New Hampshire moves to disqualify Trump from Presidency under 14th Amendment

[KeithD]

If you don't realise that you need to start working towards a solution, one in which everyone agrees to some sane and sensible limitations, mark my words, the 2nd amendment will be struck down by these 3 generations of voter. It's only a decade away.

The 2nd Amendment only needs to be reinterpreted correctly--as it's actually written.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The 2nd Amendment only needs to be reinterpreted correctly--as it's actually written.

That goes to my point, if the two sides can't come to an agreement, then I think the youth coming up will vote in those who will amend the constitution. These dumbfucks who just love their steel penises, don't seem to get the point they are losing the "majority" just because they think they can rely on the "Rural" states.

So those Purple states, how many have now gone full blue? These idiots don't seem to get that "liberals" leaving say California, moving to say Texas, are still going to vote "Liberal". How many New Yorker's have moved to Georgia, now making that state from hard Red, to Purple, in only two elections.

I agree the 2nd only needs a more modern reading, but these diehards have no intention of taking one step backwards, and that IMHO will be what moves to a complete reversal of your 2A.

 

[icanhelp1]

Basically, this says it all right here.

"Incitement of insurrection." Legitimate grounds for impeachment right here, and the reason why he was impeached, and...according to the 14th amendment, exactly why he should be disqualified from ever holding office in the U.S.- or being on the ballot on ANY state.

Any legal scholar worth their weight will (or should) understand this. Icanhelp claims to be a lawyer, but the fact that he does not, makes me really doubt his legal credentials are in the least way valid.

Impeachment is a political process, on top of that Trump was out of office, the senate would not convict a president not in office. Pelosi was grasping at straws. The reason for impeachment is to set the stage, provide sufficient evidence of bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors for a ruling by the senate for removal. How do you remove someone already removed. At the time Trump was a civilian which would mean that a referral of *incitement of a insurrection* would have to be lateraled to the justice department for trial, but that never happened.. The charge of insurrection in today’s indictment doesn’t exist. Can’t convict if there are no charges. Don’t put too much stock in Adam Schiff’s rhetoric Or the federalist society. IMHO

 

[icanhelp1]

That goes to my point, if the two sides can't come to an agreement, then I think the youth coming up will vote in those who will amend the constitution. These dumbfucks who just love their steel penises, don't seem to get the point they are losing the "majority" just because they think they can rely on the "Rural" states.

So those Purple states, how many have now gone full blue? These idiots don't seem to get that "liberals" leaving say California, moving to say Texas, are still going to vote "Liberal". How many New Yorker's have moved to Georgia, now making that state from hard Red, to Purple, in only two elections.

I agree the 2nd only needs a more modern reading, but these diehards have no intention of taking one step backwards, and that IMHO will be what moves to a complete reversal of your 2A.

You would need a convention of states, 2/3 RDS majority vote. Not easy.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You would need a convention of states, 2/3 RDS majority vote. Not easy.

Today it's not, give it a few more election cycles as these young voters start casting their ballots. You just lost the state of Georgia, and that took 2 cycles....

This link may help you understand the explosive growth in this phenomenon of school shootings.

https://www.chds.us/sssc/charts-graphs/

 

[KeithD]

That goes to my point, if the two sides can't come to an agreement, then I think the youth coming up will vote in those who will amend the c

My point is that it only needs a reinterpretation by the Supreme Court in a future case. It doesn't need a constitutional amendment, because the original wording doesn't support the current ruling.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

My point is that it only needs a reinterpretation by the Supreme Court in a future case. It doesn't need a constitutional amendment, because the original wording doesn't support the current ruling.

I agree with what you are saying. I just don't see SCOTUS ( in it's current make up) moving the bar that way. Which leaves voters only one other option.

 

[KeithD]

I agree with what you are saying. I just don't see SCOTUS ( in it's current make up) moving the bar that way. Which leaves voters only one other option.

The future that's going to change the composition of the voting base is also going to change the composition of the Supreme Court.

 

[Bray123]

The amazing thing is that there are so many school shootings a year that people can produce pie charts, bar charts, maps and analysis.

And hill-billies see no reason to change their behavior. Nothing to see here, but a bunch of commies who want to steal my well-polished gunz. Move along or I'll shoot you as well.

 

[Dribble]

I agree with what you are saying. I just don't see SCOTUS ( in it's current make up) moving the bar that way. Which leaves voters only one other option.

Two options. If you are looking to "fix" the problem in all 50 states...zero options.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

Impeachment is a political process, on top of that Trump was out of office, the senate would not convict a president not in office. Pelosi was grasping at straws. The reason for impeachment is to set the stage, provide sufficient evidence of bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors for a ruling by the senate for removal. How do you remove someone already removed. At the time Trump was a civilian which would mean that a referral of *incitement of a insurrection* would have to be lateraled to the justice department for trial, but that never happened.. The charge of insurrection in today’s indictment doesn’t exist. Can’t convict if there are no charges. Don’t put too much stock in Adam Schiff’s rhetoric Or the federalist society. IMHO

Doesn't matter. They think they're Clint Eastwood getting full measure out of a corpse.

Even an empty chair still has a squeak awaiting an ass...

 

[VinnyVeritas]

You would need a convention of states, 2/3 RDS majority vote. Not easy.

Quit trying to 'splain things to the Canadians.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Quit trying to 'splain things to the Canadians.

Explain what? You think I am unaware of the number? I'm not, what I am trying to explain to you dumbass American steel penis lovers is soon that 2/3rds vote will be achivable. Right now you just laugh and say it won't happen.

Doesn't matter to me, I don't have the 2A to worry about losing. We also don't have the mass shootings driving a call for firearm reform,either...

 

[zipman]

Not surprising.

Democrats realize they can't beat Trump at the ballot box, so they have to find alternate means of rigging the next election. It's what they do.

Exactly how stupid are you? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[phrodeau]

Another lawsuit has been filed in Colorado.

https://coloradosun.com/2023/09/06/donald-trump-2024-ballot-lawsuit-colorado/

 

[Bray123]

Another lawsuit has been filed in Colorado.

https://coloradosun.com/2023/09/06/donald-trump-2024-ballot-lawsuit-colorado/

It'll be interesting to see what the guano-psychotic* congresswoman for Colorado will have to say about that.


*batshit-crazy

 

[JohnnySavage]

The 2nd Amendment only needs to be reinterpreted correctly--as it's actually written.

You should run for a spot on the Supreme Court.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Exactly how stupid are you? Inquiring minds want to know.

In 20 years, have you ever posted about the topic at hand and not about a poster? How can someone spend 20 years as a troll on a porn board? It boggles the mind.

 

[zipman]

In 20 years, have you ever posted about the topic at hand and not about a poster? How can someone spend 20 years as a troll on a porn board? It boggles the mind.

I post about topics all the time. But that was truly a moronic statement and not worthy of a serious comment.

 

[KeithD]

You should run for a spot on the Supreme Court.

I don't have to. There are former Supreme Court justices and quite a few judges actually qualified for the position who make the same point I did.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I don't have to. There are former Supreme Court justices and quite a few judges actually qualified for the position who make the same point I did.

Great. In 20 years or so, maybe the Court will come around to agreeing with your Constitutional position.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

New Hampshire 14th amendment dreamers need to get that Hail Mary pass off quickly. The state’s presidential primary date has not been officially set but is expected to be sometime in January. Roughly 4 months from now. There are cut off dates prior to that to allow time for printing and early voting.

 

[Bray123]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ga-se...fforts-remove-trump-ballot-op-ed-trust-voters
Brad Raffensperger is refusing to take Trump's name off the Georgia ballot. The spineless idiot.

An early version of the Fox 'News' item described it as an 'obscure' section of law (now edited out). The US Constitution is obscure!

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ga-se...fforts-remove-trump-ballot-op-ed-trust-voters
Brad Raffensperger is refusing to take Trump's name off the Georgia ballot. The spineless idiot.

An early version of the Fox 'News' item described it as an 'obscure' section of law (now edited out). The US Constitution is obscure!

As he writes in this morning’s WSJ opinion section:

For a secretary of state to remove a candidate would only reinforce the grievances of those who see the system as rigged and corrupt. Denying voters the opportunity to choose is fundamentally un-American. Since our founding, Americans have believed that a government is just when it has earned the consent of the governed. Taking away the ability to choose—or object to—the eligibility of candidates eliminates that consent for slightly less than half of the country.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cant...wczr65bwb4qb3mt&reflink=article_copyURL_share

 

[Bray123]

As he writes in this morning’s WSJ opinion section:

Whose fault is it that Americans see the system as rigged?
All Trump had to do according to Raffensperger is lie until sufficient people have been fooled, then he has to be allowed to run again so that he can continue to lie until he has the opportunity to try to pardon himself and stay out of prison for those lies!

Lewis Carroll is next to be on the list of banned authors.