MORE States Prepare To REMOVE Trump From 2024 Ballot, They Are CHEATING

You gals were for strict construction before you were against it.

thechatch said:

HHusky said:

You gals were for strict construction before you were against it.

You are incapable of having an honest discussion about anything

Yet I can read the 14th Amendment.

When you’ve lost the Federalist Society, Phyllis, . . .

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.

Fair enough, and definitely an aside.

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.

HHusky said:

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.

Damn shame he’s ineligible under the 14th Amendment then.

Bullshit.

HHusky said:

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

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.

Damn shame he’s ineligible under the 14th Amendment then.

Bullshit.

analytical

finally

Perfect analogy. Nothing else falls from your mouth.

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First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation.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.

Goduckies said:

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.

Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.

Good luck with that theory of the case.

WestlinnDuck said:

HHusky said:

Goduckies said:

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.

Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.

Good luck with that theory of the case.

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.

Great theory.

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.

HHusky said:

WestlinnDuck said:

HHusky said:

Goduckies said:

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.

Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.

Good luck with that theory of the case.

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.

Great theory.

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.

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?

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.

Sledog said:

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.

Where's the evidence Trump did any of those things? Post it up consuelo.

“What January 6 hearings?”potd.

RaceBannon said:

HHusky said:

WestlinnDuck said:

HHusky said:

WestlinnDuck said:

HHusky said:

Goduckies said:

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.

Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.

Good luck with that theory of the case.

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.

Great theory.

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.

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?

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.

Yeah, this is exactly like directing an armed and violent mob to the Capitol to interrupt certification. Strong work, Gasbag!

Then you’ve got nothing to worry about, Mildred.

TurdBomber said:

HHusky said:

WestlinnDuck said:

HHusky said:

WestlinnDuck said:

HHusky said:

Goduckies said:

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.

Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.

Good luck with that theory of the case.

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.

Great theory.

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.

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?

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.

Yeah, this is exactly like directing an armed and violent mob to the Capitol to interrupt certification. Strong work, Gasbag!

Your delusions are grand.

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.

Progress!