MORE States Prepare To REMOVE Trump From 2024 Ballot, They Are CHEATING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgQp6xojAekComments
-
81 Million. 'Nuff said.
-
You gals were for strict construction before you were against it.
-
You are incapable of having an honest discussion about anythingHHusky said:You gals were for strict construction before you were against it.
-
As an aside, I think the dazzler nickname is kind of dumb, so you can dispense with the equally stupid female nicknames, if it’s all the same to you.
-
Fair enough, and definitely an aside.thechatch said:As an aside, I think the dazzler nickname is kind of dumb, so you can dispense with the equally stupid female nicknames, if it’s all the same to you.
Now, about the 14th Amendment . . . ? -
Don't like Trump the person, but his policies and competency level are light years better than Biden and his administration full of libtards.
-
Damn shame he’s ineligible under the 14th Amendment then.PurpleReign said:Don't like Trump the person, but his policies and competency level are light years better than Biden and his administration full of libtards.
-
Bullshit.HHusky said:
Damn shame he’s ineligible under the 14th Amendment then.PurpleReign said:Don't like Trump the person, but his policies and competency level are light years better than Biden and his administration full of libtards.
-
analyticalSledog said:
Bullshit.HHusky said:
Damn shame he’s ineligible under the 14th Amendment then.PurpleReign said:Don't like Trump the person, but his policies and competency level are light years better than Biden and his administration full of libtards.
finally -
Perfect analogy. Nothing else falls from your mouth.HHusky said:
analyticalSledog said:
Bullshit.HHusky said:
Damn shame he’s ineligible under the 14th Amendment then.PurpleReign said:Don't like Trump the person, but his policies and competency level are light years better than Biden and his administration full of libtards.
finally -
https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=753074071124070065010119109127093006010045004048003005075121094087089079095002086029126119017036023013055080071068028075066089045045047076049097084108070089018029088069014095124004069069070069024097006116088006064002017085024111006085106003067005084&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUESledog said:
Perfect analogy. Nothing else falls from your mouth.HHusky said:
analyticalSledog said:
Bullshit.HHusky said:
Damn shame he’s ineligible under the 14th Amendment then.PurpleReign said:Don't like Trump the person, but his policies and competency level are light years better than Biden and his administration full of libtards.
finally -
Nice link
-
Daddy’s lost the Federalists.
Sorry, Race.
Condolences, of course. -
The Sweep and Force of Section Three
172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock. -
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.HHusky said:The Sweep and Force of Section Three
172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock. -
Good luck with that theory of the case.Goduckies said:
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.HHusky said:The Sweep and Force of Section Three
172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock. -
CamelToe actually funded legal support for actual insurrectionists of BLM/antifa who clearly were rioting against constitutional order. And yet she remains as the dazzler's vice-president. Go figure.HHusky said:
Good luck with that theory of the case.Goduckies said:
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.HHusky said:The Sweep and Force of Section Three
172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
-
Great theory.WestlinnDuck said:
CamelToe actually funded legal support for actual insurrectionists of BLM/antifa who clearly were rioting against constitutional order. And yet she remains as the dazzler's vice-president. Go figure.HHusky said:
Good luck with that theory of the case.Goduckies said:
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.HHusky said:The Sweep and Force of Section Three
172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Back it up.
But you won’t.
It was really nothing more than your reflexive “whataboutism”, as anyone who’s ever read your stuff knows. -
Where's the evidence Trump did any of those things? Post it up consuelo.HHusky said:The Sweep and Force of Section Three
172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock. -
So, an actual insurrection against constitutional order is "whataboutism" which had the support of local Seattle authorities, through the Washington governor's office through almost every dem congressman during the summer of love but Trump asking for a peaceful protest is the real problem. You think that "due process" and free speech is superseded by Section 3 and that a political hack like yourself is all that is necessary to disqualify someone who challenges an election like almost any major dem politician has?HHusky said:
Great theory.WestlinnDuck said:
CamelToe actually funded legal support for actual insurrectionists of BLM/antifa who clearly were rioting against constitutional order. And yet she remains as the dazzler's vice-president. Go figure.HHusky said:
Good luck with that theory of the case.Goduckies said:
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.HHusky said:The Sweep and Force of Section Three
172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Back it up.
But you won’t.
It was really nothing more than your reflexive “whataboutism”, as anyone who’s ever read your stuff knows.
Remember when the dementia patient supported Bush's 2000 election?
Al Gore speaking recently in Nashville
In some ways, the dispute over the 2000 presidential election will never end.
Witness Vice President Biden's comments Wednesday about predecessor Al Gore.
"This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended. "No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation."
George W. Bush was declared the winner in the deciding state of Florida in 2000 after an (obviously) still-disputed ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that essentially stopped a recount in the Sunshine State. -
Demonrats count until they win. Court stopped their obvious cheat then.
-
“What January 6 hearings?”potd.Sledog said:
Where's the evidence Trump did any of those things? Post it up consuelo.HHusky said:The Sweep and Force of Section Three
172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock. -
Yeah, this is exactly like directing an armed and violent mob to the Capitol to interrupt certification. Strong work, Gasbag!WestlinnDuck said:
So, an actual insurrection against constitutional order is "whataboutism" which had the support of local Seattle authorities, through the Washington governor's office through almost every dem congressman during the summer of love but Trump asking for a peaceful protest is the real problem. You think that "due process" and free speech is superseded by Section 3 and that a political hack like yourself is all that is necessary to disqualify someone who challenges an election like almost any major dem politician has?HHusky said:
Great theory.WestlinnDuck said:
CamelToe actually funded legal support for actual insurrectionists of BLM/antifa who clearly were rioting against constitutional order. And yet she remains as the dazzler's vice-president. Go figure.HHusky said:
Good luck with that theory of the case.Goduckies said:
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.HHusky said:The Sweep and Force of Section Three
172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Back it up.
But you won’t.
It was really nothing more than your reflexive “whataboutism”, as anyone who’s ever read your stuff knows.
Remember when the dementia patient supported Bush's 2000 election?
Al Gore speaking recently in Nashville
In some ways, the dispute over the 2000 presidential election will never end.
Witness Vice President Biden's comments Wednesday about predecessor Al Gore.
"This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended. "No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation."
George W. Bush was declared the winner in the deciding state of Florida in 2000 after an (obviously) still-disputed ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that essentially stopped a recount in the Sunshine State. -
ExactlyHHusky said:
“What January 6 hearings?”potd.Sledog said:
Where's the evidence Trump did any of those things? Post it up consuelo.HHusky said:The Sweep and Force of Section Three
172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
No evidence -
HHusky said:
Yeah, this is exactly like directing an armed and violent mob to the Capitol to interrupt certification. Strong work, Gasbag!WestlinnDuck said:
So, an actual insurrection against constitutional order is "whataboutism" which had the support of local Seattle authorities, through the Washington governor's office through almost every dem congressman during the summer of love but Trump asking for a peaceful protest is the real problem. You think that "due process" and free speech is superseded by Section 3 and that a political hack like yourself is all that is necessary to disqualify someone who challenges an election like almost any major dem politician has?HHusky said:
Great theory.WestlinnDuck said:
CamelToe actually funded legal support for actual insurrectionists of BLM/antifa who clearly were rioting against constitutional order. And yet she remains as the dazzler's vice-president. Go figure.HHusky said:
Good luck with that theory of the case.Goduckies said:
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.HHusky said:The Sweep and Force of Section Three
172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Back it up.
But you won’t.
It was really nothing more than your reflexive “whataboutism”, as anyone who’s ever read your stuff knows.
Remember when the dementia patient supported Bush's 2000 election?
Al Gore speaking recently in Nashville
In some ways, the dispute over the 2000 presidential election will never end.
Witness Vice President Biden's comments Wednesday about predecessor Al Gore.
"This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended. "No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation."
George W. Bush was declared the winner in the deciding state of Florida in 2000 after an (obviously) still-disputed ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that essentially stopped a recount in the Sunshine State.
-
Then you’ve got nothing to worry about, Mildred.RaceBannon said:HHusky said:
Yeah, this is exactly like directing an armed and violent mob to the Capitol to interrupt certification. Strong work, Gasbag!WestlinnDuck said:
So, an actual insurrection against constitutional order is "whataboutism" which had the support of local Seattle authorities, through the Washington governor's office through almost every dem congressman during the summer of love but Trump asking for a peaceful protest is the real problem. You think that "due process" and free speech is superseded by Section 3 and that a political hack like yourself is all that is necessary to disqualify someone who challenges an election like almost any major dem politician has?HHusky said:
Great theory.WestlinnDuck said:
CamelToe actually funded legal support for actual insurrectionists of BLM/antifa who clearly were rioting against constitutional order. And yet she remains as the dazzler's vice-president. Go figure.HHusky said:
Good luck with that theory of the case.Goduckies said:
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.HHusky said:The Sweep and Force of Section Three
172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Back it up.
But you won’t.
It was really nothing more than your reflexive “whataboutism”, as anyone who’s ever read your stuff knows.
Remember when the dementia patient supported Bush's 2000 election?
Al Gore speaking recently in Nashville
In some ways, the dispute over the 2000 presidential election will never end.
Witness Vice President Biden's comments Wednesday about predecessor Al Gore.
"This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended. "No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation."
George W. Bush was declared the winner in the deciding state of Florida in 2000 after an (obviously) still-disputed ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that essentially stopped a recount in the Sunshine State. -
Your delusions are grand.HHusky said:
Yeah, this is exactly like directing an armed and violent mob to the Capitol to interrupt certification. Strong work, Gasbag!WestlinnDuck said:
So, an actual insurrection against constitutional order is "whataboutism" which had the support of local Seattle authorities, through the Washington governor's office through almost every dem congressman during the summer of love but Trump asking for a peaceful protest is the real problem. You think that "due process" and free speech is superseded by Section 3 and that a political hack like yourself is all that is necessary to disqualify someone who challenges an election like almost any major dem politician has?HHusky said:
Great theory.WestlinnDuck said:
CamelToe actually funded legal support for actual insurrectionists of BLM/antifa who clearly were rioting against constitutional order. And yet she remains as the dazzler's vice-president. Go figure.HHusky said:
Good luck with that theory of the case.Goduckies said:
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.HHusky said:The Sweep and Force of Section Three
172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Back it up.
But you won’t.
It was really nothing more than your reflexive “whataboutism”, as anyone who’s ever read your stuff knows.
Remember when the dementia patient supported Bush's 2000 election?
Al Gore speaking recently in Nashville
In some ways, the dispute over the 2000 presidential election will never end.
Witness Vice President Biden's comments Wednesday about predecessor Al Gore.
"This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended. "No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation."
George W. Bush was declared the winner in the deciding state of Florida in 2000 after an (obviously) still-disputed ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that essentially stopped a recount in the Sunshine State.
Armed - Ever heard of the 2nd Amendment?
Violent? Like the FBI informants and Capitol Hill undercover stooges?
Or violent like your hero Liz Cheney's Dad's Wars? -
It’s apparently dawned on Shit that the original denial the mob was armed was a lie.TurdBomber said:
Your delusions are grand.HHusky said:
Yeah, this is exactly like directing an armed and violent mob to the Capitol to interrupt certification. Strong work, Gasbag!WestlinnDuck said:
So, an actual insurrection against constitutional order is "whataboutism" which had the support of local Seattle authorities, through the Washington governor's office through almost every dem congressman during the summer of love but Trump asking for a peaceful protest is the real problem. You think that "due process" and free speech is superseded by Section 3 and that a political hack like yourself is all that is necessary to disqualify someone who challenges an election like almost any major dem politician has?HHusky said:
Great theory.WestlinnDuck said:
CamelToe actually funded legal support for actual insurrectionists of BLM/antifa who clearly were rioting against constitutional order. And yet she remains as the dazzler's vice-president. Go figure.HHusky said:
Good luck with that theory of the case.Goduckies said:
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.HHusky said:The Sweep and Force of Section Three
172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Back it up.
But you won’t.
It was really nothing more than your reflexive “whataboutism”, as anyone who’s ever read your stuff knows.
Remember when the dementia patient supported Bush's 2000 election?
Al Gore speaking recently in Nashville
In some ways, the dispute over the 2000 presidential election will never end.
Witness Vice President Biden's comments Wednesday about predecessor Al Gore.
"This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended. "No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation."
George W. Bush was declared the winner in the deciding state of Florida in 2000 after an (obviously) still-disputed ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that essentially stopped a recount in the Sunshine State.
Armed - Ever heard of the 2nd Amendment?
Violent? Like the FBI informants and Capitol Hill undercover stooges?
Or violent like your hero Liz Cheney's Dad's Wars?
Progress!
