Has Trump made himself ineligible for any elected office?
There is a growing body of legal opinion that between his involvement and non-actiions, in the January 6 attempted coup and his statements about throwing out the US Constitution if elected President again (which is itself a tacit admission he recognizes he was not elected President in 2020) that Trump violated the provisions of Amendment 14, Section 3 of the US Constitution. Although it has been over 199 years since this clause was used to remove an elected Federal official from office or prevent their seeking one, it is still a very real part of the highest law in the United States.The wording is:
"Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, 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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Several Federal judges and State election officials are maintaining this precludes Donald Trump from ever again being placed on a ballot for office.
Comments (133)
Trump needs to produce evidence he is innocent. Of course there is none, which means he is done and those dreaming of a world in which only White males have power need to find a new candidate. Some, such as T. Carlson and A. Jones or S. Ritter appear to have chosen Putin, but most Americans won't support that scum.
Trump needs to produce evidence he is innocent. Of course there is none, which means he is done and those dreaming of a world in which only White males have power need to find a new candidate. Some, such as T. Carlson and A. Jones or S. Ritter appear to have chosen Putin, but most Americans won't support that scum.
And only give NATO the 1 30th of what your country is in NATO, let the IMF prop up NATO not the US..
Doesn't the US constitution come in a close second behind NATO treaties now Ken..
If the US gives up the world reserve currency it won't have to give billions to Israel in aid every year, which is the way the Ukraine is going for the west just another mega aid package going to another country..
Yes, if a Treaty has been Ratified by the US Senate it becomes law. Many treaties submitted to the US Senate are not ratified and are thus temporary things to us. We will follow them as long as it is in our interest, when it is not we don't have to.
Your IMF scheme is kind of a weird idea. Who created the IMF and provided the initial funding for it?
"The IMF's resources mainly come from the money that countries pay as their capital subscription (quotas) when they become members. Each member of the IMF is assigned a quota, based broadly on its relative position in the world economy. "
You seem to be begging the US to turn it's wealth over to poor countries. That won't be happening anytime this century. LoL
You seem to be begging the US to turn it's wealth over to poor countries. That won't be happening anytime this century. LoL
Yes, if a Treaty has been Ratified by the US Senate it becomes law. Many treaties submitted to the US Senate are not ratified and are thus temporary things to us. We will follow them as long as it is in our interest, when it is not we don't have to.
Your IMF scheme is kind of a weird idea. Who created the IMF and provided the initial funding for it?
"The IMF's resources mainly come from the money that countries pay as their capital subscription (quotas) when they become members. Each member of the IMF is assigned a quota, based broadly on its relative position in the world economy. "
You seem to be begging the US to turn it's wealth over to poor countries. That won't be happening anytime this century. LoL
Most US moves are about ripping off other countries, the US actions are becoming more desperate by the day;; US actions and moves in the world are just blind ambition that are only waiting for reaction...
The deep state/illuminate got 1 prediction right the squeeze on energy/fuel, but the squeeze is coming on the western countries not the entire globe;; they probably saw that coming a while ago so it makes sense for the deep state to try control a part of the worlds bread basket in the Ukraine..
However, your post is totally off topic which is Trump vs the 14th amendment. Further off topic posts on my threads may be deleted.
Id your strange beliefs are important to you you may wish to write your own blog about them. I am sure the other 2 or 3 Russia huggers will be happy to join in there and agree with you.
"Trump also on Monday sought to dismiss seven of the counts he faces in a separate Georgia case, arguing that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took in his official capacity as president."
Is that more likely to invoke the laws making him ineligible for seeking the PRESIDENCY?
In the US the statute of limitations on Fraud begins when something is discovered to be fraudulent.
In the US any fictitious statement on a financial or government document is considered a crime on it's face. 18 US Code 1001 as a for instance. Under that statute any concealment of truth, even a verbal lie or failure to speak at an appropriate time can be prosecuted. No actual victim is required. It is enough that something false wziara in an official investigation or a written Federal document. Then there are the Bank, mail, tax and wire fraud statutes. Repayment of a debt has no bearing if it is found you lied to get a loan. NY State has similar laws. One wonders what fantasy world Trump's brain lives in when he claims the fraud should be ignored just because he paid the money back.
We all know people who were denied credit or loans because they told the truth on their application. Trump's solution to such situations was simply utter falsehoods. Which he almost always did.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
All of them are appointed by either a Repubican, or Democrat governent because they are the ony two parties who are ever in government.
Who appointed them, or their personal political opinions should be irrelevant and if they don't follow the law, decisions can be appealed many times over all the way up to the supreme court.
The parameters for recusal are quite specific in US law and for good reason: you quite rightly don't want judges to be biased against a defendent, but neither do you want a situation where defendents use recusal motions to go judge shopping for one who will be favourable.
If the defendant can demonstrate the fulfilment of parameters for recusal, then it'll happen. Bear in mind Judge Chutkan wrote a 10,000 word, 20 page analysis with precedent citation in response to Trump's frivolous motion of her recusal.
Trump certainly can't force anyone to recuse themselves. That's not how the law works, nor is he above the law.
There was also an image posted on Twitter of him being in the court room alongside a white Jesus.