The Most Significant Case of Judicial Misconduct is About to Explode

[Tax Counsel]

The fact that two states had their rulings stayed doesn't change the fact that they tried to keep him off the ballot. So, your argument is completely without merit.

My statement about the status of those three decisions to keep Trump off the ballot was merely a statement of facts, not an argument. I don't see you stating that the facts I stated were wrong. That I stated the facts is not a reflection of my views of the efforts to keep him off the ballot. Did you not read what I said: IMO the Supreme Court got it right. Yes, some people tried to keep him off the ballot. But they pursued it by legal means, using the framework set up in our legal system. Everyone has the right to do that. Some claims filed in court are absurd, but they still have the right to file it and let the court tell them it's absurd.

My opinion is that the Constitution was followed in that process, functioning as the founders intended. We got the right answer at the end of that process. Do you disagree? If so, tell me exactly what Constitutional provision was violated by what was done? What action did the parties seeking that result do that was not within their rights to do? That what they were seeking is keeping Trump off the ballot may be seen as anti-democratic, what matters is that they tried to achieve it by legal means and failed. Who exactly was harmed in the process? From my point of view, you are making more out of this than is there.

No? The very people claiming that Trump is a threat to democracy are themselves the threat to democracy.

And Trump supporters say the same thing about the left: they are a threat to democracy. Who is correct? There's no objective way to determine that. It's a matter of opinion, about which people disagree. Hardly unusual in U.S. politics. Demonizing the other side is a favorite tactic that has been used time and again in elections. As things stand now, I don't see any imminent threat to our Republic's democratic principles by either side. That could change in the future, of course, if we let our guard down.

I would rather see the candidates spend more time talking about their policy positions and what they hope to achieve if elected than trying to win by smearing the other candidate as worse than they are. I want to know their vision and plan for where the country should go rather than their attacks about how bad the other candidate is. But we rarely get that in American politics today.

 

[army judge]

As things stand now, I don't see any imminent threat to our Republic's democratic principles by either side. That could change in the future, of course, if we let our guard down.

I don't envision this nation being overthrown from within or another civil war emanating between the citizenry.

Why?

Most of our nation's citizenry are far too weak to do what our progenitors did during the early part of the 16th or 17 centuries, latter three decades of the 18th century, the latter three or four decades of the 19th century, or the first half of the 20th century.

All I've witnessed so far is plenty of hot air, laced with vapid, insepid, threats, and unfounded accusations.

That's not to say that the tens of millions of unvetted human beings already among us, or the millions more pouring in monthly won't do it at the behest of certain high ranking, politicians and their sympathizers.

 

[army judge]

I'm not surprised at what former Presidential adviser to former president Bill Clinton, Dick Morris is doing and saying these days.

This election cycle will end up being far more confrontational than 2020's election cycle ever was.

President Joe Biden dug in against his "predecessor" in a divisive State of the Union speech, but presidential campaign adviser Dick Morris on Newsmax that he made a campaign speech because former President Donald Trump is splintering so much of Biden's base.

"He's going to have to change his vocabulary and just start calling Trump his successor and not his predecessor," Morris told "Saturday Report."

"It was a terrible speech. Its tone was awful. The State of the Union speech is an opportunity to lead the country not to divide it, and he just absolutely missed it."


But Morris noted to host Rita Cosby that Biden is facing a precipitous fall in the 2024 presidential campaign and his speech smacked of some desperation.

"There's some very interesting data that I've been looking at lately, Rita," Morris continued. "Normally when two candidates are running and one candidate's gaining on the other, what he's doing usually is nibbling away at the undecided voters or the marginally committed votes.

"What Trump is doing to Biden is taking huge bites out of his base — not out of the marginal voters but his core voters.

"And the result is that Biden is now losing over a third of the Black vote to Trump. He's losing among Hispanics, 48-41. And he's losing among Gen Z voters — young voters — by up to 20 points. And that is destroying the base of the Democratic Party."

Biden's speech will not turn the tide, because it merely spoke to his hard-core base and not the voters he is losing to Trump in this election cycle, Morris added.

"When it comes actually delivering and actually doing things for the base, Biden's not doing it. And his formula has always been say that Trump's worse," Morris concluded.

"But now that it's impossible, because they're saying Trump's better.


"And I believe among Blacks, Latinos, and young people, we're reaching a tipping point where the vote is going to come overwhelmingly back to Trump with huge gains."

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/donald-trump-2024-presidential/2024/03/09/id/1156621/

 

[Redemptionman]

You say the Democrats are all communists and socialists, a view popular on the far right, especially the MAGA crowd. Those on the far left see the Republican Party, and especially Trump and his MAGAites as Fascists. A great illustration, IMO, of exaggeration by both sides to demonize the other.

Ok lets talk about what you are saying for a second to make sure I understand,

I am not going to talk about Jan 6 because you obviuosly believe it cause the MSM said so but the following are 100 percent factual statements

O'Bama is a muslim sympathizer and appologanist who attended one of the greatest socilaists in history funeral- Fidel Castro

Biden replaced the bust of Winston Churchill with that of Che Guevara

Biden through the direction of O"bama with whom he holds weekly teleconferences with gave the Iranians 100s of millions of dollars who then in turn gave it to terriorist groups in Gaza who then went and killed a bunch of Jews in Israeli with it. This is a factual statement regardless of what the world bank and others people try to deflect.

Biden with held funds from Ukraine (it is on youtube) until he got his pay offs and his crack head son served on some utility board there

Biden speaks peace and love but racial tensions and relations are at an all time low and everything is very tribal

Afganishtan -- enough said.

The world is on the edge of nuclear and WW3- this is the result of Biden expanding the UN and accepting more members while stock piling nuclear weapons on all borders to Russia

Putin considers O'Bama and Biden weak which is why he launched his opportunity war on Ukraine

Biden supports BLM, Antifa, and similar organizations who manisfesto resemble the same material from pre Hitler Germany and our own hippy movement such as the weather underground in the 60s.


I am really sorry that you feel the way you do, I am sure you live on the east coast and would probably be the first to die fast and quick when they decide to launch missles at us, However, everything they blame Trump for they are themselves doing. It states in the Bible that what was once good will be evil and what was once evil will be good and you can not tell good from evil nor man from woman.


You can call me far right MAGA all you want, I was hoping for another moderate Republician other than Trump but if a change is not made from Biden then our future is very bleak. I actually give the democratic committee a 50/50 chance of even endorsing Biden as their candidate. If he starts declining more they are going to make a change to someone like Newsom. I watched his speech and it was not uniting but rather dark, bleak and a bunch of nonsense from a senile old man who probably was asleep before he entered the chamber.

 

[army judge]

Biden speaks peace and love but racial tensions and relations are at an all time low and everything is very tribal

The name I am unable type appears in your response.
That said, the name I can't type or say, was known for extrememe, some might say racist/segregationist commentary.

Joe Biden didn't just compromise with segregationists. He fought for their cause in schools, experts say.

Joe Biden helped give America the language that is still used to oppose school integration today, legislative and education history experts say.

In a 1975 Senate hearing, the legendary civil rights lawyer Jack Greenberg had something to say to freshman Sen. Joe Biden.

Greenberg, longtime director of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, took Biden to task for sponsoring a bill that would limit the power of courts to order school desegregation with busing. It was a move that followed the wishes of many of Biden's white constituents in Delaware.


The bill "heaves a brick through the window of school integration," said Greenberg, one of the lawyers who had won the Brown v. Board of Education case that ended legal school segregation 21 years earlier. And according to Greenberg, Biden was the man with his hand on the brick.

Biden's role in fighting student busing more than four decades ago has received renewed attention after the 76-year-old presidential candidate touted his ability to compromise with segregationists during his long Senate career. Biden said he disagreed strongly with these Southerners' views but needed to work with them to get things done. Biden's comments set off a firestorm among his political rivals and some political analysts, who described his language as offensive and anachronistic.

But political experts and education policy researchers say Biden, a supporter of civil rights in other arenas, did not simply compromise with segregationists — he also led the charge on an issue that kept black students away from the classrooms of white students. His legislative work against school integration advanced a more palatable version of the "separate but equal" doctrine and undermined the nation's short-lived effort at educational equality, legislative and education history experts say.

"Biden, who I think has been good overall on civil rights, was a leader on anti-busing," Rucker Johnson, author of the book "Children of the Dream: Why School Integration Works," said. "A leader on giving America the language to oppose it despite it being the most effective means of school integration at that time."

That, of course, is not how Biden sees it.

On Saturday, Biden defended his work with segregationist senators in an interview with the Rev. Al Sharpton on MSNBC: "You got to deal with what's in front of you and what was in front of you was a bunch of racists and we had to defeat them."

After this article was originally published, Biden's national press secretary, Jamal Brown, emailed a statement saying that Biden was never opposed to integration, and in fact supported the concept. But he said Biden opposed Delaware's busing methods, and included statements from black activists in Delaware who also opposed busing.

In March, Biden's spokesman, Bill Russo, said the former vice president believes he was right to oppose busing.

"He never thought busing was the best way to integrate schools in Delaware — a position which most people now agree with," Russo told The Washington Post in March. "As he said during those many years of debate, busing would not achieve equal opportunity. And it didn't."

In 1975, Biden was representing a state where one of the first major urban school desegregation plans had been ordered by a court. Many white parents in the Wilmington area were angry. In response, Biden sponsored not just the bill limiting courts' power but also an amendment to an appropriations bill that barred the federal government from withholding funding from schools that remained effectively segregated.

The amendment went beyond the busing issue, affecting school systems that effectively separated students by race whether or not they used busing. Co-sponsors included segregationist Sens. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and Strom Thurmond, R-S.C. The amendment passed the Senate on a 50-43 vote, including majorities of both Democrats and Republicans. (Biden was not alone among northern Democrats who supported it — in that group, 14 supported the amendment and 26 opposed it, according to the Congressional Quarterly.)
When Biden rose to defend the amendment, he said that the "assignment of schools and/or classes because of a person's race ... is a counterproductive concept that is causing more harm to equal education than any benefit."

Biden's anti-integration efforts didn't end in 1975. Two years later, he co-authored a bill that barred federal courts from ordering busing plans unless courts found evidence of discriminatory intent. That legislation failed.

A 1977 report on school desegregation by the Civil Rights Commission, a federal agency, described Biden's activities as stymieing school integration.

Federal data analyzed by Johnson and other researchers shows that busing succeeded in narrowing racial achievement gaps before frontal assaults and legislative maneuvers by Biden and others rendered it easier for districts under court order to be released from integration demands. America's school integration efforts lasted, all told, no more than 15 years, Johnson said.

Johnson has reviewed data on more than 10,000 students from this period, who were studied for decades afterward. He found that black adults who spent the most time in integrated schools attained more education, completed college, maintained better health and earned higher incomes than peers who spent less time or no time in integrated schools. All of this happened without any reduction in white student grades or outcomes, the data shows. And white adults who attended integrated schools reported better understanding of issues affecting nonwhite Americans.

"Integration is a social good which also happens to make for high-quality education," said Johnson, an economist and professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley. "It is also the one thing that has worked but the one thing most people don't want to talk about and many people fight if we even try."

Biden was particularly effective in fighting integration because he did not use the overtly racist language of the segregationists, who warned of race mixing and black inferiority, Johnson said. Instead, Biden, along with other centrists and liberals, talked about "forced busing," "local control" and "parents' rights."

At the time, Biden said the solution was not busing but creating better schools everywhere, something the country has failed to accomplish.

That idea has shown up all over the country in recent years, in school assignment fights from Brooklyn to Birmingham. It is dressed up but essentially an argument for separate but equal schools, Johnson said.

Apart from the busing issue, Biden developed a legislative history in other areas key to black Americans over his decades in the Senate. It includes support for fair housing, employment and voting rights, as well as credit and lending equality and opposition to the apartheid in South Africa.

Today, Biden has an army of defenders in the Congressional Black Caucus and in Democratic political circles.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., described Biden as an inclusive, energetic supporter of civil rights — and said the busing issue was an exception.

"He disappointed, if you would, mainstream progressive Democrats, including me, and yet I considered him an ally in most fights and was always glad to have him on my side," Hamilton said.

But to critics, Biden's cozy familiarity with deal-making among white men does not pair well with the often uncomfortable, sometimes disruptive, work of creating equality.

"Is this the model of politics and government that he's operating in today?" said Brenda Carter, director of the Reflective Democracy Campaign, which aims to change the demographics of political power.

These critics want to know whether Biden would be an ally in this fight for equality. While children of color comprise the majority of students in public K-12 classrooms, most attend low-quality, highly segregated schools.

"For those of us who didn't have any power and had no seat at the bargaining table, this is part of the reason we are so deeply in need of bodacious, radical reforms today," said LaTosha Brown, co-founder of Black Voters Matter, which advocates for expanded voting access.

Biden's use of "not segregationists but avowed racists as a reference point for how you work across the aisle," she said, "begs the question of literally who is he trying to appeal to."

Joe Biden didn’t just compromise with segregationists. He fought for their cause in schools, experts say.

Joe Biden helped give America the language that is still used to oppose school integration today, legislative and education history experts say.

www.nbcnews.com

A Fiery Speech, Heard Across The Nation

All of the major news networks covered Wallace's inaugural address on national television that day. And Wallace, Carter says, decided to "milk that for everything that he can."

The late Wayne Greenhaw, a newspaper reporter in Montgomery at the time, made a similar observation. "He was putting on a show. He marched back and forth, shook his fist," Greenhaw recalled shortly before his death in 2011. "He was promising that he would stand alone for the Southern cause and the cause of the white people."

Wallace's speech — and its delivery — was "vehement ... mean spirited ... hateful. It's like a rattlesnake was hissing it, almost," Greenhaw said.

"Let us send this message back to Washington, via the representatives who are here with us today," Wallace told the crowd. "From this day, we are standing up, and the heel of tyranny does not fit the neck of an upright man.

"Let us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us, and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South," Wallace declared from the podium. "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw a line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say, segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever."

Poe, the former NAACP chapter president, says he and his colleagues were taken aback. "To hear the governor of a state get up and make the kind of comments that you would expect that someone in the back alley, with their sheets on and burning crosses would make — that was the thing that really caught us."

'Words Can Be Dangerous'

Poe says Wallace was determined to continue to exercise states' rights — and to continue to segregate — "no matter what the Supreme Court said in Brown v. Board of Education, no matter what the federal government [was] saying."

Reflecting on his response to the speech at the time, Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat, originally from Alabama, says he took Wallace's words personally. "My governor, this elected official, was saying in effect, you are not welcome, you are not welcome," Lewis says.

"Words can be very powerful. Words can be dangerous," Lewis says. "Gov. Wallace never pulled a trigger. He never fired a gun. But in his speech, he created the environment for others to pull the trigger, in the days, the weeks and months to come."

Indeed, violence quickly followed Wallace's inauguration, says Poe. "We began to feel the sting of the speech. People night-riding and burning crosses. The police beat down people and ran over them with horses, put tear gas on them."

And later that year, four girls were killed in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Alabama.

"This was a very a difficult time in the American South," Lewis says.

"Segregation now, segregation forever" quickly became Wallace's symbol, Greenhaw recalled. "Before Wallace made that speech, the editorial page editor of the Montgomery Advertiser tried to get Wallace to take out that part" of the speech. "And Wallace said, 'Without that, it won't stand up.'

"Much later in life, he probably wished he had taken it out," Greenhaw said.

'He Wanted People To Forgive Him'

While George Wallace was elected Alabama's governor three more times and made four runs for president, he would never hold national office. Carter says Wallace's inaugural address ensured he could never become president.

"Most Americans — what they know about George Wallace is, 'Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,' " Carter says. "That line is so iconic, so important. And George Wallace was on the wrong side of history."

Wallace himself became a victim of violence on May 15, 1972, while campaigning for president in Maryland. He was shot five times as he stepped out from behind a bulletproof podium. One of the bullets badly damaged his spinal cord, leaving him paralyzed.

"One has to wonder if, sitting in that wheelchair, maybe he had a chance to contemplate," Poe says of Wallace's years after the shooting.

Some years later, after Lewis had been elected to Congress, he heard from Wallace. "He said, 'John Lewis, will you come by and talk with me?'

"And I remember the occasion so well," Lewis says. "It was like someone confessing to their priest or to a minister. He wanted people to forgive him. He said to me, 'I never hated anybody; I never hated any black people.'

"He said, 'Mr. Lewis, I'm sorry.' And I said, 'Well, governor, I accept your apology.' "

Poe was also able to reach the same conclusion. "Being the type of person I am, out of my heart and soul, I can forgive George Wallace. Yes. Heaven's sakes, I forgive him," Poe says. "But forget? No. Never."

Even today, Lewis says he often reflects on the governor's speech.

"Does it hurt me? No," Lewis says. "In the end, I think George Wallace was one of the signs on this long journey towards the creation of a better America, toward the creation of a more perfect union. It was just one of the stumbling blocks along the way."

In his later years, Wallace reached out to civil rights activists and appeared in black churches to ask forgiveness. In his last election as governor of Alabama, in 1982, he won with more than 90 percent of the black vote. Wallace died in September 1998.

https://www.npr.org/2013/01/14/169080969/segregation-forever-a-fiery-pledge-forgiven-but-not-forgotten

 

[Tax Counsel]

I am really sorry that you feel the way you do, I am sure you live on the east coast

Once again, you assume something about me that is not true.

You can call me far right MAGA all you want, I was hoping for another moderate Republician other than Trump

On that we agree, a moderate Republican would be a far better choice than either of the candidates we now have. The country, left and right, more and more seem to reject moderation in favor of extremism. If that trend continues, then the American experiment with a democratic republic will end and we'll get some despot in charge instead.

 

[welkin]

My statement about the status of those three decisions to keep Trump off the ballot was merely a statement of facts, not an argument. I don't see you stating that the facts I stated were wrong. That I stated the facts is not a reflection of my views of the efforts to keep him off the ballot. Did you not read what I said: IMO the Supreme Court got it right. Yes, some people tried to keep him off the ballot. But they pursued it by legal means, using the framework set up in our legal system. Everyone has the right to do that. Some claims filed in court are absurd, but they still have the right to file it and let the court tell them it's absurd.

Your facts were correct. And anyone can file any suit if it is founded in the law. But a suit that is 100% motivated by political bias and not the law is using our judicial system to the detriment of the rule of law. Some states recognized that and dismissed cases to disqualify Trump. The entire concept that states could pick our president is absurd and contrary to the Constitution. Yet they tried.

My opinion is that the Constitution was followed in that process, functioning as the founders intended. We got the right answer at the end of that process. Do you disagree? If so, tell me exactly what Constitutional provision was violated by what was done? What action did the parties seeking that result do that was not within their rights to do? That what they were seeking is keeping Trump off the ballot may be seen as anti-democratic, what matters is that they tried to achieve it by legal means and failed. Who exactly was harmed in the process? From my point of view, you are making more out of this than is there.

What the founders intended in the 14th Amendment; Section 3 is not unclear. It is plain language:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

First, there is no mention of the President (it mentions electors of the President) and the President is not an officer of the United States. Second, it says that Congress has the power to remove the disability by a two-thirds vote. It says Congress has the power.

Look at Section 5:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Again, this is clear language.

The cases brought to keep Trump off the ballot were not founded in the law or the Constitution and should never have been brought. They tried to subvert what the founders intended.

But I will agree with you that the process worked, and the expedited Supreme Court ruling put an end to the bullshit.

Your question, Who exactly was harmed in the process? The Nation, the people, the rule of law, Trump, and even lawyers that were defending him. Don't forget about the 65 Project. They filled another ethics complaint against a Trump lawyer (Stefan Passontino) less than a month ago.

And Trump supporters say the same thing about the left: they are a threat to democracy. Who is correct? There's no objective way to determine that. It's a matter of opinion, about which people disagree. Hardly unusual in U.S. politics. Demonizing the other side is a favorite tactic that has been used time and again in elections. As things stand now, I don't see any imminent threat to our Republic's democratic principles by either side. That could change in the future, of course, if we let our guard down.

The Biden administration is complicit in all these federal and state criminal cases. It is their plan to defeat Trump in 2024. But it is backfiring big time. In the Fani Willis case, she met with VP Harris at the White House and her special prosecutor, Wade, met with White House staff council. It's all in the judicial record now. And let's not leave out Jack Smith the hack that was banished to the Hage before he was brought back to go after Trump. He was never approved as special council. That is before the court also.

If you haven't noticed, I am not advocating for Trump. I am advocating for the rule of law and the Constitution. When a society doesn't have the trust in the judicial system the society will crumble, and we are well into the corruption of the system if you haven't noticed.

If you like to read and like the law, you should read The Law by Frederic Bastiat written in 1850 about the brake down of the law just before the French Revolution. It's a profound explanation of what we may be in for. $3.00 in paperback on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1680920634/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_image_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

And I will predict that the Supreme Court will find that the President is immune from prosecution based on what they said in the Colorado case on keeping Trump off the ballot. Why? Because they don't want this BS to continue.

 

[stealthy1]

O'Bama is a muslim sympathizer and appologanist who attended one of the greatest socilaists in history funeral- Fidel Castro

Biden replaced the bust of Winston Churchill with that of Che Guevara

See, this is where it gets hard to take you seriously. Obama did not attend Castro's funeral - he sent a WH aide, not even a delegation. As for the Churchill bust? It was replaced with one of Cesar Chavez - who was not the same person as Che Guevara.

Now, I'm pretty sure that TC and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and that's okay. I read his posts and give them serious consideration because he can convey his opinions both thoughtfully and respectfully.

ETA: While I *personally* believe that T***p both encouraged and participated in an insurrection, I also understand that he has neither been charged (unfortunately) nor convicted of such. And so, he has the right to be on the ballot. Hopefully, enough people see him for the person he is and vote against him.

 

[Tax Counsel]

First, there is no mention of the President (it mentions electors of the President) and the President is not an officer of the United States. Second, it says that Congress has the power to remove the disability by a two-thirds vote. It says Congress has the power.

But there had been considerable debate about whether in fact the President is included in term "officers". If you Google it, you'll see a variety of opinions on that. Indeed, Trump himself seems to believe that is the case as that was the very reason he sought, and was granted, removal of the lawsuit against him and his hotel at the Old Post Office building in DC, which happens to sit right next to the IRS headquarters building. As the federal appeals court opinion states, "President Trump removed the suit to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)." That section states that among those who may be granted removal are:

(1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.

If he was not an officer of of the United States he would not qualify for removal to federal court based on that particular particular paragraph. Obviously, the fact that he relied on that means he and his lawyers considered him an officer of the United States. For that reason the opinion in the case uses the term "officer" repeatedly in its explanation of why removal was required.

The same issue of whether the president is an officer of the United States came up in the Colorado Supreme Court regarding whether Trump was ineligible to be on the Colorado primary and general election ballots. The U.S. Supreme Court noted that ruling of the Colorado court but did not discuss it any further; it let that part of the decision stand. Instead, the court moved on to next issue that comes up: who may enforce that provision of the Constitution barring insurrectionists being officers of the U.S. from holding a federal office. That question is only needed if the person in question is seeking a postion of an officer of the U.S. The Court could have ended the matter easily be declaring that Presidents are not officers of the U.S. The case would then be over and it would not be necessary to get into who may enforce it. You don't need to decide how to enforce a provision against someone who isn't even among the persons subject to that provision.

But while the court did not take on the Colorado Supreme Court decision that the president is an officer of the U.S., the Court concluded, as you did, that the power to enforce that provision lies with Congress. The Supreme Court, however, used a different analysis to get there. The shortcoming with your analysis is that the amendment only states that Congress has the power to remove the disability (that is, to remove the inability to hold the office) but is silent on who may determine that the candidate is inelgible in the first place. That once unanswered question has finally been resolved by the Court.

As I said before, IMO the Court reached the right result. You and I have no disagreement on that, so far as I can tell.

Trump is the Republican nominee. His staff is already taking over the top Republican National Committee positions. He'll be on the ballot in November. And the People will decide which of these less than perfect candidates they think is best suited for the job. That, I think, will best serve the interests of the nation. It's up to the People who they want to lead them.

 

[welkin]

But there had been considerable debate about whether in fact the President is included in term "officers"

The debate is fine about the term officer. But I, and the majority of Constitutional scholars, are strict constructionist. That is a theory limiting interpretation of legal and constitutional language to the literal meaning of this language at the time of passage.

It's clear from the records that the 14th amendment was passed to exclude confederates from holding office in the government after the Civil War. That is not where we are here now. What is pleaded in any given case is not controlling in another case except what the Supreme Court says. So, to plead that you are an officer in one case is not indicative of what the Constitution says about another case. They have to be taken in context. You do believe in strict construction of the Constitution? And subversion of the language should not be permitted, right?

As I said before, IMO the Court reached the right result. You and I have no disagreement on that, so far as I can tell

We have no disagreement on that. The Supreme Court did exactly what it had to do, and it went a step further. It put a road stop in future attempts for states to try to disqualify candidates.

I think that the majority opinion is saying that we (the justices) don't want this before us again in the future. I think that a similar ruling will come down on the Presidential immunity case because the Supremes want to put an end to political prosecutions, rogue judges, and prosecutors who use the law to go after their political foes. I think the SCOTUS sees the danger to the judicial system. I can only hope that is true.

It's up to the People who they want to lead them.

That is what it is all about, an election without interference from political operatives or opponents.

 

[army judge]

That is what it is all about, an election without interference from political operatives or opponents.

From the tips of your FINGERS dancing across your keyboard to the ubiquitous eyes of God Almighty. AMEN.

 

[stealthy1]

Oh, but were there an eye-rolling emoji…

 

[Redemptionman]

Guevara equals Caesar Chavez both are socialist fundamentalists and I suggest you read the Hussein O'Bama's Dreams of My father for a further understanding of how anti white, anti colonialism and anti American he is. The United Nations should have been disbanded along with several other alphabet agencies which JFK was about to do before they had to off him.

The Skulls and Bones may never return Geronimo, but those people are freaking evil no matter how you cut it. You think this crazy stuff is made up or not factual, I did too before seeing the family of Geronimo sued Skulls and Bones and the photos of the actual things that happen in secret societies.

 

[army judge]

Oh, but were there an eye-rolling emoji…

My goodness, mate, where have you been?

There are eye rolling emojis, living human beings, and gifs.

Prepare to be amazed and pleased.

 

[stealthy1]

My goodness, mate, where have you been?

There are eye rolling emojis, living human beings, and gifs.

Prepare to be amazed and pleased. View attachment 4693View attachment 4694View attachment 4695View attachment 4696View attachment 4697

View attachment 4698

As in - with the "Like" option. I know they're out there, "mate".

 

[stealthy1]

Guevara equals Caesar Chavez both are socialist fundamentalists and I suggest you read the Hussein O'Bama's Dreams of My father for a further understanding of how anti white, anti colonialism and anti American he is. The United Nations should have been disbanded along with several other alphabet agencies which JFK was about to do before they had to off him.

The Skulls and Bones may never return Geronimo, but those people are freaking evil no matter how you cut it. You think this crazy stuff is made up or not factual, I did too before seeing the family of Geronimo sued Skulls and Bones and the photos of the actual things that happen in secret societies.

Sigh... If you meant Chavez, then you should have named him.

 

[Redemptionman]

Churchill is dead. I tolerate most people. I, too, know my gender and which restroom to use, although I've been known to use the opposite gender one to avoid a kind line. You're just silly.

And so is Chavez, I don't see any one removing his bust. Although if the R party wins the white house again. I'm sure ole Winston will make it back. Blue states are just such silly unsustainable disaster areas that normal unsilly folk are just beside themselves trying to escape.

 

[stealthy1]

Brain cells dying…

 

[justblue]

Brain cells dying…

I did warn you!

 

[stealthy1]

I did warn you!

That you did!