Quote:The first Secretary of State is working behind-the-scenes to keep former President Donald Trump off the ballot in the 2024 presidential election.

New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan ® is consulting with the state attorney general to invoke the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot.

As secretary of state, Scanlan oversees New Hampshire’s presidential primary in early March.

“I will be asking the attorney general’s office for their input,” Secretary of State David Scanlan told the Globe. “And ultimately whatever is decided is probably going to require some judicial input.”

The legal theory that Scanlan is probing to keep Trump from running is nothing new. It revolves around the “insurrection” language cited in the Fourteenth Amendment.

A challenge was recently filed in federal court in Florida to have Donald Trump removed from the 2024 race under the 14th Amendment. Attorney Lawrence Caplan filed the challenge claiming Trump cannot legally be on the 2024 ballot because he “engaged in an insurrection.”

“The bottom line here is that President Trump both engaged in an insurrection and also gave aid and comfort to other individuals who were engaging in such actions, within the clear meaning of those terms as defined in Section Three of the 14th Amendment,” Caplan said. “Assuming that the public record to date is accurate, and we have no evidence to the contrary, Trump is no longer eligible to seek the office of the President of the United States, or of any other state of the Union.”

The Special Counsel’s January 6 case against Donald Trump, in particular, is charging the former president with Civil War-era statutes on ‘seditious conspiracy’ that seem tailor-made to keep him from running for re-election or holding public office again.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 post-Civil War, declares that anyone who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet later participates in or supports insurrection against it, cannot serve in Congress or any civil or military office. However, Congress can lift this restriction with a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers.

Historically, this clause aimed to prevent ex-Confederate officers and officials from resuming public office unless Congress allowed it. This provision has rarely been applied in the past century and a half and never against a sitting or former president.

Nevertheless, this clause is gaining new traction as a way to prevent Trump from running for the presidency. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Donald Trump for “conspiracy” to overturn the results of the 2020 election has given the 14th amendment argument renewed interest.

The argument that Donald Trump in any way condoned or advocated violence on January 6 is exposed as flawed for a number of reasons.

Trump’s speech did not finish before orchestrated violence first took place at the Capitol. The president explicitly told supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard.” Donald Trump later stated, “I’m asking for everyone at the US Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!”

According to the Trump Twitter Archive, this message was posted at 3:13 pm local time. It followed a tweet at 2:38 pm which read “Stay peaceful!” — a mere NINE MINUTES after numerous protesters entered the Capitol complex.

“I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”

In a video message the following day, Trump called for a peaceful resolution to the election dispute and acknowledged that he would no longer be president after January 20, 2021.

“I would like to begin by addressing the heinous attack on the United States Capitol… America is and must always be a nation of law and order. The demonstrators who infiltrated the capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy. To those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country, and to those who broke the law, you will pay.”

“Now, Congress has certified the results,” he added. “A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th.”

Congressional scholar Jonathan Turley further lays out why Trump’s opponents cannot legally make the “insurrection” charge stick.

“It’s really approaching the urban legend status,” Turley replied. “Because he’s not charged with incitement. He’s not charged with insurrection. He’s not charged with seditious conspiracy. He’s not charged with all of those things the Democrats impeached him on the second time.”

“So they’re really bigfooting the Constitution here,” he added. “It’s not there.”

“But the question is what is here?” he continued. “I have to tell you, this is thin soup in my view. They have a colossal Constitutional problem that they will have to overcome from the outset. They have to establish all of these lynchpins, that he not only believed the truth of the matter, that he understood he was lying, but then he played a criminal role in getting these other individuals to take the steps mentioned in the indictment. That is a very difficult case to prove.”

Nonetheless, regardless of the merits of the case, it is clear that various states are willing to ignore the will of the people and attempt to keep Donald Trump off the 2024 presidential election ballot. It may very well be that the upcoming election will wind up being settled in the courts in much the same way as the 2020 election.

Link

The best way to stop someone of ending democracy is to end democracy. Very cool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's coming. At some point they are going to push too far and the push back will be yuge.

Republic, meet Banana…

(08-26-2023 08:24 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:The first Secretary of State is working behind-the-scenes to keep former President Donald Trump off the ballot in the 2024 presidential election.

New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan ® is consulting with the state attorney general to invoke the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot.

As secretary of state, Scanlan oversees New Hampshire’s presidential primary in early March.

“I will be asking the attorney general’s office for their input,” Secretary of State David Scanlan told the Globe. “And ultimately whatever is decided is probably going to require some judicial input.”

The legal theory that Scanlan is probing to keep Trump from running is nothing new. It revolves around the “insurrection” language cited in the Fourteenth Amendment.

A challenge was recently filed in federal court in Florida to have Donald Trump removed from the 2024 race under the 14th Amendment. Attorney Lawrence Caplan filed the challenge claiming Trump cannot legally be on the 2024 ballot because he “engaged in an insurrection.”

“The bottom line here is that President Trump both engaged in an insurrection and also gave aid and comfort to other individuals who were engaging in such actions, within the clear meaning of those terms as defined in Section Three of the 14th Amendment,” Caplan said. “Assuming that the public record to date is accurate, and we have no evidence to the contrary, Trump is no longer eligible to seek the office of the President of the United States, or of any other state of the Union.”

The Special Counsel’s January 6 case against Donald Trump, in particular, is charging the former president with Civil War-era statutes on ‘seditious conspiracy’ that seem tailor-made to keep him from running for re-election or holding public office again.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 post-Civil War, declares that anyone who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet later participates in or supports insurrection against it, cannot serve in Congress or any civil or military office. However, Congress can lift this restriction with a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers.

Historically, this clause aimed to prevent ex-Confederate officers and officials from resuming public office unless Congress allowed it. This provision has rarely been applied in the past century and a half and never against a sitting or former president.

Nevertheless, this clause is gaining new traction as a way to prevent Trump from running for the presidency. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Donald Trump for “conspiracy” to overturn the results of the 2020 election has given the 14th amendment argument renewed interest.

The argument that Donald Trump in any way condoned or advocated violence on January 6 is exposed as flawed for a number of reasons.

Trump’s speech did not finish before orchestrated violence first took place at the Capitol. The president explicitly told supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard.” Donald Trump later stated, “I’m asking for everyone at the US Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!”

According to the Trump Twitter Archive, this message was posted at 3:13 pm local time. It followed a tweet at 2:38 pm which read “Stay peaceful!” — a mere NINE MINUTES after numerous protesters entered the Capitol complex.

“I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”

In a video message the following day, Trump called for a peaceful resolution to the election dispute and acknowledged that he would no longer be president after January 20, 2021.

“I would like to begin by addressing the heinous attack on the United States Capitol… America is and must always be a nation of law and order. The demonstrators who infiltrated the capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy. To those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country, and to those who broke the law, you will pay.”

“Now, Congress has certified the results,” he added. “A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th.”

Congressional scholar Jonathan Turley further lays out why Trump’s opponents cannot legally make the “insurrection” charge stick.

“It’s really approaching the urban legend status,” Turley replied. “Because he’s not charged with incitement. He’s not charged with insurrection. He’s not charged with seditious conspiracy. He’s not charged with all of those things the Democrats impeached him on the second time.”

“So they’re really bigfooting the Constitution here,” he added. “It’s not there.”

“But the question is what is here?” he continued. “I have to tell you, this is thin soup in my view. They have a colossal Constitutional problem that they will have to overcome from the outset. They have to establish all of these lynchpins, that he not only believed the truth of the matter, that he understood he was lying, but then he played a criminal role in getting these other individuals to take the steps mentioned in the indictment. That is a very difficult case to prove.”

Nonetheless, regardless of the merits of the case, it is clear that various states are willing to ignore the will of the people and attempt to keep Donald Trump off the 2024 presidential election ballot. It may very well be that the upcoming election will wind up being settled in the courts in much the same way as the 2020 election.

Link

Don't think they would just limit it to Trump. They will apply it to every single Republican presidential candidate going forward.

The issue was entered into the Federal courts in Florida w/o the Sec State or Atty General there sparking it off.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...%20attack.

Complaint here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/677...n-v-trump/

I would assume that other individuals in states will follow suit.

This is why anyone who says Trump cant win in 2024 is an idiot. The left and democrats most certainly believe he's going to win, and they know they arent going to be able to cheat the count this time to overcome the landslide so they have to try to keep him off the ballot. Surely you dont think the left would be trying to prevent someone from running if they believe he cant win, do you?

(08-27-2023 10:24 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  This is why anyone who says Trump cant win in 2024 is an idiot. The left and democrats most certainly believe he's going to win, and they know they arent going to be able to cheat the count this time to overcome the landslide so they have to try to keep him off the ballot. Surely you dont think the left would be trying to prevent someone from running if they believe he cant win, do you?

Yeah, the landslide. You mean the one where Trump won Georgia by, in his own words, 400,000 votes?

Lolz.

(08-26-2023 08:24 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:The first Secretary of State is working behind-the-scenes to keep former President Donald Trump off the ballot in the 2024 presidential election.

New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan ® is consulting with the state attorney general to invoke the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot.

As secretary of state, Scanlan oversees New Hampshire’s presidential primary in early March.

“I will be asking the attorney general’s office for their input,” Secretary of State David Scanlan told the Globe. “And ultimately whatever is decided is probably going to require some judicial input.”

The legal theory that Scanlan is probing to keep Trump from running is nothing new. It revolves around the “insurrection” language cited in the Fourteenth Amendment.

A challenge was recently filed in federal court in Florida to have Donald Trump removed from the 2024 race under the 14th Amendment. Attorney Lawrence Caplan filed the challenge claiming Trump cannot legally be on the 2024 ballot because he “engaged in an insurrection.”

“The bottom line here is that President Trump both engaged in an insurrection and also gave aid and comfort to other individuals who were engaging in such actions, within the clear meaning of those terms as defined in Section Three of the 14th Amendment,” Caplan said. “Assuming that the public record to date is accurate, and we have no evidence to the contrary, Trump is no longer eligible to seek the office of the President of the United States, or of any other state of the Union.”

The Special Counsel’s January 6 case against Donald Trump, in particular, is charging the former president with Civil War-era statutes on ‘seditious conspiracy’ that seem tailor-made to keep him from running for re-election or holding public office again.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 post-Civil War, declares that anyone who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet later participates in or supports insurrection against it, cannot serve in Congress or any civil or military office. However, Congress can lift this restriction with a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers.

Historically, this clause aimed to prevent ex-Confederate officers and officials from resuming public office unless Congress allowed it. This provision has rarely been applied in the past century and a half and never against a sitting or former president.

Nevertheless, this clause is gaining new traction as a way to prevent Trump from running for the presidency. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Donald Trump for “conspiracy” to overturn the results of the 2020 election has given the 14th amendment argument renewed interest.

The argument that Donald Trump in any way condoned or advocated violence on January 6 is exposed as flawed for a number of reasons.

Trump’s speech did not finish before orchestrated violence first took place at the Capitol. The president explicitly told supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard.” Donald Trump later stated, “I’m asking for everyone at the US Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!”

According to the Trump Twitter Archive, this message was posted at 3:13 pm local time. It followed a tweet at 2:38 pm which read “Stay peaceful!” — a mere NINE MINUTES after numerous protesters entered the Capitol complex.

“I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”

In a video message the following day, Trump called for a peaceful resolution to the election dispute and acknowledged that he would no longer be president after January 20, 2021.

“I would like to begin by addressing the heinous attack on the United States Capitol… America is and must always be a nation of law and order. The demonstrators who infiltrated the capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy. To those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country, and to those who broke the law, you will pay.”

“Now, Congress has certified the results,” he added. “A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th.”

Congressional scholar Jonathan Turley further lays out why Trump’s opponents cannot legally make the “insurrection” charge stick.

“It’s really approaching the urban legend status,” Turley replied. “Because he’s not charged with incitement. He’s not charged with insurrection. He’s not charged with seditious conspiracy. He’s not charged with all of those things the Democrats impeached him on the second time.”

“So they’re really bigfooting the Constitution here,” he added. “It’s not there.”

“But the question is what is here?” he continued. “I have to tell you, this is thin soup in my view. They have a colossal Constitutional problem that they will have to overcome from the outset. They have to establish all of these lynchpins, that he not only believed the truth of the matter, that he understood he was lying, but then he played a criminal role in getting these other individuals to take the steps mentioned in the indictment. That is a very difficult case to prove.”

Nonetheless, regardless of the merits of the case, it is clear that various states are willing to ignore the will of the people and attempt to keep Donald Trump off the 2024 presidential election ballot. It may very well be that the upcoming election will wind up being settled in the courts in much the same way as the 2020 election.

Link

Never Trumper Nazi.

(08-27-2023 09:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The issue was entered into the Federal courts in Florida w/o the Sec State or Atty General there sparking it off.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...%20attack.

Complaint here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/677...n-v-trump/

I would assume that other individuals in states will follow suit.

They should have to pay court costs.

He was a sitting President at the time of ‘mUh iNsSuReCtIoN’ and Biden not only wasn’t President but he wasn’t even certified. So how can a sitting President lead an insurrection against himself and the government that falls under the 14th amendment section 3 clause?

It doesn’t even say a President but those that previously swore a oath in Congress, office holder [cabinet], and various state office holders.

(08-27-2023 11:09 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  He was a sitting President at the time of ‘mUh iNsSuReCtIoN’ and Biden not only wasn’t President but he wasn’t even certified. So how can a sitting President lead an insurrection against himself and the government that falls under the 14th amendment section 3 clause?

By trying to use illegal means to stop a transition of power to another back to himself. Like what the Eastman plan spells out fairly clearly.

The issue is improperly (that is breaking the law) to keep the transition from occurring.

And no, I dont think the Capitol riot was an 'insurrection.' However comments from Eastman himself clearly denote that the steps in what he proposed were illegal.

11:44 1/6 pm email from Eastman to Pence: "I implore you to consider one more ... violation [of the Electoral Counting Act]"

In addition to his admission that the plan would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

The filth want civil war. They got a taste when the progvfilth tards rolled over for them during covid. No better excuse to rule over you than a good civil war

This kinda shite. Screwing with elections. Causes war.

Jesus H….

If THE VOTERS don’t want him they will not vote for him.

WTF are all these people afraid of? Seriously….

(08-27-2023 11:27 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Jesus H….

If THE VOTERS don’t want him they will not vote for him.

WTF are all these people afraid of? Seriously….

Freedom. Fair elections. Men that dont sit when they pee.

(08-27-2023 11:26 AM)shere khan Wrote:  The filth want civil war. They got a taste when the progvfilth tards rolled over for them during covid. No better excuse to rule over you than a good civil war

This kinda shite. Screwing with elections. Causes war.

Lolz. Yes, how dare one ask the sitting President to comply with the Electoral Counting Act. Double lolz.

Watch the pinheads talk about 'civil war' on that. Pretty amazing stuff one can see from some.

(08-27-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:09 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  He was a sitting President at the time of ‘mUh iNsSuReCtIoN’ and Biden not only wasn’t President but he wasn’t even certified. So how can a sitting President lead an insurrection against himself and the government that falls under the 14th amendment section 3 clause?

By trying to use illegal means to stop a transition of power to another back to himself. Like what the Eastman plan spells out fairly clearly.

The issue is improperly (that is breaking the law) to keep the transition from occurring.

And no, I dont think the Capitol riot was an 'insurrection.' However comments from Eastman himself clearly denote that the steps in what he proposed were illegal.

11:44 1/6 pm email from Eastman to Pence: "I implore you to consider one more ... violation [of the Electoral Counting Act]"

In addition to his admission that the plan would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

Everything you just said is a political matter at best and maybe a court matter but not a 14th amendment section 3 of the Constitution matter. Again he was the sitting President and didn’t renounce his allegiance to the country or anything similar to the confederates during the time of the civil war

(08-27-2023 11:53 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:09 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  He was a sitting President at the time of ‘mUh iNsSuReCtIoN’ and Biden not only wasn’t President but he wasn’t even certified. So how can a sitting President lead an insurrection against himself and the government that falls under the 14th amendment section 3 clause?

By trying to use illegal means to stop a transition of power to another back to himself. Like what the Eastman plan spells out fairly clearly.

The issue is improperly (that is breaking the law) to keep the transition from occurring.

And no, I dont think the Capitol riot was an 'insurrection.' However comments from Eastman himself clearly denote that the steps in what he proposed were illegal.

11:44 1/6 pm email from Eastman to Pence: "I implore you to consider one more ... violation [of the Electoral Counting Act]"

In addition to his admission that the plan would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

Everything you just said is a political matter at best and maybe a court matter but not a 14th amendment section 3 of the Constitution matter. Again he was the sitting President and didn’t renounce his allegiance to the country or anything similar to the confederates during the time of the civil war

Poor Tanq. The fact that the democrats tried over and over again, and finally succeeded, in changing the law where the vp could refuse to acknowledge electors from states that didnt follow their own election laws is proof positive that nothing Trump posed was "illegal". That is libturd-think.

(08-27-2023 11:53 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:09 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  He was a sitting President at the time of ‘mUh iNsSuReCtIoN’ and Biden not only wasn’t President but he wasn’t even certified. So how can a sitting President lead an insurrection against himself and the government that falls under the 14th amendment section 3 clause?

By trying to use illegal means to stop a transition of power to another back to himself. Like what the Eastman plan spells out fairly clearly.

The issue is improperly (that is breaking the law) to keep the transition from occurring.

And no, I dont think the Capitol riot was an 'insurrection.' However comments from Eastman himself clearly denote that the steps in what he proposed were illegal.

11:44 1/6 pm email from Eastman to Pence: "I implore you to consider one more ... violation [of the Electoral Counting Act]"

In addition to his admission that the plan would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

Everything you just said is a political matter at best and maybe a court matter but not a 14th amendment section 3 of the Constitution matter. Again he was the sitting President and didn’t renounce his allegiance to the country or anything similar to the confederates during the time of the civil war

The actual language isnt to 'allegiance to the country'. Or anything like that. The language of the section is in terms of the officeholder's oath to the Constitution.

Quote:No person shall ... hold any office ... under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

I would say that pretty much trying to circumvent the Constitution, by trying to usurp the state's themselves in selecting electors, in the attempt to hold onto power is certainly a category that fits the wording.

It says that if you piss on the Constitution, then you cannot serve it.

And I agree that it will be a court matter.

I cannot tell you how many issues of Con Law and Procedure that were theory are now actual caselaw due to DJT. I think we are going to mark another first to him for his service.

(08-27-2023 12:21 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:53 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:09 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  He was a sitting President at the time of ‘mUh iNsSuReCtIoN’ and Biden not only wasn’t President but he wasn’t even certified. So how can a sitting President lead an insurrection against himself and the government that falls under the 14th amendment section 3 clause?

By trying to use illegal means to stop a transition of power to another back to himself. Like what the Eastman plan spells out fairly clearly.

The issue is improperly (that is breaking the law) to keep the transition from occurring.

And no, I dont think the Capitol riot was an 'insurrection.' However comments from Eastman himself clearly denote that the steps in what he proposed were illegal.

11:44 1/6 pm email from Eastman to Pence: "I implore you to consider one more ... violation [of the Electoral Counting Act]"

In addition to his admission that the plan would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

Everything you just said is a political matter at best and maybe a court matter but not a 14th amendment section 3 of the Constitution matter. Again he was the sitting President and didn’t renounce his allegiance to the country or anything similar to the confederates during the time of the civil war

Poor Tanq. The fact that the democrats tried over and over again, and finally succeeded, in changing the law where the vp could refuse to acknowledge electors from states that didnt follow their own election laws is proof positive that nothing Trump posed was "illegal". That is libturd-think.

Maybe you should send a chastising note to Eastman there, chuckles. Even he, the author of the plan, readily acknowledged the illegality of it, both via message and in the course of the meetings in the President's office.

But hey, why let little facts like a few admissions and statements against interest get in your way. Lolz.