Search results

You'd have to ask the citizens and legislators of those states. Someone has to be the initiator. Any individual can initiate through the lower state courts. And I see no reason at all that disqualification under the 14th Amendment could not have originated in the Federal district courts. In...

On what grounds? Texas, and all other States must follow the Constitution. Any such move by Texas, would be subject to appeal to Federal Courts, as we have just seen in the case of Colorado. You should be fine with that if you believe in a nation of laws that should be followed. In a...

Well, the answer to all questions depends on "belief", doesn't it? However the word "belief" is too broad to be used here, because belief can be based on myth, lies, disinformation, "alternate facts", truth, fact, nonsense, or a structured process intended to get to to the truth. Yes, the...

Well said.

I have no doubt that uppermost in the minds of our esteemed S.C. justices is the avoidance of anything in their eventual, ruling opinion that might trample on the right of future insurrectionists to avoid prosecution under the 14th Amendment. :D

??? Examples please. I ask, because I agree that this term of art probably can be correctly applied to the question of whether the 14th Amendment can be used to disqualify candidates from a Political Party's primary ballot, However in other respects , I am not convinced the expression "issues...

I see you're also applying the linguine approach to legal argument. This sometimes works! The diversion into Biden, Iran and Treason is an unrelated matter, but in the hands of a skilled lawyer and a weak judge it could be worth a try. It does risk trying the judges patience however. I'm...

No climate models yet can predict future temperature let alone climate. Furthermore the models are useless for proving whether CO2 increases are causing significant warming because these models are all predicated on CO2 causing warming. So when Hansen's early models showed no appreciable...

Your post above is clear. I have no doubt you understand that Colorado does in fact have the power to eliminate Trumps name from their ballots so long as the Colorado Court's decision is not overturned by the Supreme Court. (I think it will be). This last sentence of your post puzzles me as it...

Congress having the authority, but NOT the sole authority,* to enforce laws via legislation applies universally throughout the Constitution regardless of whether this authority is specifically mentioned or not, as Congress is the only legislative body! This statement: The Congress shall have...

This is of course true. So which interpretation of the Constitution is correct, The Colorado Supreme Court's or our U.S. Supreme Court's -- a question we can not yet answer for ourselves. Regardless, Colorado is bound by the Constitution, as are the other 49 States. My view is that...

Thank you so much for posting this. The Constitution is so incredibly clear, and yet we have this shit show despite its clarity . I wish we were both on the Supreme court. We would put an end to this absurdity.

You were given a perfect example of how on Jan 6th 2021.

NO, that's NOT what it says. Read it again, please. section 5: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" This say's congress has the power to enforce, if need be, the Article. I does NOT say "Congress 'shall enforce'...." It says...

I agree. That would be a big mistake of course. It seems I am the only one here and, by logical extension, must be one of the few beyond the Colorado Supreme Court that can read what's written without reading something that is not there. Section three of our 14th Amendment could not be more...

And most intriguing and interesting of all : The Constitution is doesn't say the the president can't be indicted while in office for crimes he /she has committed either in our out of office!!!

Your assuming something illogical. Logic would have it that no President could pardon themself. Apologize yes; pardon no.

I wish someone would answer my question, preferably someone who knows the answer. Where is Mr. Pompeo?

Ah ha hah hah ha. If the supreme Court doesn't understand, why would I expect you to? I wouldn't. For others here, the point is, and this flies right over the heads of lawyers and courts, the Constitution of the United States is as clear on this point as it can possibly be. You can't hold...