In the context of the events surrounding January 6, Trump's patently false claims(which he knows are false) of widespread election fraud, his encouragement of his supporters to "fight like hell" to overturn the election results, and his refusal to promptly condemn the violence at the Capitol is crystal clear evidence of giving "aid or comfort" to those engaging in insurrection.

This alone meets the standard of the language in the 14th amendment and should preclude him from ever holding office again.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

In the context of the events surrounding January 6, Trump's patently false claims(which he knows are false) of widespread election fraud, his encouragement of his supporters to "fight like hell" to overturn the election results, and his refusal to promptly condemn the violence at the Capitol is crystal clear evidence of giving "aid or comfort" to those engaging in insurrection.

This alone meets the standard of the language in the 14th amendment and should preclude him from ever holding office again.

---

day drinking

i dont judge

Rockdoc said:

---

We've got a leftist lawyer on here that will attempt to tell you

---

If you're referring to me (although no one who knows me would ever call me a leftist) I'm entirely uneasy with the processes used so far to determine Trump is ineligible.

Old Army Ghost said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

In the context of the events surrounding January 6, Trump's patently false claims(which he knows are false) of widespread election fraud, his encouragement of his supporters to "fight like hell" to overturn the election results, and his refusal to promptly condemn the violence at the Capitol is crystal clear evidence of giving "aid or comfort" to those engaging in insurrection.

This alone meets the standard of the language in the 14th amendment and should preclude him from ever holding office again.

---

day drinking

i dont judge

---

He just finds crap on the internet and post it. He has no idea.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

In the context of the events surrounding January 6, Trump's patently false claims(which he knows are false) of widespread election fraud, his encouragement of his supporters to "fight like hell" to overturn the election results, and his refusal to promptly condemn the violence at the Capitol is crystal clear evidence of giving "aid or comfort" to those engaging in insurrection.

This alone meets the standard of the language in the 14th amendment and should preclude him from ever holding office again.

---

The only aid or comfort he gave was to the media and Dems because they're now using (parts of) his speech against him. So in that sense he kinda was giving aid or comfort to the real traitors (Dems and media) in this country right now

I think all of this is moot because section 5 says
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Congress never defined the enforcement section. The strict reading of section 3 btw would say one doesn't have to be convicted but only have participated in an insurrection. But without Congressional action outlining 1) who determines what is an insurrection, and 2) who will enforce the 14th amendment, I don't see how anyone could be removed from a ballot no matter what they did including raising an army and storming DC to remove the leaders of all 3 branches (I assume we would all call that an insurrection)

Open to a lawyer showing me why I am wrong but I don't see how you can read section 3 without looking at section 5

The January 6th Insurrection, which echoes in our collective memory like Pearl Harbor and September 11, was so horrific,

people in California were traumatized and unable to work.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

In the context of the events surrounding January 6, Trump's patently false claims(which he knows are false) of widespread election fraud, his encouragement of his supporters to "fight like hell" to overturn the election results, and his refusal to promptly condemn the violence at the Capitol is crystal clear evidence of giving "aid or comfort" to those engaging in insurrection.

This alone meets the standard of the language in the 14th amendment and should preclude him from ever holding office again.

---

Your troll posts were not quite as stupid back when you were using chat GPT for content. You are really embarrassing yourself, not that you care.

Kansas Kid said:

---

I think all of this is moot because section 5 says
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Congress never defined the enforcement section. The strict reading of section 3 btw would say one doesn't have to be convicted but only have participated in an insurrection. But without Congressional action outlining 1) who determines what is an insurrection, and 2) who will enforce the 14th amendment, I don't see how anyone could be removed from a ballot no matter what they did including raising an army and storming DC to remove the leaders of all 3 branches (I assume we would all call that an insurrection)

Open to a lawyer showing me why I am wrong but I don't see how you can read section 3 without looking at section 5

---

And the fact that even lawyers are arguing over the meaning of Section 3 vis a vis Section 5 just reinforces how ridiculous it is for an unelected, non-lawyer Sec of State is unilaterally making that decision. No way she wrote that decision, with citations and discussing issues such as collateral estoppel, a/k/a issue preclusion between disparate parties.

Such legal minutiae is way way over her head.

As long as people this dumb are allowed to vote, we are screwed. And they are in great numbers.

aggiehawg said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

I think all of this is moot because section 5 says
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Congress never defined the enforcement section. The strict reading of section 3 btw would say one doesn't have to be convicted but only have participated in an insurrection. But without Congressional action outlining 1) who determines what is an insurrection, and 2) who will enforce the 14th amendment, I don't see how anyone could be removed from a ballot no matter what they did including raising an army and storming DC to remove the leaders of all 3 branches (I assume we would all call that an insurrection)

Open to a lawyer showing me why I am wrong but I don't see how you can read section 3 without looking at section 5

---

And the fact that even lawyers are arguing over the meaning of Section 3 vis a vis Section 5 just reinforces how ridiculous it is for an unelected, non-lawyer Sec of State is unilaterally making that decision. No way she wrote that decision, with citations and discussing issues such as collateral estoppel, a/k/a issue preclusion between disparate parties.

Such legal minutiae is way way over her head.

---

She would, no doubt, have had internal staff, including general counsel, advising her as to how to rule on the challenges, the same way the heads of federal and state agencies across the country have staff assisting them in doing their jobs.

(She is elected, btw.)

Quote:

---

(She is elected, btw.)

---

Not by voters. By the Dem dominated state legislature.

And watch her interviews, read her decision. She represents it as her work.

Kansas Kid said:

---

I think all of this is moot because section 5 says
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Congress never defined the enforcement section. The strict reading of section 3 btw would say one doesn't have to be convicted but only have participated in an insurrection. But without Congressional action outlining 1) who determines what is an insurrection, and 2) who will enforce the 14th amendment, I don't see how anyone could be removed from a ballot no matter what they did including raising an army and storming DC to remove the leaders of all 3 branches (I assume we would all call that an insurrection)

Open to a lawyer showing me why I am wrong but I don't see how you can read section 3 without looking at section 5

---

In brief, Section 5 and identical clauses in the 13th and 15th Amendments have long been read as not exclusively granting Congress power to take enforcement, but clarifying that Congress can if it chooses to and to allow Congress to overcome other potential Constitutional issues.

For example, Congress generally cannot force a state to waive a state's sovereign immunity. However, courts have said Section 5 allows Congress to overrule a state's claim of sovereign immunity under the 10th and/or 11th Amendments and therefore make a state subject to lawsuits.

aggiehawg said:

---

And watch her interviews, read her decision. She represents it as her work.

---

And she no doubt was the ultimate decision maker and very well might have wrote every word of the opinion. But she also no doubt has a bunch of staff around that advise her on legal and non-legal issues.

(She would also be a poor leader of her office if she didn't own it.)

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

And watch her interviews, read her decision. She represents it as her work.

---

And she no doubt was the ultimate decision maker and very well might have wrote every word of the opinion. But she also no doubt has a bunch of staff around that advise her on legal and non-legal issues.

---

I doubt a staff member wrote that. She's Sec of State, not AG with a huge legal staff. More likely your man Soros' funded outside attorneys wrote it.

There was no insurrection from Mr. Trump, there was only truth spoken.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

"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, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability".


Does this apply to Trump? Why or why not?

---

Some people are simple and stupid. Congratulations.

The Marxists have taken over all state schools for sure.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

In the context of the events surrounding January 6, Trump's patently false claims(which he knows are false) of widespread election fraud, his encouragement of his supporters to "fight like hell" to overturn the election results, and his refusal to promptly condemn the violence at the Capitol is crystal clear evidence of giving "aid or comfort" to those engaging in insurrection.

This alone meets the standard of the language in the 14th amendment and should preclude him from ever holding office again.

---

Just repeating something that is false doesn't suddenly make it true.

hth

Oh.

What did I say that was false?

Ag with kids said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

In the context of the events surrounding January 6, Trump's patently false claims(which he knows are false) of widespread election fraud, his encouragement of his supporters to "fight like hell" to overturn the election results, and his refusal to promptly condemn the violence at the Capitol is crystal clear evidence of giving "aid or comfort" to those engaging in insurrection.

This alone meets the standard of the language in the 14th amendment and should preclude him from ever holding office again.

---

Just repeating something that is false doesn't suddenly make it true.

hth

---

That it's crystal clear evidence.

If it was "crystal clear", would he not be at least charged with it with all the indictments he has?

A Republican congress? Don't know why republicans defend this guy. The problem we have in this country is that that moderate Republicans are right and they keep losing elections because of the far right and they are outnumbered by democrats. Instead of Trump, how about someone else who isn't a sociopath?

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Oh.

What did I say that was false?

---

Here is where the entire troll goes full circle. It's been stated dozens of times, yet here we are again.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

A Republican congress? Don't know why republicans defend this guy. The problem we have in this country is that that moderate Republicans are right and they keep losing elections because of the far right and they are outnumbered by democrats. Instead of Trump, how about someone else who isn't a sociopath?

---

So, you're saying he wasn't convicted or indicted. Well, we're making progress at least.

And yes, Trump is a turd in the punchbowl that I would LOVE to have go away ASAP.

But, not enough to violate the Constitution.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

I think all of this is moot because section 5 says
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Congress never defined the enforcement section. The strict reading of section 3 btw would say one doesn't have to be convicted but only have participated in an insurrection. But without Congressional action outlining 1) who determines what is an insurrection, and 2) who will enforce the 14th amendment, I don't see how anyone could be removed from a ballot no matter what they did including raising an army and storming DC to remove the leaders of all 3 branches (I assume we would all call that an insurrection)

Open to a lawyer showing me why I am wrong but I don't see how you can read section 3 without looking at section 5

---

In brief, Section 5 and identical clauses in the 13th and 15th Amendments have long been read as not exclusively granting Congress power to take enforcement, but clarifying that Congress can if it chooses to and to allow Congress to overcome other potential Constitutional issues.

For example, Congress generally cannot force a state to waive a state's sovereign immunity. However, courts have said Section 5 allows Congress to overrule a state's claim of sovereign immunity under the 10th and/or 11th Amendments and therefore make a state subject to lawsuits.

---

lol at "have long been read." Roe/Dobbs. My Con Law prof disliked me because I had a cynical opinion of it. My opinion is the Supremes do what they want and write this verbose cryptic opinions with concurrences and what not, so no normal person can follow their convoluted logic.

Let's revisit this. But they probably take a procedural off ramp.

I don't think the "long been read" (state decisis/precedent) will or should even be that big of an issue. this is like saying the bill of rights have "long been read" to be incorporated. When they have not. Some have "long been read," while others have not "long been read," while still others have not been at all. This goes for parts WiTHIN amendments. Without looking, I'd say the left still claims the 2nd was not/has not been incorporated, even with the recent USSC 2nd decisions.

I don't think section 3 has "long been read" or ever read to be self executing. Maybe other parts of 14th in more generally self evident fact patterns.

But we see the talking point setting place if the USSC says it is not self executing. This is a rogue court that doesn't care about precedent blah blah blah. But those same people aren't arguing the BOR have "long been read" to be incorporated when guns right decisions come up and don't write that the court doesn't care about precedent etc.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

"shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Did he not encourage maga insurrectionists to raid the capitol and attempt to stop the electoral vote count?

---

you know he didn't or the fanatical left would have already had him locked up and waiting the death penalty if it had any semblance of reality

Bill Clinternet said:

---

"shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Did he not encourage maga insurrectionists to raid the capitol and attempt to stop the electoral vote count?

---

No, he didnt

Trump was acquitted by the Senate of impeachment charges related to January 6th…

He's innocent…SCOTUS will rule against any 14th amendment claims…

It's so far down the road now and I'm a little embarrassed to ask. But can someone explain like I'm five: what did Trump do beyond encourage a protest over what he believed to be election fraud, and then reminded everyone to remain peaceful?

What do they call Obama encouraging protests that resulted in cities burned?

That's (D)ifferent

taxpreparer said:

---

Not a lawyer, but I am going to say no. Unless the President or VP are defined as officers of the United States, then they are not included in the list. It says "electors," not candidates.

---

It's okay. Most all attorneys are not trained in Constitutional Law.

This is a silly comment and incongruous talking point.

Voter fraud is practically non existent. We have laws in place to mitigate it. Republicans cannot believe they are losing the battle of ideas so they conjured this out of thin air to justify election losses.

Republicans lose elections because they continue to be a party focused on radical ideology as opposed to inclusion and building coalitions across interest groups.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

This is a silly comment and incongruous talking point.

Voter fraud is practically non existent. We have laws in place to mitigate it. Republicans cannot believe they are losing the battle of ideas so they conjured this out of thin air to justify election losses.

Republicans lose elections because they continue to be a party focused on radical ideology as opposed to inclusion and building coalitions across interest groups.

---

I'm doubtful that Democrats steal votes in the quantities imagined by most folks on Texags, but to claim that they are in favor of mail in voting for any reason other than that it is easier to cheat is simply to lie. Even Jimmy Carter noted that mail in voting is the least secure method, yet, now that it is part of the progressive religion, true believers have to try to say with a straight fact that mail in voting is secure. You can repeat the lie as often as you want, but it still won't make it true.