Colorado Sec. 3 14th Amendment arguments made. Did Trump 'engage' in an insurrection?

But, the Constitution does say:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...

 

Trump meets the constitutional requirements, hence he has the right to be on the ballot.

 

No, a mere accusation isn't enough. I never made that claim.

Of course, To be disqualified, evidence will be presented under the concept of fairness.

Moreover, Bribery nor treason is mentioned in section 3 of the 14th so your point is moot. (But there is no credible evidence, anyway).

With Trump, there are tons of videos for the persons assigned to qualify a candidate can peruse, and make his or her decision.,

See the difference?

 

There is no evidence Biden participated in any insurrection or rebellion against the United states constitution. So your point is moot.

No one is claiming, under the concept of fairness, those who are assigned with the duty of qualifying a candidate will not look at evidence.

 

Not if he engaged in an insurrection and gave aid and comfort to the enemies thereof.

We don't know, they are litigating the issue. You might be right, you might be wrong.

 

We shall see, we shall see. Definitely worth a try, given his participation in an insurrection and giving and and comfort to the enemies of the constitution.

 

What about those who will go to prison for many years after being convicted of sedition?

Haven't you heard?

 

Section 3 of the 14th is NOT A CRIMINAL SANCTION. It is an administrative action. No convictions were present when the confederates who sought to be on a ballot were denied access.

Capiche?

 

Insurrection is a capital crime.

 

Until he's been convicted, he's innocent of that charge.

No, I'm right. You know I'm right. You know that if Trump is barred from the ballot, without a conviction, that it's unconstitutional. You'll just go along with it, however, because "Orange Man Bad".

 

so is fraudulent application of being on a presidential ballot. If you are under 35 and claim you are thirty five, you have committed a federal crime, but section 3 of the 14th doesn't address the criminal aspect, it just observes and disqualifies. Same with participation in an insurrection. observes and disqualifies.

Section 3 of the 14th is not a criminal sanction. No crime is being charged by the department of justice, nor is it required for the administration of the qualification process.

 

Trump has only been accused of insurrection. There's no legal decision confirming that he actually participated in an insurrection. The claim that Trump participated in an insurrection is merely opinion.

 

Ok, then based on your opinion, Biden can be barred from the ballot, too.

 

No one is charging him. Section 3 of the 14th is not a criminal sanction.

I'm not seeing any evidence, in law or historical precedence, that supports your claim. In fact, both reveal the opposite is true.

 

What insurrection did Biden participate in?

Your point is moot.

 

If it is the opinion of those whose duty is to qualify or disqualify, they can bar him from the ballot. They will, of course, given the concept of fairness, scrutinize mightily the evidence.

Section 3 of the 14th is not a criminal sanction. it is an administrative action.

How many more times do you need this explained to you?

I think the problem lies in the fact that you are having difficulty making the intellectual distinction between a criminal sanction and an administrative action. Is this the problem?

I do acknowledge, that my opinion might be determined wrong by a court, so we shall see what the courts say. It will probably go to the SCOTUS.

 

If you try to get in a presidential ballot, and you are 33, but you lie and claim you are 35, you have committed a federal crime.

Once discovered, you will be disqualified, not criminally, but ADMINISTRATIVELY.

Same applies for the insurrection.

 

In that case, Biden can just as easily be barred from the ballot.

 

Trump isn't under 35 years of age...lol

 

It's an example illustrating a point, a point you are clearly missing.

 

Biden committed treason. That's all that is needed.

 

Not at issue with section 3.

 

Your point has failed, miserably...lol

 

Not according to section 3.

Your point is moot. But,. there is no evidence, anyway.

 

You know you lost your argument when your only rebuttal doesn't rise above an empty 'you are wrong'.