're definitely not smarter than a fifth grader.
Yeah. So this is sadly representative of the rest of your post. The only two substantive things you provided in your entire response are addressed above. Let's see if you actually know what you're talking about and can show me where I'm wrong, or if you're just going to continue with your pointless childish insults that only make you look dumber and even more unserious.
-->
@Double_R
Let's see if you actually know what you're talking about and can show me where I'm wrong,
I already did prove you wrong and you just can’t admit it.
Fuck off now and go play protester in the busy streets with the rest of the losers like IWRA.
Trump hasn't been charged with sedition. Nor insurrection. Nor treason.
A guilty verdict and the words of a judge prove nothing.This proves you don’t have to physically participate in the insurrection to be guilty of seditious conspiracy.
Fuck off now and go play protester in the busy streets with the rest of the losers like IWRA.
See that’s funny. Most people would think the guy who is unemployed and living on disability with no children and watches Star Trek is the loser.
-->
@Double_R
TWS is a dunce. If it weren’t for his disability check from the government he would be homeless.
TWS is a dunce. If it weren’t for his disability check from the government he would be homeless.
Says the FabDick who can’t prove me no more than than Double_Retard could.
You two belong together. Closets homosexuals. Clearly. At least one of your are given the above, that’s for sure.