Basic understanding of law means a basic understanding of due process and how everyone is entitled to it. Not just the people you agree with. Denying due process to those you oppose makes you the same type of dictator liberals claim to hate.
Yes but you don’t seem to understand that due process in this case doesn’t mean he needs a criminal trial and conviction for him to be removed.
Read the 14th amendment then tell me where it mentions “convicted of insurrection” - it does not. It only mentions participation, or even supporting someone who participated.
Trump is receiving the due process as we speak right now.
If there was a waiver of due process it would be stated.
But section 14.1 of the 14th amendment reads
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This precedes section 14.3 which addresses Disqualification from Holding Office. 14.1 due process precedes all other sections of the amendment to establish a requirement for due process in all other sections.
You have my upvote for actually going through the Amendment. Respect.
However, you’re still ignoring the point that due process is occurring (at least in Colorado, Maine was definitely dodgy). Trump does not need to be criminally convicted of insurrection, it just needs to be decided in court that he meets the bar of being disqualified from office. The Colorado Supreme Court decided Trump should be removes from the ballot, now the US Supreme Court will decide - that is due process.
Being disqualified under 14.3 has a slightly different set of standards to meet than a criminal conviction for insurrection. Arguably he should also face a criminal charge, and a conviction would make the disqualification a sure thing.
It’s a bit like civil vs criminal. If you’re convicted of a crime, then the civil trial is basically a slam dunk. However, OJ famously got off on the criminal murder charge, then lost the civil trial for killing his victims. Trump being convicted of the crime of insurrection is a separate type of proceedings to removing him from the ballot for being involved with insurrection.
The amendment specifically says it’s the responsibility of Congress to determine eligibility of ballot access, and it only requires a simple majority. Therefore only Congress can proceed with due process, SCOTUS is likely to rule that states do not have standing, or the state courts do not have the authority to rule on this case.
Dont get me wrong, Im not defending the POS or his actions. Ive seen him as a shady, POS, conman since the 80s. But many dems are gonna be in for quite a shock when it doesnt play out like theyve been told it will. And all the ones calling to bypass due process because its someone they oppose is insane.
Where is the part that says only Congress can decide to remove by a simple majority? My understanding is that Congress can decide to put someone back on the ballot by a 2/3 majority, but it would be the courts that decide to remove them in lawsuits filed by citizens.
Unfortunately the problem with “legal websites” is that they generally know enough about the law to push a message without having to provide anything to back it up.
That’s not a dig at you or your opinion, just something I find frustrating.
Basic understanding of law means a basic understanding of due process and how everyone is entitled to it. Not just the people you agree with. Denying due process to those you oppose makes you the same type of dictator liberals claim to hate.
Yes but you don’t seem to understand that due process in this case doesn’t mean he needs a criminal trial and conviction for him to be removed.
Read the 14th amendment then tell me where it mentions “convicted of insurrection” - it does not. It only mentions participation, or even supporting someone who participated.
Trump is receiving the due process as we speak right now.
If there was a waiver of due process it would be stated.
But section 14.1 of the 14th amendment reads
This precedes section 14.3 which addresses Disqualification from Holding Office. 14.1 due process precedes all other sections of the amendment to establish a requirement for due process in all other sections.
You have my upvote for actually going through the Amendment. Respect.
However, you’re still ignoring the point that due process is occurring (at least in Colorado, Maine was definitely dodgy). Trump does not need to be criminally convicted of insurrection, it just needs to be decided in court that he meets the bar of being disqualified from office. The Colorado Supreme Court decided Trump should be removes from the ballot, now the US Supreme Court will decide - that is due process.
Being disqualified under 14.3 has a slightly different set of standards to meet than a criminal conviction for insurrection. Arguably he should also face a criminal charge, and a conviction would make the disqualification a sure thing.
It’s a bit like civil vs criminal. If you’re convicted of a crime, then the civil trial is basically a slam dunk. However, OJ famously got off on the criminal murder charge, then lost the civil trial for killing his victims. Trump being convicted of the crime of insurrection is a separate type of proceedings to removing him from the ballot for being involved with insurrection.
The amendment specifically says it’s the responsibility of Congress to determine eligibility of ballot access, and it only requires a simple majority. Therefore only Congress can proceed with due process, SCOTUS is likely to rule that states do not have standing, or the state courts do not have the authority to rule on this case.
Dont get me wrong, Im not defending the POS or his actions. Ive seen him as a shady, POS, conman since the 80s. But many dems are gonna be in for quite a shock when it doesnt play out like theyve been told it will. And all the ones calling to bypass due process because its someone they oppose is insane.
Where is the part that says only Congress can decide to remove by a simple majority? My understanding is that Congress can decide to put someone back on the ballot by a 2/3 majority, but it would be the courts that decide to remove them in lawsuits filed by citizens.
I’ve seen it on several legal websites, but I’ve not found how they interpreted that.
Unfortunately the problem with “legal websites” is that they generally know enough about the law to push a message without having to provide anything to back it up.
That’s not a dig at you or your opinion, just something I find frustrating.