US Politics Thread 2021-24

[Buddahaid]

I was just going to post that. The decision is stayed until January 4th for the US Supreme Court to take it up.

EDIT: Actually, the Colorado State ballot gets set on January 5th which is why the stay goes to the 4th, in other words, figure it out by then or Trump is off the ballot.

[Reece]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Reminds me of the Queen song "The Show Must Go On"
Donald Trump aligns himself with Orban and Putin in bid to sway voters away from Biden

Donald Trump has compared himself to Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orbán in his latest bid to win over voters.

The former president was speaking at the University of New Hampshire in Durham on Saturday, where he aligned himself to the Russian and Hungarian leaders.

Trump was pushing his message that the criminal cases against him are a "coordinated persecution" in an attempt to diminish his lead in general election polls.

The presidential hopeful quoted Putin and welcomed compliments from Orbán.

Good grief!! Well I've lost all respect for Trump!!

[Jimbuna]

[Neptunus Rex]

Originally Posted by mapuc

This came as a surprise since I have been told(here in this thread) the 14th Amendment doesn't apply in this case.



https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/p...ent/index.html

Markus

I'll go even further. Who decides when an event or incident is an act of insurrection against the US Government?

It's not the courts, and most certainly NOT a state court, even a State Supreme Court.

It's not the Attorney General, state or federal.

It's not the US Senate.

It's not the US House of Representatives.

The US Insurrection Act of 1807 specifically states there is only person that can declare a state of rebellion or insurrection against the US Government.

The President of the United States!

On the day in question, Donald Trump was the President of the United States and he made no such declaration, that day or after.

[mapuc]

^ Thank you

Aren't they on a slide track ?

First it was Colorado who will it be next in line to remove/prevent Trump from running in their State ?

Yes the US Supreme Court will take it up to see if Colorado has broken some civil laws.
(Did not get it right in words-Thinking and getting it onto writing is two different thing)

Markus

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Neptunus Rex

I'll go even further. Who decides when an event or incident is an act of insurrection against the US Government?

It's not the courts, and most certainly NOT a state court, even a State Supreme Court.

It's not the Attorney General, state or federal.

It's not the US Senate.

It's not the US House of Representatives.

The US Insurrection Act of 1807 specifically states there is only person that can declare a state of rebellion or insurrection against the US Government.

The President of the United States!

On the day in question, Donald Trump was the President of the United States and he made no such declaration, that day or after.

Umm... that might work except it is a basic tenet of law that the perpetrator of a crime cannot be held unaccountable for his actions even if he is, ostensibly, an "immune" architect of a crime during or after the crime; basically, once you commit a crime and you are in a position to rule on that crime, your ability to stand in judgement of the legality ceases and the matter is then in the ballpark of law enforcement and, ultimately the courts; a judge, for example, cannot rule on the legalities of his own criminality, nor can a legislator pass a law excluding him/herself from prosecution; Trump was a active/willing originator in his criminal actions and once he crossed that threshold, it didn't matter if he, as acting President, did or did not declare an insurrection; he placed himself outside the law, was in violation of his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, uphold Federal law, and to defend both fully; if you wanted to get technical, Trump was impeached for essentially what you say he can't be touched over so, yes, actually, Congress does have the power to address treason by a President; as far as "that day or after", the cabal of treason was in full swing long before Jan 6 and Trump was fully aware of the known and very real consequences of his actions; I seriously doubt that even the majority conservative SCOTUS Justices could finesse and finagle a rationale to get The Orange Hitler's family jewels out of the vise of the justice system; he has suffered loss after loss after loss in his legal machinations thus far and he continues to get clobbered; now he's painted himself into a corner and the stalling tactics are getting less and less effective...



<O>

[Gorpet]

Originally Posted by vienna

Umm... that might work except it is a basic tenet of law that the perpetrator of a crime cannot be held unaccountable for his actions even if he is, ostensibly, an "immune" architect of a crime during or after the crime; basically, once you commit a crime and you are in a position to rule on that crime, your ability to stand in judgement of the legality ceases and the matter is then in the ballpark of law enforcement and, ultimately the courts; a judge, for example, cannot rule on the legalities of his own criminality, nor can a legislator pass a law excluding him/herself from prosecution; Trump was a active/willing originator in his criminal actions and once he crossed that threshold, it didn't matter if he, as acting President, did or did not declare an insurrection; he placed himself outside the law, was in violation of his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, uphold Federal law, and to defend both fully; if you wanted to get technical, Trump was impeached for essentially what you say he can't be touched over so, yes, actually, Congress does have the power to address treason by a President; as far as "that day or after", the cabal of treason was in full swing long before Jan 6 and Trump was fully aware of the known and very real consequences of his actions; I seriously doubt that even the majority conservative SCOTUS Justices could finesse and finagle a rationale to get The Orange Hitler's family jewels out of the vise of the justice system; he has suffered loss after loss after loss in his legal machinations thus far and he continues to get clobbered; now he's painted himself into a corner and the stalling tactics are getting less and less effective...



<O>

Oh Hell,You sound wealthy and Democrat,The most squawkers have the most to lose. What are you afraid of that hasn't already happened ?

[bweiss]

Well, as long as we're talking insurrection here, whether real or imagined.

What does one call the conspiracy to organize and plan the willful refusal by the Head of State to abide by their Oath of Office, to honor and protect the Constitution and the co-conspirators individual Oath(s) of Office to honor and protect the Constitution, which includes enforcing "all" of the existing laws of the United States vis-à-vis the border and immigration laws of the United States, by purposely and willfully destroying the border protection wall(s), ordering the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to ignore enforcement of existing law(s), nullifying the Nation's declared borders (and endangering the safety of it's citizenry), by unidentified and unvetted scores of individuals and groups, to freely enter the country in violation of U.S. law amounting to, by any legal definition of the words, an open and wholesale invasion of, and/or abridgement of, the sovereignty of the United States.

I would also submit, that under the present and past three years of the voluminous visual and other well documented evidence of the Federal Government's willful refusal to enforce said laws, such a violation of the Constitution also results in and provides unfettered entrance to, and occupation of, the United States by an unknown number, (presently estimated in the many hundreds of thousands to millions) of individuals and groups of individuals from around the globe which according to the data collected by the U.S. Customs and Border Control on those they even know about, would include vast numbers originating from those Nations which are hostile to the United States, or which have otherwise declared themselves to be enemies of the United States, and whom may seek to harm the United States and it's citizens.

Whereby it may be reasonably judged that such numbers of illegal border crossings also include declared and undeclared enemies of the United States, to include international criminal cartels, and foreign terrorist organizations, and further by providing these enemies with free airfare, cellphones, hotel accommodations, food, medical care, travel expenses, and so forth and so on, all amounting to an all expense paid vacation in the United States, paid for by the Citizens of the United States, which by any legal definition amounts to providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, while simultaneously assisting in and/or harboring of, their disappearance within the United States as it is commonly known to be the case. In as much as the Federal Government refuses to engage in any tracking of their locations, their movements, or their activities, let alone their motivations, within the United States thereby willfully and conspiratorially providing safe harbor to an unknown number of enemies of the United States.

In effect, it is nothing less than an insurrection or rebellion against the citizenry of the United States, the sovereignty of the United States, and the Constitution of the United States. At a minimum and vastly understated, it is a violation of the 14th Amendment, et., al.

14th Amendment

Section 3.

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.

(That last sentence being very important as it would require a Congress that isn't actually on vacation 365 days a year).

Oath of Office

“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.”

(To restate it, the fulfillment of this oath includes enforcing "all" the laws of the United States - not just the ones that someone likes). Failure to do so, whether willfully and/or conspiratorially, or through gross negligence or incompetence, is never the less a violation of the Oath of Office, the 14th Amendment, and a host of other laws, rules and regulations.



So now just who is it again that shouldn't be on the ballot?


It would appear that Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick of Texas, has a pretty good argument on his side.

[August]

Former Ohio Governor John Kasich slammed Colorado’s ruling potentially barring Trump from Colorado’s ballot, arguing it is "partisan nonsense."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/kasich...ection-instead




This is what can come out of the Pandoras Box that the Dems have opened.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said Tuesday that President Biden should be taken off the 2024 ballot for causing an illegal immigration crisis.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...den-kicked-of/

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Gorpet

Oh Hell, You sound wealthy and Democrat

:FAQ: "...do not use language you wouldn't use around your mother..." IMHO the quibble with Trump and the fourteenth Amendment is likely to become moot....thanks to the 20th Amendment??!

Originally Posted by 2dazy' W.S.J.

Colorado’s Supreme Court overlooks the 20th Amendment. If Trump Is Disqualified, He Can Still Run. The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered that Donald Trump’s name not appear on next year’s Republican presidential primary ballot. The court found that Mr. Trump “engaged in insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021, and that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars a person who has done so from serving as president. Even if these findings are both correct, the Constitution doesn’t bar Mr. Trump from the ballot. Presidents are selected through an indirect, drawn-out process. In November 2024, voters will choose presidential electors. When voting, citizens will see the names of presidential candidates when, in fact, they are voting for the electors who will later vote for president.
One problem for the Colorado court’s ruling is that the 14th Amendment never declares that voters can’t select presidential electors who are pledged to vote for nonqualified candidates. The 14th Amendment disqualifies certain people from holding federal and state office and doesn’t explicitly regulate ballot access. Nor does it expressly authorize state officials to judge the qualifications of candidates or electors. The more decisive flaw is that the ruling ignores a key provision of the 20th Amendment, which provides: “If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified” (emphasis added).
The italicized text implies that electors can lawfully vote for a candidate even if he isn’t qualified to serve as president—and he can take office if he qualifies later. But how could that happen? A simple example is if the president-elect will turn 35 after Inauguration Day. (Similarly, Joe Biden was 29 when he was elected to the Senate in 1972 but turned 30 before the start of his term.)
Under the 14th Amendment, a disqualification based on insurrection can also go away: “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” It often did so in the postbellum period. In July 1868, three weeks after the 14th Amendment’s ratification, South Carolina’s Legislature elected Franklin J. Moses Sr. as the state’s chief justice. He took office after Congress removed his disqualification in December.
If the U.S. Supreme Court holds that Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection, it’s hard to imagine Congress voting by two-thirds to remove his disqualification. If he is the Republican nominee, his choice of vice president may be even more important than Mr. Biden’s.

[bweiss]

Originally Posted by 2dazy' W.S.J.

Colorado’s Supreme Court overlooks the 20th Amendment.

"If the U.S. Supreme Court holds that Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection, it’s hard to imagine Congress voting by two-thirds to remove his disqualification.
If he is the Republican nominee, his choice of vice president may be even more important than Mr. Biden’s."



Not so fast, if Mr. Biden were to end up as the Democrat nominee, then we could end up with the "most" election of our lifetime...


https://nypost.com/2023/12/20/news/kamala-harris-serves-up-another-word-salad-as-discusses-most-election-of-our-lifetime/

"“You know, every election cycle we talk about this is the most election of our lifetime.” “Lawrence, this one is, this one is,” she told the host.


https://rangerrick.org/rr_videos/listen-to-a-hyena-laugh/

[mapuc]

You can't do anything than wait for the outcome from the Supreme Court-What they have to say about this step taken by the State court in Colorado.

Markus

[bweiss]

Very true. Blessed are the peacemakers.


Indeed there is nothing us Serfs can do about it except to peacefully discuss it. Still as Karl Marx demonstrated with "Das Kapital", published in Berlin in 1867, ideas are like viruses.
Whether they be a good virus or a bad virus they all tend to spread. And like all viruses they also evolve as they spread. In this context the truth, often illusive, never-the-less when exposed,
tends to dampen down the evolution of the more dangerous viruses. Kind of like a vaccine.


The doors to heaven and "perdition" and both adjacent and identical.

And that's language my Ma wouldn't have minded.

[Skybird]

Nobody, no matter his title, shall ever be untouchable and self-controlling. NEVER. Thats why we have balance of powers in the West, and just those who want unlimite dpowers try to erode and corrupt this system (quite successfully, unfortunately). In my best understanding, a US president is not meant to be a monarch, though much symbolic stuff in the representation show act of the state and its pomp and also the president's ceremonial acts and public perception of him remind of the monarchy (that the colonists threw out of the window, mind you...).

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by bweiss

Very true. Blessed are the peacemakers.


Indeed there is nothing us Serfs can do about it except to peacefully discuss it. Still as Karl Marx demonstrated with "Das Kapital", published in Berlin in 1867, ideas are like viruses.
Whether they be a good virus or a bad virus they all tend to spread. And like all viruses they also evolve as they spread. In this context the truth, often illusive, never-the-less when exposed,
tends to dampen down the evolution of the more dangerous viruses. Kind of like a vaccine.


The doors to heaven and "perdition" and both adjacent and identical.

And that's language my Ma wouldn't have minded.

Keep on discussing-It's interesting to read what my American friends has to say about this..
What I meant when it comes to what Supreme court may come up with-There's nothing we can do than wait.

It's also gonna be interesting to see which one of you come closest to what the Supreme court comes up with.

Will they use the 14th sect. 3 Amendment or will they base their statement on the 20th Amendment ?

Markus