The Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution limits the number of times a person can be elected to the office of President of the United States to two terms, and sets additional eligibility conditions for presidents who succeed to the unexpired terms of their predecessors.
So for the third time, has he been convicted in court of serving two terms?
Gibberish
Most of what you post is.
No one said Trump had been elected twice.
Trump claims he's been elected twice, and you have agreed with Trump.
What? The impeachments were Feb 21, 2021 and Jan 13, 2021. The Colorado Supreme Court kicked Trump off the ballot on Dec 18, 2023...
Even if I agreed that either impeachment was a sham, in no way did Congress ever vote to exempt him from the 14th amendment.
In the second impeachment a congressional vote failed to convict Trump for insurrection.
A congressional vote to not convict for insurrection may satisfy section V of the 14th amendment. I’m not going to try to predict how SCOTUS will rule. Trump haters are pulling out all the stop and now have lowered themselves to lawfare to eliminate Trump.
The 2/3 Congressional vote will allow him to run it has nothing to do with conviction for insurrection. It is simply a Constitutional solution to allow someone who has participated in an insurrection to run.. Why do republicans have so much trouble simply following the Constitution?
Both courts in Colorado said Trump participated in an insurrection. The lower court determined the 14th didn't apply because "the office of the President" is not specifically mentioned. The upper court ruled by the nature of the "office" of the President it did.
It always comes down to emotions with you. ALWAYS
They only follow it when it agree's with them. Just like everything else the modern Republican party says and does.
Both courts in Colorado disagree with your summation.
What insurrection? Are you trying to argue a hypothetical. The constitution is clear, insurrection is a federal statute and requires due process and a trial for conviction as stated in section I of the 14th amendment . Secondly, state activist judges are interfering with elections. I understand the argument for states rights and perhaps that works for state elections but I doubt it since state legislators determine the path for state election. I see a lot of similarities with Pennsylvania where judges ruled outside their authority. This being a primary for a federal election this ruling affects across the federal spectrum and all 50 states and without a conviction for insurrection which would automatically eliminate a candidate this is judicial activism on steroids.
The one that took place on Jan 6th.
Special Prosecutor Jack Smith didn’t even attempt to include an insurrection charge. He knew how weak of a case it would have been.
It will be amusing to see how lawyers for Colorado draw comparisons between the Civil War and J6 to SCOTUS.
Yes, and let us count the reasons why
If you want to discuss Smith and his case, there are several threads about him. This thread is about Colorado finding Trump took part in an insurrection.
