Precedent

Bob_C said:

Question for the lawyers, if Trump was charged with insurrection and was found not guilty, would this 14th amendment application still apply?

No. Even the dazzler posted some pseudo history on the 14th amendment language - There was no "violent insurrection" let alone any evidence that Trump "knowingly and voluntarily aided violent insurrections". As I said, the 14th Amendment Section 3 was a result of 300,000 Union soldiers dying in an obvious violent insurrection. No federal employee died as a result of a US government encouraged violent insurrection. If the dazzler thinks it was a violent insurrection, then any FBI agent involved in encouraging the trespass into the Capitol would be subject to Section 3.

==========

Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.

The precedent likewise confirms that one can “engage” in insurrection without personally committing violent acts. Neither Kenneth Worthy nor Couy Griffin were accused of engaging in violence, yet both were ruled to be disqualified because they knowingly and voluntarily aided violent insurrections. These rulings are consistent with the views of Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who opined in 1867 that when a person has “incited others to engage in [insurrection or] rebellion, he must come under the disqualification.”

Blueduck said:

Bob_C said:

Question for the lawyers, if Trump was charged with insurrection and was found not guilty, would this 14th amendment application still apply?

Im no attorney but as I mentioned before...
Trump was charged with inciting an insurrection @ impeachment trial #2 and was acquitted.

There is no "if" and I believe double jeopardy is why J smith cannot charge him again.

Not a criminal attorney but the Double Jeopardy clause generally deals with a crime. Impeachment isn't a criminal charge - no criminal fine or jail.

==================

The Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime. The relevant part of the Fifth Amendment states, "No person shall . . . be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . . "

HHusky said:

Bob_C said:

HHusky said:

The Colorado Supreme Court already drew Daddy a roadmap for how to remain on the primary ballot. You fake outrage girls are amusing.

This Colorado thing aside, why do you think Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with insurrection?

Faced with a beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof, prosecutors pick and choose what to charge all the time. Abe Lincoln's advised lawyers not to plead everything they possibly can, and most of us try to adhere to that.

Game set match

March peacefully

Goduckies said:

RaceBannon said:

Dazzler and the dementia patient share the same keen legal minds

"He certainly supported an insurrection," Biden told reporters Wednesday in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on his way to a campaign event. "No question about it. None. Zero."

Biden did not share his opinion on the Colorado court ruling but said it was "self-evident" Trump supported an insurrection.

"Certain things are self-evident," Biden said. "You saw it all. Now, whether the 14th Amendment applies, I'll let the court make that decision."

Fascist

It's pretty bad Biden won't step up for the constitution he is sworn to defend.... f that dude.

76th out of 85 in his Third-Tier Syracuse Law School class.

He wouldn't recognize the Bill of Rights if it was stapled to his nose.