Bernardo de La Paz
Bernardo de La Paz's JournalAll these reports only say Republiconners get conned all the time
They don't know how to shop and they don't know how to balance a household budget, despite their whining about "running the gubmnt like a mortgage payer would".
Because they don't know basics about spending, RepubliCONs run up huge deficits and Democrats have to clean up the mess.
Note how tRump increased the amount of Federal Debt held by the public by 50% and increased the Trade Deficit by 40%.
I bet Appeals Court rules against tRump & Supremes let order stand without comment
The Supreme Court declined to take the case before the Appeals Court has ruled.
Either they want the Appeals Court to do their research for them or the tRump position is so ridiculous they would rule against him anyway. In the latter situation (the one that pertains, I think) the Supreme Court has no desire or need to touch the Br'er Rabbit tar baby and get entangled with everything that comes from it, especially in an environment of maga threats and maga violence.
You are exactly right: to rule that tRump had immunity would be to rule that presidents (tRump) and Presidents (all the rest) are Kings.
"Create man in god's image": the average man is not white or male
The "average man" (person) is slightly female (maybe 51%).
Going by their own book, christianists should acknowlege that god is probably very brown and might be zebra striped or multi-colour patched.
god might be trans or bi or lesbian or hetero-cis or asexual depending on the hour or the day of the month. Or all at the same time.
Truth of course is that "god" was created in man's image. The people doing the creating were predominantly whiter than the average human being. Hence white Jesus and white Adam and white Eve and ....
Ceiling cat makes as much sense as christianist Dominionist white guy god.
maga bubble keeps getting smaller as they drop news sources
It's a predictable and predicted pattern.
They keep dropping sources, of more or less credibility, forever seeking confirmation. The fewer the sources, the smaller the bubble that they live in. The bubble exists because nothing is ever the fault of a maga or conservative. If they are really pressed, they will end up saying say "No true maga/conservative would say __x__", which is of course an argumentative fallacy.
Note also the extremeness of the swing. One poll and suddenly they are calling everything NYPost "all trash", "fake".
And the ever useful Deep State bogeyman they can pull out of the wings if the facts start to go adversely against them: "MSM" MainStream Media is of course an important arm of the Deep State.
This is the New York Post bias and credibility from Media Bias & Fact Check: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/
tRump will be denied because Section 3 turns on legislation of "heretofore"
This detailed PDF explains why Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (1868) sinks tRump (and others) despite the legislation of 1872 and 1898 (which has the "heretofore" ). I think the Supreme Court will rule against him 6-3 or higher but I am not any kind of legal expert.
It's a good read (I read parts of many pages and skimmed a lot).
A. 14th, Section 3 is alive and operative.
B. It applies to the President because he is an officer and the oath applies.
C. The legislation of 1872 and 1898 only clears insurrectionists up to that point ("heretofore" ).
D. Any election official or judge can apply it. And the authors say "should" as a Constitutional responsibility. No conviction is needed.
E. 14th does not interfere with Free Speech or "Life, Liberty, and Property". Office is not property. In any case it supersedes 1st.
https://akhilamar.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/The-Sweep-and-Force-of-Section-Three.pdf
It wasn't a response to but it demolishes Alan Dershowitz's analysis ( https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12886511/colorado-court-trump-alan-dershowtitz.html ).
172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024)
William Baude* & Michael Stokes Paulsen**
* Harry Kalven, Jr. Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School.
** Distinguished University Chair and Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas Law School.
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for-
mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a
range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse-
quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes
by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to
the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation.
Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification
from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be
enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications.
Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super-
sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex
post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the
First Amendment.
Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the
authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa-
tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including
the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump,
and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over-
throw of the 2020 presidential election.
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3
I. Section Three is Legally Operative Today........................................................ 7
A. The Generality and Presumptive Perpetuity of Constitutional Language ........... 7
B. Has Congress Removed the Disability for Everyone for All Time? (And Could It
Do So If It Wanted To?) ............................................................................................ 11
II. Section Three is Legally Self-Executing ........................................................ 17
A. Section Three as Automatic Legal Disqualification ........................................... 17
B. Who (All) Can (Must) Faithfully Apply and Enforce Section Three? ................. 22
1. Seeking Office ................................................................................................... 23
a. by election...................................................................................................... 23
b. by appointment ............................................................................................. 26
2. Holding Office ................................................................................................... 27
3. Special Situations ............................................................................................. 29
C. The Problem of Griffin’s Case.............................................................................. 35
1. Background ....................................................................................................... 35
2. Chase on Section Three .................................................................................... 37
a. “The argument from inconveniences, great as these” ................................. 37
b. The argument from “the intention of the people” ........................................ 40
c. The argument that Section Three should not be read to depart from the
“spirit” of prior constitutional law.................................................................... 42
d. The argument from the Section Five enforcement power ........................... 44
3. Griffin’s Self-Defeating and Highly Irregular Dictum.................................... 45
III. Section Three Supersedes, Qualifies, or Satisfies Prior Constitutional
Provisions .................................................................................................................. 49
A. Bills of Attainder.................................................................................................. 53
B. Ex Post Facto Laws.............................................................................................. 54
C. Due Process of Law .............................................................................................. 56
D. The Ominous Question: Section Three and the First Amendment..................... 57
IV. Section Three’s Substantive Disqualification is Sweeping ...................... 61
A. Section Three’s Disqualifying Conduct: “Insurrection or Rebellion”; “Engaged In”;
“Aid or Comfort” to “Enemies” ................................................................................. 63
1. Working definitions .......................................................................................... 64
2. Contemporaneous Dictionary Definitions ....................................................... 69
3. Intratextualism................................................................................................. 72
4. Contemporaneous Public, Political, Legal Usage............................................ 73
a. President Lincoln .......................................................................................... 74
b. Congress ........................................................................................................ 79
i. The Ironclad Oath ...................................................................................... 79
ii. The Second Confiscation Act .................................................................... 81
c. The Supreme Court’s decision in The Prize Cases ....................................... 84
5. Other Extant Statutory Sources and Notorious Examples ............................ 86
a. The Insurrection Acts (and Insurrections Generally) ................................. 86
b. The Congressional Exclusion Debates ......................................................... 92
6. Legislative History ........................................................................................... 98
7. Early Applications of Section Three ................................................................ 99
B. What Prior Officeholders are Covered? What Future Offices are Barred?....... 104
C. The Attempted Overthrow of the 2020 Presidential Election ........................... 111
1. The Question of Coverage: Insurrection and Rebellion ................................ 112
2. The Question of Participation: “Engaged in” and “Aid or Comfort” ............. 116
a. General Principles Concerning Culpable Participation ............................ 116
b. Section Three Disqualifies Donald Trump from Future Office................. 117
c. Beyond Trump ............................................................................................. 121
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 124
Big Security Chief Netanyahu runs a mad-with-rage incompetent unprofessional "security" force
He sold himself as only-I-can-keep-you-safe.
Then paid Hamas under the table to destabilize everything so he could sabotage any peace attempts.
Then sleepily thought he had controlled the opposition.
His incompetent army ignored the warnings of the women frontline observers on Oct 7. Women in the IDF who had been sidelined out of regular military activities to be observers that could be ignored.
Then indiscriminate bombing and loss of civilian life.
Now this.
Authoritarians are fundamentally incompetent. That's why they depend so much on violence and force.
There were 28 months of investigation before appointing the SC
0. I know it's frustrating and worrying. I likewise feel some of the frustration and worry.
1. Lots of shock troops were arrested, indicted, convicted.
1b. Higher ups, like the Oaf Keepers have been investigated, indicted, convicted, sentenced. Their cases play into the bigger cases.
2. There is no way Smith would have been able to make charges so quickly after appointment without there being an ongoing investigation. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
3. Perhaps you'd like to dump on Fani Willis for investigating so long. Just because her investigation has become more visible does not mean DoJ was not investigating.
4. Yes, evidence was there since J6, but not evidence of all activities, nor the depth of evidence available now, not evidence strong enough to convince a jury. We all know of tRump's tweet "It will be wild" as known evidence for example, but that alone is not going to convince a jury. Look at Smith's notice of Expert Witnesses re geolocating. It takes a lot of work to winnow the wheat from the chaff. Then when you finally have the wheat, you still have to correlate it with conspiratorial actions and activities. It is not enough to say that person A spoke to person T on Jan 5, but there has to be corrobarting evidence as to what that conversation was about. That means hundreds of interviews, as just one thing.
5. tRump was not the only person that the investigation had to contend with or charge or investigate.
6. Many aspects of such investigations have to be kept secret and quiet so that involve people don't hide evidence.
With all the online sleuths finding MAGAs, why haven't online MAGAs found BLM/antifa/"Fibbies"?
Reason: they weren't there. Are MAGAs / AmFIrsters lazy? Incompetent? Possibly. But common sense indicates that no BLM/antifa were there since they all publicly warned each other to stay away and there is no evidence they were there.
There was one guy whose loyalties were cloudy; some kind of citizen journalist / social media player type who seemed to be trying to monetize the event. I think he was in the stairwell near the idiot woman climbing through the broken glass panel into the Speakers area when she got shot.
That's it.
This is why when people shout Deep State, they can be shut down by pointing out how their factoids (lies) don't fit in any kind of connected view of reality.
But then they would say:
Of course no BLM/antifa/"fibbies" were found! All the online sleuths are commies and won't turn in other commies. All of them, hundreds, maybe thousands. Just shows you how much the Deep State / WEF will buy people up. All of them so bought that nobody switches; they stay bought. Managed by a few dozen enforcers, all of them loyal. Not a peep out of anybody. Deep State is very deep. Only us free America Firsters and Always Trumpers can see this. They oppress us but we are strong.
Anytime MAGAs get confronted with a fact going against their narrative, they always appeal to the ever present all powerful beyond ultrarich globohomo/WEF/Deep State. It's their escape hatch.
But of course it does not fit with any kind of connected view of reality.
The wording in the law that intrigues me
I am intrigued by the phrase "within the scope of official duties" or something very similar. I think it would be a hard case to make that coordinating a mob attack on the Capitol was necessary for him to do in his official duties.
Case sure sounds like a coordination thing, Don mob boss, where he probably talked to people withing the Capitol grounds perimiter during the riot.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: Fri Jul 16, 2004, 11:36 PM
Number of posts: 48,941