I just now took a good look at the 14th Amendment on Wikipedia. Maybe you ALL on the Left should the same. The14th Amendment is a post Civil War Amendment and the insurrection spoken of was the Civil War itself. How like you on the Left in your stretch to eliminate Trump from running for office to use an Amendment from 1868 to go after a modern President all because the Left is afraid he will win an upcoming election.

Maybe you should take a look at the entire Amendment and what it offers. It speaks of DUE PROCESS that I have been bringing up and you seem to IGNORE. But due process was always on the minds of the Founding Fathers wasn't it? You will notice the first part speaks of equal protection in the third line. Charging Trump with insurrection with no specific evidence seems to go against the equal protection section doesn't it? May I suggest you read the last sentence in the first paragraph, "The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials."

Here is the first part:

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion (overturned in 2022), Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage, and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard regarding race-based college admissions. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, superseding the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. Since the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted to do very little.

The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. The Supreme Court has ruled this clause makes most of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states as it is to the federal government, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including all non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting discrimination against people belonging to various groups.

The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom litigated. However, the second section's reference to "rebellion, or other crime" has been invoked as a constitutional ground for felony disenfranchisement. The fourth section was held, in Perry v. United States (1935), to prohibit Congress from abrogating a contract of debt incurred by a prior Congress. The fifth section gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment's provisions by "appropriate legislation"; however, under City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), this power may not be used to contradict a Supreme Court decision interpreting the amendment.

Would it not seem to follow under Section 5 that Congress is the one to decide if Trump would be guilty of insurrection or not?

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[233]

Dennis

WHOA up there lil denny. Did I ever say it was not still applicable? I posted what I posted BECAUSE it is still applicable. Now how on earth did you miss the most transparent part of my postings. Looks like your charcoal colored glasses might be too dark for your brain to comprehend what they allow you to see. Open up your eyes dudette.

Looking up the word, attribution, I see it defined as: The act of saying what the origin or cause of something is.

I posted from Wikipedia and believe I said that as well. Maybe you missed something important by not reading what was posted. Not only should you PLEASE learn how to write but read as well. It would really help you in these posts.

Dennis

OH, Gosh Darn lil denny. You mean like THIS where I did EXACTLY that????? Your reading comprehension is even worse than your piss poor writing ability.

Dennis

I just now took a good look at the 14th Amendment on Wikipedia. Maybe you ALL on the Left should the same. The14th Amendment is a post Civil War Amendment and the insurrection spoken of was the Civil War itself. How like you on the Left in your stretch to eliminate Trump from running for office to use an Amendment from 1868 to go after a modern President all because the Left is afraid he will win an upcoming election.

Maybe you should take a look at the entire Amendment and what it offers. It speaks of DUE PROCESS that I have been bringing up and you seem to IGNORE. But due process was always on the minds of the Founding Fathers wasn't it? You will notice the first part speaks of equal protection in the third line. Charging Trump with insurrection with no specific evidence seems to go against the equal protection section doesn't it? May I suggest you read the last sentence in the first paragraph, "The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials."

Here is the first part:
Dennis

Apparently you did not understand me or decided to keep this going for YOUR benefit yesterday when I said I was done and would wait for SCOTUS to make a decision. Let me try this again and I am typing slowly so it will sink in. I am not going to argue/discuss this further. I have stated my opinion quite clearly. Apparently because of your hatred for Trump, you see things differently. That is fine.

Yesterday I listened to professor Jonathan Turley. His opinion, far more enlightened than at least mine and probably yours as well is that the Supreme Court will not go along with the Colorado decision or other states who believe Trump should be ousted from the voting ballots on the grounds he is involved in an insurrection. His idea mimics mine and that of many Conservatives, there was no insurrection as the Left claims. It was a RIOT, nothing more. He also feels the Colorado judges have no right to take Trump's name off the ballots because in the 14th Amendment and those affected, the President is not listed. That would make that part of it somewhat vague.

You may post what you like of course and keep this going until Pigs Fly. Actually one did fly in the photo section just yesterday. But I am done. You will not change my opinion nor will my common sense change yours. You on the Left base everything done to/against Trump on hatred, the very same hatred shared even before he was elected. Many of the lies Trump supposedly said were not lies at all but were classed as such and then posted as lies by the Left on a forever basis. His Russia Collusion investigation was based solely on lies from the ultimate lying corrupt Left Wing queen, Hillary Clinton. It was all bullshit but that is what your side of the aisle thrives on, bullshit.

Have a nice day,

Dennis

Well, The Washington Post in an article yesterday said that for the sake of our democracy that the court should rule 9-0 to keep Trump on the ballot, I believe Salon or some other leftwing site wrote a similar article saying the same....

Liberals think emotionally and don't consider the elements involved in a ruling such as this and the future consequences, all liberals know is that if it damages Trump then Hell Yeah no matter the legal elements involved or the consequences.

https://ijr.com/wapo-supreme-court-overturn-ruling-kicking-trump-ballot/