Trespassers can't hold office
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2023, 12:41 last edited by
Wonder if he has an appeal in federal court?
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2023, 12:44 last edited by
Here's my question. Does a person need to be "charged, tried, convicted" for something to be used as basis for ruling? For example, there's plenty of evidence (note all the videos referenced in the filing) he organized groups and participated in the event.
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2023, 12:45 last edited by
I guess I found my own answer. This was addressed on Pages 42-43.
tl;dr is this is a civil, not criminal, trial and Section Three of the 14th amendment doesn't require criminal convictions as a prerequisite for election eligibility.
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2023, 12:46 last edited by
-
Here's my question. Does a person need to be "charged, tried, convicted" for something to be used as basis for ruling? For example, there's plenty of evidence (note all the videos referenced in the filing) he organized groups and participated in the event.
wrote on 7 Sept 2023, 12:46 last edited by@89th said in Trespassers can't hold office:
Here's my question. Does a person need to be "charged, tried, convicted" for something to be used as basis for ruling? For example, there's plenty of evidence (note all the videos referenced in the filing) he organized groups and participated in the event.
I think you're guilty of insurrection.
Good. Now you don't have to worry about ever running for elected office.
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2023, 13:05 last edited by
I mean, if you were a judge and saw a video of me doing it, then I guess you're right.
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2023, 13:07 last edited by
You can't do that in my version of the United States. You cannot take away a person's rights without due process.
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2023, 13:57 last edited by
It seems this is a civil matter so due process is being followed, no?
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2023, 14:22 last edited by
@89th said in Trespassers can't hold office:
It seems this is a civil matter so due process is being followed, no?
If this is a civil and not a criminal matter, why is it being adjudicated in the context of federal elections.
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2023, 15:13 last edited by jon-nyc 9 Jul 2023, 15:14
This is as ridiculous a notion as saying the VP can choose to reject electors from certain states.
It’s quite a Trumpian move. Like a many such moves, it would be disastrous if were allowed to proceed.
-