Donald Trump

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The country’s going completely insane.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

De Santis and Haley.

De Santis can only win if Trump is kicked out, because he’s just Trump lite and scores highly as a 2nd choice but has almost no unique supporters.

Haley is trying to position herself as a step less nuts than those 2 and is trying to pick up all the republicans who won’t vote for Trump and any “independents” (ie the closet republican ones not the actual middle of the road people). So in theory she could compete against Trump in a way De Santis just can’t.

But Trump is 45 points ahead of them in the polling.

As I’ve said before, I don’t profess to fully understand another countries policies/procedures, just wondering how it looks without Trump.

Thanks.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Saying the intention was to exclude the President from that amendment is actually absurd. For what possible reason?

It's called the Trump card. Slave owning politicians who drafted the constitution foresaw In the future a white supremacist would rise up and restore slavery.

So they wrote a clause that could only be given this interpretation when their new Messiah was ready.

The short version is, it's the bottom of the barrel in defending Trump's obvious guilt.

It completely contradicts the unitary executive theory that the republicans are obsessed with. They can't both be true.

 

[Vic]

I don’t think this holds up, it’s been spread because of the need to tell both sides, but the president of the United States is referred to as an office loads of times in the constitution, probably tens of thousands of times (literally) in established law and when you’re elected you take the oath of office etc.

The oath is "I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States"

 

[TinFoilHat]

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Agree that a rationale reading of the laws would lead anyone, unbiased, to conclude the state has the right to exclude Trump under the insurrection clause.

But.

There is just enough to give a biased judge a reason. If you read the clause is specifically calls out some roles, but not the POTUS. That's enough to give the right wingers cover. It ignores the mass of reason why that's not a valid reading of the intention. But its enough to make this a question of how far do they want to go to help him.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/

“shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,”

These words are the ones upon which the whole issue rests.

Has he been convicted of this? If not, then can he be said to have done it?

It would be best for everyone if he disappeared from the face of the earth, because the tens of millions in his cult, who worship at the altar of his lies, will believe anything he tells them…so he must have no ability to do it!

My fear is that between now and then, he whips up an even greater sense of grievance against the government and labels the actual organized government as the enemy of him and his followers.

From there, all gloves may come off and any semblance of “normalcy” may disappear with another “shot heard around the world.”

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

“shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,”

These words are the ones upon which the whole issue rests.

Has he been convicted of this? If not, then can he be said to have done it?

It would be best for everyone if he disappeared from the face of the earth, because the tens of millions in his cult, who worship at the altar of his lies, will believe anything he tells them…so he must have no ability to do it!

My fear is that between now and then, he whips up an even greater sense of grievance against the government and labels the actual organized government as the enemy of him and his followers.

From there, all gloves may come off and any semblance of “normalcy” may disappear with another “shot heard around the world.”

First, if he dies, 57% of his cult will believe he isn’t actually dead. The other 43% will believe he was killed by the Biden’s FBI or the Deep State or what not. So his death won’t solve many problems. Second, I think he’s already labeled organiz(s)ed govt as the enemy of him and his followers. So that’s behind us :)

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

“shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,”

These words are the ones upon which the whole issue rests.

Has he been convicted of this? If not, then can he be said to have done it?

It would be best for everyone if he disappeared from the face of the earth, because the tens of millions in his cult, who worship at the altar of his lies, will believe anything he tells them…so he must have no ability to do it!

My fear is that between now and then, he whips up an even greater sense of grievance against the government and labels the actual organized government as the enemy of him and his followers.

From there, all gloves may come off and any semblance of “normalcy” may disappear with another “shot heard around the world.”

I think you’re correct in your assessment of what the arguments will centre on for the case.

My understanding is that there’s basically three main arguments against:

1. The President isn’t an officer - a complete hogwash opinion quite rightly overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court. The President is referred to as an officer plenty of times in the corpus of law and the constitution.

2. What Trump did doesn’t count as an insurrection - the argument here is that as Trump didn’t physically take part in the march on the capitol or because it wasn’t prolonged enough, that Trump’s actions don’t qualify. Again I think this argument is bunk to anybody with a brain.

3. The 14th amendment is ambiguous about due process - this is one of the major contentions of those who voted against in Colorado. It’s not at all clear what amount of process the constitutional right to be on the ballot requires. Some argue Trump got a trial, had the opportunity to provide evidence and statements, it was heard by a panel of judges and they deemed that he incited an insurrection so that is his due process - it is certainly more than you might see in some civil proceedings. Others will argue that removing somebody from a ballot should require the same due process as one would receive under criminal conviction like the right to a jury trial. This is a genuinely ambiguous and arguable part of the 14th amendment.

If the SCOTUS votes against then it will be under the guise of Trump not receiving sufficiently robust due process - and if this is the case they might attempt to set the standard that needs to be met (e.g. a criminal conviction relating to insurrection). If they do this then Trump could still be barred from holding office at a later date if he is convicted (at the state level so he can’t pardon himself), which could cause all kinds of chaos.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Here comes the Boom!

 

[Vic]

"It's the economy, stupid"

How does that work with stupid voters?