Latest Breaking News

GB_RN

(3,280 posts)

33. Well, That's The Thing...

Tue Dec 19, 2023, 08:36 PM

Dec 2023

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that anyone guilty of rebellion or insurrection against the United States is disqualified from holding any federally elected office. It doesn’t say they can’t run. The only qualifications for holding federal office, the presidency in this case, are being a natural born citizen and at least 36 years old at the time of being sworn in.

In hindsight, it’s a rather gigantic loophole that the guys who wrote the 14th missed. Probably assuming it was obvious what they intended. However, lacking straightforward language, it’s left us in uncharted waters.

Since Putin’s Puppet hasn’t been convicted of sedition, rebellion, etc., it’s going to be hard to stick the landing here. One thing’s for sure: SCOTUS, including the seditious Clarence “Uncle Slappy” Thomas and Scammy Alito will have to make the ultimate decision. And I have less than no faith in that bunch of black robed asshats.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

3 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

nikatnyte OAITW r.2.0 LeftInTX

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from 2024 ballot, pauses ruling to allow appeal [View all] Jarqui Dec 2023 OP

neener, neener, Stinky Donny rurallib Dec 2023 #1

213 pages! This will take a while. Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2023 #2

SCOTUS is gonna have to deal with this Maeve Dec 2023 #3

The real kicker comes on page 9 Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2023 #4

Finally. Voltaire2 Dec 2023 #5

Can he run as an Independent in the Gerneral election? OAITW r.2.0 Dec 2023 #6

From my understanding he is disqualified from holding office MichMan Dec 2023 #8

Agreed, like voting for Daffy Duck shelshaw Dec 2023 #18

Opinion specifically and explicitly states that write-in votes cannot count Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #23

Well, That's The Thing... GB_RN Dec 2023 #33

My laptop DU tells me nothing on your post count. OAITW r.2.0 Dec 2023 #41

Thanks. GB_RN Dec 2023 #56

Nowhere in the Amendment is conviction mentioned. The key word is "engaged" Cattledog Dec 2023 #50

"engaged in insurrection" Novara Dec 2023 #52

And also . . . DC77 Dec 2023 #58

You Have A Point. GB_RN Dec 2023 #65

Good news! Marthe48 Dec 2023 #7

I am not confident that the SC will agree with the Colorado SC. They will argue that he hasn't been charged with JohnSJ Dec 2023 #9

I am curious to see how they will twist things, given that states run elections. Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2023 #10

and I think the conservatives on the court will do a lot of twisting JohnSJ Dec 2023 #16

Realistic assessment. n/t shrike3 Dec 2023 #12

Neither charged nor convicted Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #20

Laurence Tribe says it doesn't matter MichMan Dec 2023 #24

Tribe isn't a SC Justice. Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #27

If it was for insurrection, then yes they could MichMan Dec 2023 #40

Judge Luttig also agrees with Tribe. nt Trueblue Texan Dec 2023 #57

Nobody involved in the suit and none of the judges thought of this Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #28

I'm hardly the first to raise the issue Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #32

And how do the litigants and the opinion(s) address this concern? Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #34

What concern? Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #36

Has it ever come up from the litigants that there's been no charge and conviction Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #37

It will be brought up on appeal. Nt. Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #38

Surely it has come up in the actual litigation Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #39

Then SCOTUS has to way in. Was it an Insurrection or not? OAITW r.2.0 Dec 2023 #42

I think they'll rule that insurrection isn't a wink wink Polybius Dec 2023 #44

It was an Insurrection. And I would like SCOTUS to validate this simple fact. OAITW r.2.0 Dec 2023 #45

Just because we "think" it is doesn't mean that that's enough evidence Polybius Dec 2023 #46

It is not required that he be charged or convicted NJCher Dec 2023 #47

THANK YOU Novara Dec 2023 #53

Suck it Donny, you fat piece of shit Blue Owl Dec 2023 #11

This is a big deal. Now there is a precedence other courts can cite. flashman13 Dec 2023 #13

That's what I was thinking, and I hope other states will use... SKKY Dec 2023 #30

Michigan's case is going to the MI supreme court Novara Dec 2023 #54

Yay!! ificandream Dec 2023 #14

Interesting to see just how Roberts can twist this Scalded Nun Dec 2023 #15

Roberts wouldn't be the problem TwilightZone Dec 2023 #17

I Don't Think This Comes To A State Issue... GB_RN Dec 2023 #35

Kick dalton99a Dec 2023 #19

This message was self-deleted by its author Omaha Steve Dec 2023 #21

May other states quickly follow suit. Evolve Dammit Dec 2023 #22

I guess I don't have much of an imagination... dchill Dec 2023 #25

I'm delighted that this happened in Colorado FakeNoose Dec 2023 #26

Doubt that would stop him even if it were true... but it isn't FBaggins Dec 2023 #49

SCOTUS will find this easy to dispose of. Frasier Balzov Dec 2023 #29

All of your points are well covered in the decision. See the pdf linked in OP. Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2023 #48

Suck it Donny you fucking piece of shit Hitler wannabe Blue Owl Dec 2023 #31

Unfortunately the wording allows SCOTUS an out jgmiller Dec 2023 #43

What about write ins? The Grand Illuminist Dec 2023 #51

Those votes will be discarded MichMan Dec 2023 #60

Then the COSC blundered. The Grand Illuminist Dec 2023 #61

It is consistent with their decision that he is disqualified from holding office MichMan Dec 2023 #62

They will look at the write in ban as voter suppression The Grand Illuminist Dec 2023 #63

In my state, write in votes are only counted when candidate petitions the state to be officially approved as a write in MichMan Dec 2023 #64

I don't get all this pause ruling to allow appeal. A ruling is a ruling. It should be in effect immediately. bullimiami Dec 2023 #55

I think SCOTUS will disqualify him from Colorado but not make it a national ruling. ificandream Dec 2023 #59