Most people would think …
No. Just you, FanOfTheDick!! Just YOU
Should trump be disqualified as president for rebellion against the constitution?
Posts
Total:
288
Again…
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 riotand/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.
-->
@TWS1405_2
lol
You claim I am incapable of admitting myself to be wrong, yet here you are posting the same nonsense that was just refuted as if nothing happened at all.
Apparently you think calling someone an "intellectual cowardice denialist" qualifies as an argument.
The projection here is astounding.
-->
@n8nrgim
that's a great point if it's true. sounds like you r right that trump shouldn't be disqualified.
Take note of the past few pages. Notice how when he gets challenged, about 80% of what he comes back with are just childish insults, and notice how many arguments he doesn't address at all.
He doesn't know what he's talking about.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
TWS called you FabDick. He must have seen the Magic Mike show we put on.
-->
@Double_R
You claim I am incapable of admitting myself to be wrong, yet here you are posting the same nonsense that was just refuted as if nothing happened at all.
You didn’t refute shit. Not a damn thing.
No amount of your sick and twisted sophistry will ever debunk my 100% factually accurate legal analysis of the 14th Amendment, Section 3.
So continue bathing yourself in your narcissism asserting your Dunning-Kruger delusions of grandeur, makes no more difference than you using appeals to mockery, ignorance and strawman fallacies claiming victory. You didn’t win. You’ll never win. That’s just a fact. Period.
Here endeth the lesson.
-->
@Double_R
i havent read all the exchange between you two, but it looks like you hold trump responsible for the armed rebellion against congress. trump wasn't charged with insurrection or riotings or anything related to initiating an armed rebellion cause most or a lot of people including me, which includes those in authority, dont think trump was responsible for the attack. so if trump isn't responsible for armed rebellion, and the unarmed rebellion that i thought could disqualify trump doesn't fit the definition... the trump shouldn't be disqualified. between all of us arguing, it boils down to whether trump is responsible for initiating the attack on congress and we all simply disagree. TWS provided the right definition it looks like, but he's sucking at making good arguments to defend himself.
-----
-->
@n8nrgim
but he's sucking at making good arguments to defend himself.
Seriously???
My first rebuttal to Double_R proved him wrong, yet again with good rebuttals.
It’s to DR who sucks at arguing cause he doesn’t know the subject and comes up with fantastical circular reasoning and additional sophistry to try to come out on top, when he epically failed.
-->
@Double_R
He doesn't know what he's talking about.
No, it’s YOU who doesn’t know what your talking about. I have the academic and professional training/experience that equips me with the requisite knowledge, intellect and experience with the subject matter. You don’t.
I’ve cited everything necessary to back up my argument. You even said it was BS about the foreign enemies and I was lying/making shit up. Proved you wrong.
You’re the one who acts all pompous and self-righteous here with your ridiculous sophistry.
You’re always a waste of time to engage with, Mr Pseudo Know it All.
-->
@n8nrgim
trump wasn't charged with insurrection or riotings or anything related to initiating an armed rebellion cause most or a lot of people including me, which includes those in authority, dont think trump was responsible for the attack.
I can understand the argument that Trump's actions do not amount to him being held legally responsible for January 6th, but to argue he shouldn't be regarded as responsible in any rational sense is in my view, not defensible. Everyone including Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, and pretty much every single person who attacked the Capitol understood this very well on January 6th even if many pretend not to now
I would love to hear more about what you mean here and why you hold that position.
so if trump isn't responsible for armed rebellion, and the unarmed rebellion that i thought could disqualify trump doesn't fit the definition... the trump shouldn't be disqualified.
This is one of the reasons TWS it's just plain wrong. What he's trying to do is assert that the definition here is extremely, ludacrisly strict, and then disqualify January 6th on a technicality. That's not how it works.
The 14th amendment, like all constitutional amendments, are left fairly vague. The idea is that they are the basis upon which our laws are based, so they are supposed to be vague enough for judges to be able to use reasonable descretion to be able to tell what the intention behind it was and whether the laws enforcing these amendments are constitutionally valid.
Nothing about the 14th amendment as written requires arms to be a part of the rebellion or defines which arms qualify. Furthermore, if we really want to go down this rabbit hole we would have to go beyond whether the rebellion was armed and determine just how armed it was. Exactly how many weapons have to be present to qualify? Does bear mace count? Flag poles? The capitol police's own weapons the rioters stole from them? How do you quantify any of this? Or if we take the position that arms are required and arms = guns, how many guns present are required? Is it a rebellion if at least one guy in the crowd had a gun but not a rebellion if he didn't? What about two guys? Three? It's an absurd notion that a constitutional amendment would rely on such specifics without any hint of it's criteria.
To make sense out of this we have to look at the reason the amendment was passed; it was intended to stop Americans who rebelled against the US government by joining the confederacy during the civil war. The idea being that someone who actually tried to nullify the US Constitution through an attack on the government shouldn't be able to run for office. Under that lense it's very easy to see why the framers of this amendment wouldn't have gotten so specific on the criteria.
Now with all this said, I actually do not believe the legality of this proposition would or even should hold up legally (perhaps if TWS cared about having a normal conversation we would have gotten to that). While I most definitely think the amendment rightfully applies to Trump, the issue I have is that we haven't put in place a mechanism for enforcing it. Something like this can't just be left up to individuals who read the constitution and agree with me, that's extremely undemocratic and it's too late in the game to make up the rules now. Because of this I predict it will go up to the supreme court and fail on those grounds.
Here endeth the lesson.
That’s coming from a guy who did all his lessons in crayon.
-->
@Double_R
No amount of your sick and twisted sophistry will ever debunk my 100% factually accurate legal analysis of the 14th Amendment, Section 3.
This guy is more delusional than Trump.
It’s like when Trump says he has a “very big brain” or is “Like really smart”
-->
@Double_R
then it boils down to originalism v living constitution. it's fair for you to think that we have a 'living constitution', and that 'rebellion' should apply generally to trump. if tws is right, and we were to use originalism, and his definition is right... then trump didn't cause an armed rebellion. again, it depends on if you think he should be responsible for that or not. i see that you keep going down the rabbit hole of defining various 'arms' ideas, but if trump isn't reponsible, then the point is moot. if you just take a vague idea that trump was a general cause of the rebellion, in an abstract sense, then it's getting into territory that isn't fair. to use a legal jargon, trump isn't the 'proximate cause'. it would be slimey word play to say trump is the proximate cause.
but yeah, it all boils down to originalism or not, and the proximate cause debate. i still think it is you that is stetching things beyond fair understandings. and i like to use originalism, unless the original purpose of the text is no longer applicable in special circumstances.
-->
@TWS1405_2
I have the academic and professional training/experience that equips me with the requisite knowledge, intellect and experience with the subject matter.
Then you should be able to refute what I said with reasoned argument as opposed to your typical childish insults followed by you declaring victory and running away. Yet here we are.
-->
@Double_R
I already have.
You're the denialist making strawman fallacies and then building upon those with your sophistry-based retorts.
-->
@Double_R
The 14th amendment, like all constitutional amendments, are left fairly vague.
No, they are not. They are very specific within the language that they are written in that has been crystal clear and stood the test of time. (e.g., "shall not be infringed").
You clearly know nothing of the vagueness doctrine.
"strawman fallacies"
if you notice, at a place like a debate website, you see 'fallacy' thrown around way too much. you guys just have a different philsophical approach. to characterize the others as fallacies is probably more itself fallacious. i prefer using the word fallacy on questions that are more fact based. i suppose you could characterize this situation as factual v not, but i think it's too open to interpretation for that. i'd say he's not committing a fallacy, he's just making really weak arguments.
-->
@Double_R
If I must, i will continue to prove you wrong and the dumbass that you are on this subject.
-->@<<<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.
WRONG! It was NOT my definition. It was a LEGAL definition provided by "TheFreeDictionary" for rebellion:
REBELLION, crim. law. 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.
You do not have to be a law professor or constitutional scholar to recognize basic plain English.
And yet the law is never written in "basic plain English." (e.g., See Spot Run. See Spot Jump. See Spot Eat.)
"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.
I did refute your asinine ignorant take on the definition of arms, you and your narcissistic intellectual cowardice denialism ignored it because you CANNOT refute it.
Proportionality makes a huge difference when establishing when an action is merely a riot vs an insurrection. Which is precisely why none of the 2020 riots were ever declared an insurrection despite the glaring fact they targeted government buildings, offices, policies, procedures and threatened the lives of civil and federal employees. The disparity between the St Floyd Violent (Burn Loot Murder) riots and J6 convictions are astounding and in your face. Tarrio getting 22 years for circumstantial evidence of a loosely described conspiracy is asinine given that actual arsonists and murderers of the 2020 Floyd riots got less than half the sentencing Tarrio did, who wasn't even present on J6.
"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).
Basics English doesn't apply to the law. Period. See. This is why you fail. You have no academic and/or professional experience in the legal arena to know any better. There is no plain reading of the law to accurately understand and apply the law. The law is complex with very specific punctuation outlining criterion that must be met on the whole for the statute in order to employ the statute as a charge against a suspect.
"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.
Irrelevant. What you just described happened during the 2020 riots across the entire nation and yet nothing has ever been done about those violators' vs the alleged J6 violators. What you described has also happened during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, among other "official proceedings" of the government over the years. The double standards are crystal clear. Democrats = Free Pass to Go. Republics = Straight To Jail.
Again, this was your definition,
Nope. Not mine. A legal definition. One clearly cited in my OP. You ignored it. Denialist.
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." 8Let's start with a reminder of the language in the 14th amendment in question here;
No, no, no. Fuck you. There is no reminding me of anything. You claimed my position on the aid and abetting was BS. I proved you wrong. The entirety of the left are emphatically arguing both as a reason to disqualify Trump from 2024. Insurrection AND giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The argument is a joined on, it is not separate. You do NOT get to have your cake and eat it to.
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...
NO! You cannot deny the legal authority I cited that makes it FUCKING CLEAR that the 14th Section 3 'enemies' clearly meant ones of foreign origination.
- "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."
You have no authority or position to refute the cited material. Period.
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.
No, double dumbass, it was meant for both Americans AND foreigners from infiltrating our government to destroy it. Clearly reading comprehension fails you. Read the fucking cited link above that spell that reality out. Dipshit. And I do not care if you do not like the name calling, it all fits, because you are every bit of every term anyone labels you based on your narcissistic pompous and self-righteous bullshit sophistry.
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.
Your ignorant sophistry proves you an ignorant narcissist. That's all.
Live with that.
Loser.
-->
@n8nrgim
"strawman fallacies"if you notice, at a place like a debate website, you see 'fallacy' thrown around way too much. you guys just have a different philsophical approach.
Translation: you lack the emotional and intellectual intelligence to comprehend the importance of spotting, acknowledging and asserting a logical fallacy when it is made.
to characterize the others as fallacies is probably more itself fallacious.
Proof you do not comprehend what a logical fallacy even is, especially when it is used.
i prefer using the word fallacy on questions that are more fact based.
If you cannot even recognize let alone acknowledge a legit fallacy when before you, how are you equipped to identify one otherwise?
i suppose you could characterize this situation as factual v not, but i think it's too open to interpretation for that. i'd say he's not committing a fallacy, he's just making really weak arguments.
There is no interpretation or otherwise between truth and fiction. It is an either or. Never in-between or some wishy-washy middle.
-->
@TWS1405_2
How is it that a reasonable person can't read the word rebellion in the constitution and conclude trump rebelled? Reasonable people don't have to agree with originalism like we do. You r just being dogmatic and insisting an artificial standard of absolute truth.
-->
@n8nrgim
<<<TWS1405_2>>>
How is it that a reasonable person can't read the word rebellion in the constitution and conclude trump rebelled?
And THIS is why we have (at least legit) lawyers instead of laymen arguing before the Court(s)!!!
If you have to ask this question, then you’ve lost the debate.
Here endeth the lesson.
-->
@n8nrgim
There is a huge difference between Orangemanbad and Orangemanguilty.
-->
@n8nrgim
We are getting dangerously close to a society that will label people who speak against the government as "traitors" in the legal sense. That will be the end of Democracy.
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly.
Those on the left get a free pass whilst those on the right get the book thrown at them for doing no differently.
Just look at the swearing in of Brett Kavanaugh. Lefties were given a slap on the hand for doing exactly what Tarrio was accused of, yet Tarrio gets 22 years in federal prison while the lefties are still walking the streets free as a bird present day.
The double standards are rather quite apparent. Anyone saying otherwise is a blind fool.
-->
@TWS1405_2
you're doing what everyone has been telling you that you've been doing most of this thread, and deflecting instead of engaging in debate. if everyone else sees it but you, you might want to ask yourself if its not really you that's the crazy person.
-->
@n8nrgim
I don't like Trump, but this will definitely destroy the country if Trump isn't allowed to run just because he is polling well against Biden.
If the roles were reversed and Biden was sent to jail in 2020 for engaging in a crony enterprise in Ukraine while in elected office, the country as we know it would be equally destroyed. Maybe Trump was trying to set that up when he asked Ukraine to look into it with the "phone call impeachment", we don't know. But it would have been equally wrong.
"Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election."
I'm with Greyparrot on this one. We can wreck the Republican Party by having Trump be their candidate in 2024.
strawman fallacies
Unbelievable. Always claiming you are being strawmaned. Always some type of fallacy. You must have taken a correspondence course on debating.
Nobody is misrepresenting your argument, your arguments are just stupid.
Defining “shall” and “engaged” does not make a case for Trump to not be subject to the 14th Amendment.
You are the only moron among those objecting to applying the 14th Amendment to Trump who is using this ridiculous reasoning.
I don't like Trump,
This is not a credible statement because you criticize everything and everyone except Trump.
You like Trump but you always hesitate to say who or what you like because you are unable to defend.