[garygreen]

Well maybe at least wait until he is sentenced to jail before declaring that you guys are right about this. It could be that you guys are wrong, so it is best to keep to yourselves until the time comes.

lol this is you, right? https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17088.msg223237

[Lord Dave]

Well maybe at least wait until he is sentenced to jail before declaring that you guys are right about this. It could be that you guys are wrong, so it is best to keep to yourselves until the time comes.

lol this is you, right? https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17088.msg223237

Still waiting for that evidence to overturn the election....

[markjo]

Actually, that kinda, sorta already happens during the primaries as each state has its own rules for getting on the ballot.  The party conventions are then held to sort out the party's candidate.  Even then, there are third parties and write-ins that will vary by state in the November ballot.

I mean, suuuure, but you get what I mean. Imagine a scenario in which your victory is almost dictated by how many ballots you can get your name on. It would be exhilirating to watch!

Actually, it's not at all unusual for major party candidates to be on any number of small third party tickets as well.

[Pete Svarrior]

Actually, it's not at all unusual for major party candidates to be on any number of small third party tickets as well.

you get what I mean

[markjo]

As much as Trump would love to run out the clock and get himself reelected so that he can pardon himself (at least from the federal charges), he has another problem.  There is still the question of whether or not section 3 of the 14th amendment applies.  My guess is that will likely be the first, and potentially more important, Trump related case to reach SCOTUS.

Of course team Trump is crying that states shouldn't be deciding constitutional matters, but it is the states that actually run their elections.

I just can't see SCOTUS ruling against Trump on that. They can just lean on the language and be done with it.

It looks like Trump's immunity appeal is a bit premature and will hopefully be dismissed because he hasn't been found guilty yet.

As the American Oversight amicus brief argues, Supreme Court precedent prohibits a criminal defendant from immediately appealing an order denying immunity unless the claimed immunity is based on “an explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee that trial will not occur.” Trump’s claims of immunity rests on no such explicit guarantee. Therefore, given that Trump has not been convicted or sentenced, his appeal is premature. The D.C. Circuit lacks appellate jurisdiction and should dismiss the appeal and return the case to district court for trial promptly.

[Lord Dave]

Looks like SCOTUS is gonna rule on something this year. 
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/05/1222859510/supreme-court-colorado-ballots

My guess is that they'll rule that no state can do this unless a candidate is charged and found guilty of insurrection by the federal government.

Of course, if the prosecution can prove that Trump did comit insurrection to the Supreme Court, that might disqualify him automatically everywhere.  But something tells me SCOTUS does not want to do that.

[Lord Dave]

Also:

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/04/1222896035/foreign-governments-paid-millions-to-trumps-companies-while-he-was-president
And I'm sure Republians will be very angry that the president was getting foreign money by using his influence...

[markjo]

Absolute Presidential Immunity^TM protects Trump from the emolument clause, doesn't it?

[Lord Dave]

Absolute Presidential Immunity^TM protects Trump from the emolument clause, doesn't it?

Probably.  But then absolute immunity also means impeachment is impossible as all crimes are legal if the president does it.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

It is unbelievable how when a Republican wins, "The people have spoken!" When they lose, it's a lot of crybaby bullshit spouting conspiracy theories.

Anyone who still believes anything any Republican says is a willfully ignorant idiot. Which is actually the Republicans target market.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-sign-of-weafaceness-trump-hurls-election-fraud-accusation-at-unexpected-target/ar-AA1mwGcL

[Tom Bishop]

Looks like it was not noticed that the 14th Amendment insurrection clause was repealed by Congress over a hundred years ago -

https://publicinterestlegal.org/press/pilf-to-scotus-president-trump-must-be-kept-on-the-ballot/

"Congress in 1872 and 1898 extended an amnesty by repealing the provisions against office holding arising from the Civil War. The 14th Amendment gave Congress the power to terminate the prohibition against those who engaged in “insurrection.” Congress terminated the effectiveness of the provisions, twice. Therefore, they cannot be used in 2024 to ban candidates from the ballot.

Further reason Section 3 does not apply to President Trump is there has been no finding of insurrection or rebellion committed by the former President. In fact, the Senate acquitted President Trump of insurrection charges.

Finally, the Constitution lays out specific qualifications for who is eligible to be President. States cannot add additional qualifications according to the Supreme Court’s decision in the challenge to Congressional term limits."

[markjo]

Looks like it was not noticed that the 14th Amendment insurrection clause was repealed by Congress over a hundred years ago -

Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't.

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment has been invoked only twice since the American Civil War: in 1919 and 1920, it blocked Victor L. Berger, a member of the Socialist Party who had won both elections, from taking office as the Representative from Wisconsin because he had been convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917.[7] Although Section 3 was applicable to Berger, it does not appear that the Amnesty Act of 1872 was considered. Thus, it is not entirely clear whether this Act also automatically removes political disability for subsequent actions that violate Section 3.

[Lord Dave]

Looks like it was not noticed that the 14th Amendment insurrection clause was repealed by Congress over a hundred years ago -

https://publicinterestlegal.org/press/pilf-to-scotus-president-trump-must-be-kept-on-the-ballot/

"Congress in 1872 and 1898 extended an amnesty by repealing the provisions against office holding arising from the Civil War. The 14th Amendment gave Congress the power to terminate the prohibition against those who engaged in “insurrection.” Congress terminated the effectiveness of the provisions, twice. Therefore, they cannot be used in 2024 to ban candidates from the ballot.

This seems odd.  How does one repeal something twice?  If it was repealed in 1872, it can't be repealed in 1898.  Thus, it stands to reason that the repeal of 1872 was temporary or even not a repeal but a stay.  And the same can be said for the 1898 as is likely since repealing an amendment (or altering it) requires alot of votes.

Further reason Section 3 does not apply to President Trump is there has been no finding of insurrection or rebellion committed by the former President. In fact, the Senate acquitted President Trump of insurrection charges.

Finally, the Constitution lays out specific qualifications for who is eligible to be President. States cannot add additional qualifications according to the Supreme Court’s decision in the challenge to Congressional term limits."

These next two are good arguments and while the state found him guilty, I can see why the court wouldn't want a state charge to determine eligibility.

[Lord Dave]

Interesting legal queation:


If I comity insurrection against a state government, does that also trigger the 14th?  Or is the 14th only for federal level insurrections?

[markjo]

Trump supporters claim that Biden's mental abilities have diminished, and then Trump says this:

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1743463970621862227

[Tom Bishop]

It depends on the kind of magnet. It is also my understanding that if you expose the type of magnets to water in the referenced maglev elevator project that it will stop working.

[Lord Dave]

An electromagnet might short (depending on how its built) but even Flat Earther's know that water doesn't block magnetic waves.  Otherwise compases wouldn't work above the water.

[markjo]

It depends on the kind of magnet. It is also my understanding that if you expose the type of magnets to water in the referenced maglev elevator project that it will stop working.

Trump was apparently talking about the electromagnetic elevators and catapult systems on the new Gerald Ford class aircraft carriers.  Why would Trump (or you) think that the US Navy wouldn't make sure that the electromagnetic systems on the newest generation aircraft carriers are waterproof?

[Tom Bishop]

It's fairly clear that in the full clip Trump is talking about electromagnets. Trump is shortening 'electromagnet' to 'magnet', as it is a type of magnet which is already explicitly defined in the full speech to be the type in question.

At the 1:30 minute mark of the below fuller video of the clip he even launches into a story about how an engineer named Bill Jones from the NAVY was talking to him and comparing the older and more reliable steam systems with the electromagnetic systems on ships. One of the problems mentioned is that when the electromagnetic systems were exposed to water they would shut down. This is where the concern about water comes from.

The electromagnetic systems the engineer worked on on those NAVY ships was assuredly "waterproofed", but the doors to the systems had to be opened for work and maintenance. The engineer suggests he is concerned about giant waves hitting the ship during maintenance and the water making its way inside and damaging the components, when this was not an issue with previous designs.

https://twitter.com/MostlyPeacefull/status/1744402395826737602

[markjo]

A glass of water is hardly comparable to a giant wave crashing over the bow.  Then again, it wouldn’t be a Trump speech without over the top hyperbole, would it?