@metal-brain saidSee the OP.
@no1marauder
Trump is NOT an "official". His appointees are officials, not the POTUS.
@mott-the-hoople saidSection 5 allows Congress to enforce the Amendment by appropriate legislation. It does not require Congress to do so, nor does it mean that the Amendment is restricted to what Congress legislates. Not sure about most, but certainly many 14th Amendment cases have nothing to do with legislation. Congress does pass Constituional amendments, but they're not really considered "legislation."
and section 5 sank yours 😂
@sh76 said😂 Bull Shyt
Section 5 allows Congress to enforce the Amendment by appropriate legislation. It does not require Congress to do so, nor does it mean that the Amendment is restricted to what Congress legislates. Not sure about most, but certainly many 14th Amendment cases have nothing to do with legislation. Congress does pass Constituional amendments, but they're not really considered "legislation."
@no1marauder saidI never explained sec 1 in the first place, how am I going to explain it again?
Explain to me again how Section 1 of the 14th Amendment doesn't require Congressional legislation (like how there was none in Brown and Loving) but Section 3 does.
You are moving the goal posts try ling to salvage a win of some sorts. Nothing new here.
@metal-brain saidThe logic is impeccable.
The OP does not prove Trump is an official.
Trump isn't an "official" anyway and that is irrelevant. The only question is whether the Presidency is an "office" under the meaning of Section 3.
The Framers of that Amendment surely meant that is was included under "any office, civil or military, under the United States'" and a contrary reading is absurd (although, who knows, the SCOTUS might be absurd enough to find so since there's so little else to overturn the ruling).
@no1marauder said"Trump isn't an "official" anyway and that is irrelevant"
The logic is impeccable.
Trump isn't an "official" anyway and that is irrelevant. The only question is whether the Presidency is an "office" under the meaning of Section 3.
The Framers of that Amendment surely meant that is was included under "any office, civil or military, under the United States'" and a contrary reading is absurd (although, who knows, the SCOTUS might be absurd enough to find so since there's so little else to overturn the ruling).
LOL! Read the constitution moron! It means everything!
1 edit
@metal-brain saidBLM protests were non-violent until third parties got involved.
Is the leader of BLM guilty of in action during BLM protests? Who is to blame for not speaking out against violence during the BLM protests? Who should go to prison for in action?
Who sent the white vans to Portland?
It wasn't Antifa on the streets then, either. Try Proud Boys, Three Percenters, Oath Keepers. The violence was their doing. Violence wasn't a part of the BLM protests until a bunch of white dudes got involved. And BLM DID speak out against the violence.
You spin things your way regardless of truth. Were you there?
1 edit
@metal-brain saidWait... so Trump DIDN'T represent the US while he was president?
"Trump isn't an "official" anyway and that is irrelevant"
LOL! Read the constitution moron! It means everything!
He got away with a lot of official acts, then, you know, not being an official of the US.
@metal-brain saidYou think Donald Trump is presently an "official" of the United States?
"Trump isn't an "official" anyway and that is irrelevant"
LOL! Read the constitution moron! It means everything!
Please tell me what office he holds. And you can cite to whatever section of the Constitution you want.
@no1marauder saidNO
You think Donald Trump is presently an "official" of the United States?
Please tell me what office he holds. And you can cite to whatever section of the Constitution you want.
Did you not read what I wrote?
The constitution states that only officials can be banned from being on the ballot because of insurrection. Trump is NOT an official.
@no1marauder saidSo is that your answer to which of the two appears weaker on the world stage? I think that it is not an answer, which, I predicted would happen. I win more threads and posts around here. You are being laughed at,, suggesting Trump did nothing to cool those dictators. The Chinee tariffs? Yeah right, Xi was really laughing. He would not mess with Trump. We are told that Xi told Biden he will take Taiwan. If Trump is in, please go on record that he will try to..
Trump was, and is, an international laughingstock.
Why you think anyone overseas thought him "strong" is an utter mystery. He puckered up to Putin at Helsinki, did nothing when the Saudis murdered Jamal Khashoggi, said he "fell in love" with the North Korean dictator, cut a surrender deal with the Taliban (freezing the Afghan government out of the "negotiations" ) and in general made a fool of himself.
Biden appears much weaker , as he is. He is a weak man. Would Sonhouse make his choice?
@metal-brain saidThat's not what it says:
NO
Did you not read what I wrote?
The constitution states that only officials can be banned from being on the ballot because of insurrection. Trump is NOT an official.
"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."
Trump is a "person".