DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Point out that personhood comment in writing lil denny. Are you saying then that abortions were often done in colonial times? Was there no infant hood?

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

It would seem to more thoughtful people Amendment 14 is just fine as is BUT there needs to be some adjudication in a court of law the person, in this case Trump, was actually found guilty of the charge. Just a number of justices saying they THINK he was guilty does not cut it in my opinion. Even Grand Jurys can bring a person up on charges and a True Bill be initiated leading to a trial but it is only opinion UNTIL a judge or a jury actually finds the person guilty. Otherwise that person, even Trump, sorry lying corrupt Left Wingers, has that right under the Constitution.

No I do not think Amendment 14 should be addressed. It is fine as is. It simply needs to be followed as written. IF Trump is brought up on charges, good luck with that based on the evidence or lack of evidence as I see it, AND he is found guilty as charged then Amendment 14 can be placed into action. Until then shouldn't the Left feel he is innocent until proven guilty? If it was you would you not want the same rights guaranteed under the Constitution?

Why does the Left do all it can to subvert the Constitution when it offers these EQUAL rights for all of us, including people we don't like?

Dennis

Triple G

As written, 14A does not require indictment nor conviction. That is very clear. If we'd go by that, CO actions are perfectly in line with 14A.

I suspect you meant to say that 14A is incomplete and too vague and that why it's in the courts for determination of constitutional applicability rather than in states' legislative actions and voter commission actions. If that's what you meant to say, then we agree.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

No I did not mean to say that at all, that it is too vague etc. I meant exactly what I said. No person in America should be deprived of DUE PROCESS. That is exactly what the Colorado Court is doing, they are taking President Trump's name off the ballot ONLY because they think it is appropriate. It is another example of judges making law.
They have no right to take Trump's name off the ballot nor do they have the right to exclude millions of people who want to vote Trump for President just those judges think Trump does not deserve to be on the ballot.

Every one of you on the Left should feel the same way, no matter what he has done, a person deserves the full protection of the Constitution, but you don't. Because you HATE Trump you come up with all sort of bullshit excuses to stop him and his family from legal and moral privileges in America.

Dennis

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I agree that it is up to We The People to elect their president in a democratic manner through voting.

But it is NOT up to We The People to decide whether Trump was part of an insurrection. That decision is up to the courts. If Trump is removed from the ballot for legal reasons then he should not be in the running.

And nothing in the 14A requires conviction of insurrection.

Triple G

The CO court is following 14A to its very word. Since you want it followed as is, you have no problem with their decision.

Triple G

14A says they have the authority.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Yes John, AS YOU SAY, it is up to the courts but first a person, in America anyway, has the RIGHT to present HIS case to the courts, his side of the story, to offer up evidence he is NOT GUILTY. NOW how the HELL do you mobsters on the Left forget that even suspected criminals have a Constitutional Right to not be judged guilty without DUE PROCESS. Surely you can at least try your evil one sided, Trump hating mind to understand that little bit of Common Sense.

So a number of judges have found Trump GUILTY, hell, without even being charged with a crime. Isn't that just special. Let's do the very same thing with our violent offenders all across the planet, maybe even slight misdemeanors too. No need for a lengthy trial is there? Just get a number of judges, someone who hates the defendant will present evidence of guilty and Voila a guilty verdict is found and the defendant loses his rights. DAMN!!! Now why didn't the Founding Fathers come up with that novel idea? How simple and what an ingenious way to clear out the backlogged court system. Judges get together and make a decision on what they think are important points of evidence. Done deal. After each has served on three decision making trials then each judge has enough experience at judging there will no longer be any reason to have more than one judge per trial. A district attorney or maybe even just a mob of people who dislike/hate the accused will tell the judge why they think the accused is guilty and once again, Done Deal. Guilty and the defendant loses his rights without burdening a jury to make a decision of guilt or innocence. Even the accused will be happy as a clam because he won't have to pay exorbitant fees to an attorney who will just go along with the program anyway. No time consuming waste of the guilty to bring forth evidence of INNOCENCE because the judge has already made his decision.

WOW!!!!! You on the Left have this all figured out. Now just for grins imagine YOU are the one charged. Of course you would still accept whatever some judge(s) give you because you are not liked.

Dennis

Triple G

Your word diarrhea has little to do with the questions about 14A and more about your hate and anger at democrats.


The thing is...there are no charges required under 14A; just the determination by judges that the amendment language is applied to trump's actions surrounding J6. The two sticking points are: 1) engaged in insurrection or rebellion: two courts determined yes. 14A doesn't define the terms nor the level of proof needed to make the determination. So CO are following 14A in this regard. And 2) does 14A apply to presidents and former presidents: 14A says persons who take oaths of office are "officers". CO court, again, is following 14A.

You may believe that other constitutional provisions override 14A, but that will need to be determined by SCOTUS.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Well then that settles it doesn't it??? So IF some Conservative judges THINK Biden is guilty of corruption and criminal activity and there certainly is evidence to show that MIGHT be the case then they could also make him ineligible to run for office next year. That definitely makes sense to, well, NOBODY on the planet. Would that work for you? Definitely not for me...I would insure Biden gets his full protection of the law.

Other than you on the Left whining and bitching like little girls as well as HATING Trump, is there any real EVIDENCE he was involved in any insurrection. Hell, there is not even any opinions other than Left Wingers there was an insurrection for Trump to be involved in. This is all complete nonsense and bullshit from the Kangaroo Court Jan 6th committee that allowed ONLY certain things to be brought out, only allowed those Republicans who hated Trump already, to serve and had their mind made up before evidence was submitted. IF you were honest you would agree the Jan 6 committee was pretty well screwed up and was decidedly against Trump before any evidence was looked at.

So what specific evidence is there that Trump was involved in a real life insurrection? Was it his speech to the protestors before they went to the Capitol? I read that speech and saw nothing to make me think Trump instigated any violence at all. Of course no court of law I am aware of has said he was inciting violence. So when does Trump get to present HIS side of the story?

Does it really make sense to you the Founding Fathers who were so adamant about the other Amendments requiring DUE PROCESS not give any consideration to that concept, the presumed innocence of the accused, in the 14th Amendment? Not to me.

Dennis

Triple G

If a court decides that Biden engaged specifically in rebellion or insurrection, then 14A could be applied to Biden. That's a very big IF!

Triple G

Read slowly.

14A DOES NOT require that there be a civil or criminal charge or conviction for insurrection or rebellion. It allows for judges to make the determination that trump engaged in such activity. That's 14A, like it or not. You say you want it applied as written. It is! This has gone full circle. Now decide if you stand by your earlier answer or agree with my summatuon.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

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

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I stand by exactly what I said. Did you miss that part? If I am wrong then Congress OR SCOTUS can decide.

Dennis