@metal-brain saidHe is a declared candidate for an office, who engaged in an attempt to disrupt the lawful functioning of the government to transfer power to the rightful winner of the election. Those are exactly the people the amendment was meant to exclude from holding office.
Trump is not president anymore. The constitution does not say "former" officer of the United States so it would not matter if he was. He is not anymore.
Does that seem like a sneaky way to interpret the constitution? So is taking advantage of the lack of the word convicted. Democrats went low enough to place the bar that low so get ready for a taste of your own medicine. Democrats are outnumbered at SCOTUS.
EDIT: no one had to be convicted of having been a rebel during the Civil War in order to be banned form holding office after the war was over. That is the reasoning behind invoking the amendment in Trump's case, even in the absence of a conviction. Trump's engagement is clear enough, without a conviction. Moreover, Trump has had his day in court in CO, and he lost.
@no1marauder saidYou are wrong. The constitution says he has to be an officer. Read what you copy and pasted.
He doesn't have to be an "officer" to be disqualified; just a person who engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution after taking an oath to support it
@moonbus saidThere is no Civil War and there was none when he was president.
He is a declared candidate for an office, who engaged in an attempt to disrupt the lawful functioning of the government to transfer power to the rightful winner of the election. Those are exactly the people the amendment was meant to exclude from holding office.
EDIT: no one had to be convicted of having been a rebel during the Civil War in order to be banned form h ...[text shortened]... is clear enough, without a conviction. Moreover, Trump has had his day in court in CO, and he lost.
Trump said to protest peacefully. That is not an insurrection.
Furthermore, it was an inside job as I have proven. You cannot blame Trump for a false flag he had nothing to do with.
https://fullmeasure.news/news/information-wars/january-6th-10-12-2023
@moonbus saidBoth Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and United States v. Mouat define officers as appointees of the president and others.
The U.S. Constitution specifies the following division of powers: the Judicial, the Legislative, and the Executive. Guess which one the POTUS is.
Trump is NOT an executive officer. Even if he was he is not one anymore. The constitution does not say "former" officer just like it does not say "convicted".
@metal-brain saidYou've got to be one of the dumbest posters on this site.
Both Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and United States v. Mouat define officers as appointees of the president and others.
Trump is NOT an executive officer. Even if he was he is not one anymore. The constitution does not say "former" officer just like it does not say "convicted".
He was an "officer of the United States" when he fomented an insurrection against the same government he took an oath to protect. This, according to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, is why he is ineligible to run for office.
@suzianne saiddamn at the ignorance…the pres is not an “officer”…he is the PRESIDENT
You've got to be one of the dumbest posters on this site.
He was an "officer of the United States" when he fomented an insurrection against the same government he took an oath to protect. This, according to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, is why he is ineligible to run for office.
@suzianne saidWas.
You've got to be one of the dumbest posters on this site.
He was an "officer of the United States" when he fomented an insurrection against the same government he took an oath to protect. This, according to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, is why he is ineligible to run for office.
The constitution does not say "former" official. Trump was not an official when the CO SC made their ruling. Not in my state.
Judge rules Trump can stay on Michigan ballot, rejects insurrection clause challenge
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4310114-judge-rules-trump-stay-michigan-ballot/
@metal-brain saidIt says no such thing.
You are wrong. The constitution says he has to be an officer. Read what you copy and pasted.
@no1marauder said" who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States"
That's not what it says:
"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 ...[text shortened]... Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Trump is a "person".
He has to be an officer of the United States. Prove he isn't.
@metal-brain saidDo you know what the word "previously" means?
" who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States"
He has to be an officer of the United States. Prove he isn't.
@no1marauder saidBoth Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and United States v. Mouat define officers as appointees of the president and others.
Do you know what the word "previously" means?
Trump is NOT an executive officer.
@metal-brain saidI cannot believe that you believe what you post, because what you post is so persistently egregiously wrong. No one could possibly be that stupid. I conclude that you are troll whose purpose here is to spread doubt and discord. But know this: you fail. No one here believes the rubbish you post. Not even you.
There is no Civil War and there was none when he was president.
Trump said to protest peacefully. That is not an insurrection.
Furthermore, it was an inside job as I have proven. You cannot blame Trump for a false flag he had nothing to do with.
https://fullmeasure.news/news/information-wars/january-6th-10-12-2023
@moonbus saidhttps://www.zerohedge.com/political/pursuing-litigation-not-democracy-federal-judge-rejects-lawsuit-remove-trump-ballot
I cannot believe that you believe what you post, because what you post is so persistently egregiously wrong. No one could possibly be that stupid. I conclude that you are troll whose purpose here is to spread doubt and discord. But know this: you fail. No one here believes the rubbish you post. Not even you.
Mr. Castro, who is based in Texas, has filed at least two dozen lawsuits against the former president to remove him from respective states' ballots in recent weeks. Earlier this month, a judge in Arizona dismissed a similar lawsuit.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/one-more-case-to-keep-trump-off-the-ballot-dismissed-in-arizona-5541808
2 dozen. This election meddling has become full scale in 2 dozen states. Nobody has even charged Trump with sedition, let alone insurrection.
@metal-brain saidHe isn't one now but he is a person who was an officer of the United States who took an oath to support the Constitution.
Both Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and United States v. Mouat define officers as appointees of the president and others.
Trump is NOT an executive officer.
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office ,,,,,,,"
Article 2, Section 1 US Constitution
I think any dictionary will tell you an "officer" is someone who holds an "office".
But thanks for playing (the fool).