Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot

[El OchoCinco]

18 U.S. CODE § 2383 - REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
Any act of rebellion or insurrection against the U.S. government constitutes a serious federal crime punishable by serious jail time and fines. This crime is embodied under Title 18 U.S. Code 2383.

Simply put, this law makes it illegal to incite, assist with, or participate in a rebellion or insurrection against United States laws and authority.

Trump wasnt convicted of this crime so how did he engage in insurrection?
Jan 7th could be defined as a riot also not an insurrection...questions of fsct are for a due process trial..not a state SC to decide.

 

[El OchoCinco]

It should be a matter of following the Constitution, which Republicans have nightly fever dreams about, no? Do you follow the Constitution or do you sink to banana republic level and ignore it? Let the courts, which probably understand it better than you do, decide.

If you follow the Constitution then why do you feel a person who was never convicted of a crime can be stripped of their rights... or does the Constitution argument only work when it fits your narrative?

The state SC has no jurisdiction to decide if trump committed a federal crime since a state SC cannot run a criminal trial...

look just because you hate trump doesnt mean you can forget what you learned in high school civics.

 

[gwb-trading]

Did the Colorado SC convict him of insurrection in a trial I slept through.... SC cannot remove people from democracy at will no matter how awful they are... i dont need to read the transcript..it was a hearing..not a criminal trial

There is no requirement to criminally convict someone of insurrection to remove them from the ballot for engaging in insurrection as per the 14th Amendment Section 3.

Numerous candidates have been removed from ballots for elected office in the post-Reconstruction era based on the 14th Amendment Section 3. Not a single one of these candidates had a criminal conviction -- nor is one required to remove them from the ballot in a civil action.

In the same way you can be found liable in a civil trial with enforceable action (fines, prohibitions, etc.) where there was no conviction in a criminal trial. Ask O.J. Simpson about this.

 

[kashirin]

Can those judges be charged criminally? Maybe some obstruct special law from 500 years ago

I don't have any legal background but on the surface this decision clearly feels like insurrection and attack on democracy

And even if judges have absolute immunity still they should be at least publicly shamed

Judges cannot be above the law

Denying leading unconvicted of anything candidate to be on a ballot, really?

 

[exGOPer]

It will backfire on Dems.

How is this a Dems thing when the case, Anderson v. Griswold, was brought fourth by the Republican party to figure out who they need to have on their primary?

 

[exGOPer]

Can those judges be charged criminally? Maybe some obstruct special law from 500 years ago

I don't have any legal background but on the surface this decision clearly feels like insurrection and attack on democracy

And even if judges have absolute immunity still they should be at least publicly shamed

Judges cannot be above the law

Denying leading unconvicted of anything candidate to be on a ballot, really?

You don't have a legal background or any background for that matter.

Better stop making these stupid posts and stick to your Putin cheerleading.

 

[Ricter]

ok.....what does engaged in mean to you?

Is insurrection a federal crime?
How does a state Supreme court decide a person committed a federal crime and deny them a Constitutional right unilaterally without due process or a trial...

dont get hung up on conviction...

Engaged is vague and only Congress can pass a law defining it and until such time that vagueness cannot be construed to deny a person their Constitutional right.

He's not being denied a Constitutional right, because the Constitution itself precludes that right for guys like him.

 

[vanzandt]

You don't have a legal background or any background for that matter.

.

Obviously you don't either if you doubt that SCOTUS will nix this faster than most here nix anything you have to say in your efforts to look intelligent.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

How is this a Dems thing when the case, Anderson v. Griswold, was brought fourth by the Republican party to figure out who they need to have on their primary?

The judges are Dems and are part of the preemptive coup attempt. This is a movement in many states and has been initiated by Dems. It won't work. It's clearly unconstitutional and folks are realizing that Dems think that regular people cannot make up their own minds and have to have it made up for them.

 

[exGOPer]

The judges are Dems and are part of the preemptive coup attempt. This is a movement in many states and has been initiated by Dems. It won't work. It's clearly unconstitutional and folks are realizing that Dems think that regular people cannot make up their own minds and have to have it made up for them.

Nice word salad, completely irrelevant to my point.

Republicans filed the case, not Dems.