Total posts: 2,186
-->
@n8nrgim
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>you're doing what everyone has been telling you that you've been doing most of this thread, and deflecting instead of engaging in debate. if everyone else sees it but you, you might want to ask yourself if its not really you that's the crazy person.
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAA!!!!
Wrong. I already explained to you in a previous engagement with you when you asked about whether or not the definition of rebellion was the correct one. I proved to you it was.
I do not deflect, I put my foot down and cease wasting my time further with the blind, deaf and dumb among you. As there is no sense in beating a dead horse, it won't get up. And Double_R has proven himself/herself/iteself time and time again for the dead horse they so clearly are.
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>How is it that a reasonable person can't read the word rebellion in the constitution and conclude trump rebelled?
Reading [a] word =/= objective fact-based material evidence that Trump did anything in relationship to that word.
A word that needs to be placed into legal context and within a charging document accordingly. Laymen's terms and laymen's structured language (i.e., grammar) are not used in charging documents. The terms and structured language of the law is mutually exclusive from laymen's terms and structured language.
Reasonable people don't have to agree with originalism like we do. You r just being dogmatic and insisting an artificial standard of absolute truth.
In order for "innocent until proven guilty" to have any real true meaning, the justice system must be held to a higher standard (burden) of proof when it attempts to take away the freedom of the accused. So yeah, there must be absolute truth in the fair and impartiality of the correct reading, interpretation and application of the law.
Since you so hyper focused on the term rebellion, going to school you on it for a second time.
Etymology of rebellion
"war waged against a government by some portion of its subjects" (originally especially against God or Church authority), mid-14c.
M-W Definition of rebellion
"opposition to one in authority or dominance"
"2a: open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government"
Black Law's Dictionary Definition of rebellion:
"1. Open, organized, and armed resistance to an established government or ruler.
2. Open resistance or opposition to an authority or tradition.
3. Hist. Disobedience of a legal command or summons."
Legal Definition of rebellion
"crim. law. The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued."
Statutory regulation of rebellion
"Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Notice the statute doesn't define the meaning of either term "rebellion or insurrection."
It's also not defined within the Constitution itself, why? Clearly the understanding of the meaning of that term(s) is concrete, historically (i.e., etymology of the term), is unequivocally clear. As such, it did not need to be defined within the Constitution no more than it needs to be clearly defined now, as the meaning of the term has never changed within the context it was used in the Constitution, to include the Bill of Rights, 14th Amendment, Section 3.
January 6th was not an armed "war against a government."
January 6th was not an "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government"
January 6th was not an "open, organized, and armed resistance to an established government or ruler."
January 6th was not "the taking up arms traitorously against the government"
The government knows this is a fact of reality, which is precisely why the FBI clearly stipulated that J6 was NOT [an] insurrection. It is also a fact of reality that has resulted in ZERO persons being charged with rebellion (or insurrection).
Once again, ad nauseum, the 14th Amendment, Section 3 does not and will never apply (or be applied) to Donald J. Trump. Period.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly.
Those on the left get a free pass whilst those on the right get the book thrown at them for doing no differently.
Just look at the swearing in of Brett Kavanaugh. Lefties were given a slap on the hand for doing exactly what Tarrio was accused of, yet Tarrio gets 22 years in federal prison while the lefties are still walking the streets free as a bird present day.
The double standards are rather quite apparent. Anyone saying otherwise is a blind fool.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
<<<TWS1405_2>>>
How is it that a reasonable person can't read the word rebellion in the constitution and conclude trump rebelled?
And THIS is why we have (at least legit) lawyers instead of laymen arguing before the Court(s)!!!
If you have to ask this question, then you’ve lost the debate.
Here endeth the lesson.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
"strawman fallacies"if you notice, at a place like a debate website, you see 'fallacy' thrown around way too much. you guys just have a different philsophical approach.
Translation: you lack the emotional and intellectual intelligence to comprehend the importance of spotting, acknowledging and asserting a logical fallacy when it is made.
to characterize the others as fallacies is probably more itself fallacious.
Proof you do not comprehend what a logical fallacy even is, especially when it is used.
i prefer using the word fallacy on questions that are more fact based.
If you cannot even recognize let alone acknowledge a legit fallacy when before you, how are you equipped to identify one otherwise?
i suppose you could characterize this situation as factual v not, but i think it's too open to interpretation for that. i'd say he's not committing a fallacy, he's just making really weak arguments.
There is no interpretation or otherwise between truth and fiction. It is an either or. Never in-between or some wishy-washy middle.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If I must, i will continue to prove you wrong and the dumbass that you are on this subject.
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>I ignored nothing. You simply do not know how to read legal statutes, Constitutional, federal, state or otherwise correctly. Which is exactly why I said to the author of this thread how/why everyone gets this topic wrong. Plain readings of the law never work. Period.It was your definition.
WRONG! It was NOT my definition. It was a LEGAL definition provided by "TheFreeDictionary" for rebellion:
REBELLION, crim. law. The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
You do not have to be a law professor or constitutional scholar to recognize basic plain English.
And yet the law is never written in "basic plain English." (e.g., See Spot Run. See Spot Jump. See Spot Eat.)
"Taking up arms traitorously against the government" - aside from the definition of arms (which I challenged you on and you made absolutely no effort to refute) you do not need a law degree to understand what this means. Those who literally attacked the US capitol certainly qualify.
I did refute your asinine ignorant take on the definition of arms, you and your narcissistic intellectual cowardice denialism ignored it because you CANNOT refute it.
Proportionality makes a huge difference when establishing when an action is merely a riot vs an insurrection. Which is precisely why none of the 2020 riots were ever declared an insurrection despite the glaring fact they targeted government buildings, offices, policies, procedures and threatened the lives of civil and federal employees. The disparity between the St Floyd Violent (Burn Loot Murder) riots and J6 convictions are astounding and in your face. Tarrio getting 22 years for circumstantial evidence of a loosely described conspiracy is asinine given that actual arsonists and murderers of the 2020 Floyd riots got less than half the sentencing Tarrio did, who wasn't even present on J6.
"and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense" - "more correct" is again, basic English. It means the following is a clearer way of communicating the previous point (not a different point).
Basics English doesn't apply to the law. Period. See. This is why you fail. You have no academic and/or professional experience in the legal arena to know any better. There is no plain reading of the law to accurately understand and apply the law. The law is complex with very specific punctuation outlining criterion that must be met on the whole for the statute in order to employ the statute as a charge against a suspect.
"rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued." - signifies... As in "means". "Forcible opposition" - literally what happened on January 6th. "To the laws and process lawfully issued" - as in the process of certifying the results of the presidential election.
Irrelevant. What you just described happened during the 2020 riots across the entire nation and yet nothing has ever been done about those violators' vs the alleged J6 violators. What you described has also happened during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, among other "official proceedings" of the government over the years. The double standards are crystal clear. Democrats = Free Pass to Go. Republics = Straight To Jail.
Again, this was your definition,
Nope. Not mine. A legal definition. One clearly cited in my OP. You ignored it. Denialist.
No, it is to YOU who does not understand the point of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, you ignoramus.What fucking part of this did you fail to utterly NOT comprehend:"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to itssettled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted,applies onlyto the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility withus. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their owngovernment." 8Let's start with a reminder of the language in the 14th amendment in question here;
No, no, no. Fuck you. There is no reminding me of anything. You claimed my position on the aid and abetting was BS. I proved you wrong. The entirety of the left are emphatically arguing both as a reason to disqualify Trump from 2024. Insurrection AND giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The argument is a joined on, it is not separate. You do NOT get to have your cake and eat it to.
But let's address it anyway, my other points notwithstanding.The 14th amendment was drafted after the civil war, almost 100 years after the constitution. So the meaning of the term "enemies" at that point in time is not particularly relevant here. We just went through a situation where we learned that our enemies could be domestic as well. And let me reiterate what you ignored yet again...
NO! You cannot deny the legal authority I cited that makes it FUCKING CLEAR that the 14th Section 3 'enemies' clearly meant ones of foreign origination.
- "The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."
- "...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power."
You have no authority or position to refute the cited material. Period.
The entire point of this amendment was to stop americans who engaged in rebellion from holding office in our government. If that was the entire point and entire reason this amendment was drafted, it is absurd to then suggest the amendment does not apply to americans who engaged in rebellion. Read this paragraph a few more times if you need to.
No, double dumbass, it was meant for both Americans AND foreigners from infiltrating our government to destroy it. Clearly reading comprehension fails you. Read the fucking cited link above that spell that reality out. Dipshit. And I do not care if you do not like the name calling, it all fits, because you are every bit of every term anyone labels you based on your narcissistic pompous and self-righteous bullshit sophistry.
More intellectual cowardice denialism with fallacious retorts. Pure fucking childish ignorance. You're definitely not smarter than a fifth grader.Yeah. So this is sadly representative of the rest of your post. The only two substantive things you provided in your entire response are addressed above. Let's see if you actually know what you're talking about and can show me where I'm wrong, or if you're just going to continue with your pointless childish insults that only make you look dumber and even more unserious.
Your ignorant sophistry proves you an ignorant narcissist. That's all.
Live with that.
Loser.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The 14th amendment, like all constitutional amendments, are left fairly vague.
No, they are not. They are very specific within the language that they are written in that has been crystal clear and stood the test of time. (e.g., "shall not be infringed").
You clearly know nothing of the vagueness doctrine.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I already have.
You're the denialist making strawman fallacies and then building upon those with your sophistry-based retorts.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
He doesn't know what he's talking about.
No, it’s YOU who doesn’t know what your talking about. I have the academic and professional training/experience that equips me with the requisite knowledge, intellect and experience with the subject matter. You don’t.
I’ve cited everything necessary to back up my argument. You even said it was BS about the foreign enemies and I was lying/making shit up. Proved you wrong.
You’re the one who acts all pompous and self-righteous here with your ridiculous sophistry.
You’re always a waste of time to engage with, Mr Pseudo Know it All.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
but he's sucking at making good arguments to defend himself.
Seriously???
My first rebuttal to Double_R proved him wrong, yet again with good rebuttals.
It’s to DR who sucks at arguing cause he doesn’t know the subject and comes up with fantastical circular reasoning and additional sophistry to try to come out on top, when he epically failed.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
You claim I am incapable of admitting myself to be wrong, yet here you are posting the same nonsense that was just refuted as if nothing happened at all.
You didn’t refute shit. Not a damn thing.
No amount of your sick and twisted sophistry will ever debunk my 100% factually accurate legal analysis of the 14th Amendment, Section 3.
So continue bathing yourself in your narcissism asserting your Dunning-Kruger delusions of grandeur, makes no more difference than you using appeals to mockery, ignorance and strawman fallacies claiming victory. You didn’t win. You’ll never win. That’s just a fact. Period.
Here endeth the lesson.
Created:
Again…
14th Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:
"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 key legal term in that criteria is "shall": Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive.
Second key term here is "engaged": involved in activity; involved especially in a hostile encounter
Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
The final legal term (phrase) in that criteria is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy": SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.
"The two branches of treason, "levying war," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," are distinct, and do not embody synonymous actions."
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."
"...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power."
President Donald J. Trump did NOT (shall have) directly engage in an armed insurrection "in a hostile encounter" against the United States Constitution for which he gave oath to support. Equally, President Donald J. Trump did NOT give aid and comfort to the enemy since there was no enemy (a foreign power) to give aid and comfort to on January 6, 2020. More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I.emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection. Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riotand/or directly engaging in said riot that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol.
"The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials."
No insurrection, as such no rebellion either.
No enemies (agents of a foreign power) were present at the events of J6 either. Therefore, no enemies for anyone to give aid and comfort thereto.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not apply where President Donald J. Trump is concerned.
He can and will likely serve another term as POTUS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Says the clown who defends and promotes pedophilia on DART 🤦♂️🙄🤦♂️
Created:
I could see your mother in court saying how you had something akin to a teenaged crush on Trump.
Another crossing of the line of the CoC. I’ve told your pencil sick stupid ass that my mother has been dead for years months ago. Now you being her memory into this after my wife…clear desperation on your part. Maggot bottom feeding troll that you are, FanOfTheDick!!
Created:
Most people would think …
No. Just you, FanOfTheDick!! Just YOU
Created:
TWS is a dunce. If it weren’t for his disability check from the government he would be homeless.
Says the FabDick who can’t prove me no more than than Double_Retard could.
You two belong together. Closets homosexuals. Clearly. At least one of your are given the above, that’s for sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Oh fuck off you impotent little shit.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Let's see if you actually know what you're talking about and can show me where I'm wrong,
I already did prove you wrong and you just can’t admit it.
Fuck off now and go play protester in the busy streets with the rest of the losers like IWRA.
Created:
Says the TDS emasculated pencil dick libtard who clearly suffered a traumatic childhood.
Created:
14th Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:
"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 key legal term in that criteria is "shall": Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive.
Second key term here is "engaged": involved in activity; involved especially in a hostile encounter
Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
The final legal term (phrase) in that criteria is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy": SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.
"The two branches of treason, "levying war," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," are distinct, and do not embody synonymous actions."
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."
"...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power."
President Donald J. Trump did NOT (shall have) directly engage in an armed insurrection "in a hostile encounter" against the United States Constitution for which he gave oath to support. Equally, President Donald J. Trump did NOT give aid and comfort to the enemy since there was no enemy (a foreign power) to give aid and comfort to on January 6, 2020. More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I. emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection. Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riot and/or directly engaging in said riot that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol.
"The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials."
No insurrection, as such no rebellion either.
No enemies (agents of a foreign power) were present at the events of J6 either. Therefore, no enemies for anyone to give aid and comfort thereto.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not apply where President Donald J. Trump is concerned.
He can and will likely serve another term as POTUS.
Created:
Trump participated in nothing regarding J6.That’s a lie. As Mitch McConnell said Trump provoked the attack on the Capitol
A geriatric who seizes up under questioning. Yeah, real credible source there, FanDick.
His personal illegitimate subjective opinion is not LAW. Idiot.
I've fought the government myself many times, just not in "armed" ways. I used my words when fighting for the rights of disabled veterans to get their earned disability compensation.Haha, the great Republican welfare queen. You mean you cheated the taxpayers by faking a disability so you can live off the government.Why don’t you just get a job you lazy bum?
Emasculated psychological projection.
Created:
There was NO fucking insurrection, jackass. Even the FBI, as clearly noted in my analysis, declared there was NO insurrection on J6.That’s a lie. As I’ve said before the FBI never said J6 was not an insurrection.You are hearing what you want from an article in the Washington Times.
There was NO fucking insurrection, jackass. Even the FBI, as clearly noted in my analysis, declared there was NO insurrection on J6.That’s a lie. As I’ve said before the FBI never said J6 was not an insurrection.You are making shit up after reading an article in the Washington Times. Because you’re a dummy.
"You're hearing what you want from..." SAYS the jackass constantly cherry picking articles and spamming the forum with his pithy TDS trolling threads. Can't have your cake and eat it to, FanDick.
The FBI did say J6 was not an insurrection. No one has been charged with insurrection. No one.
There was NO FUCKING INSURRECTION!!!There is no difference between n insurrection and a seditious conspiracy.
Thank you for continuing to prove your utter ignorance on the subject at hand.
You're such an idiot. Never doing any research before sticking your leather shoes in your mouth.
Insurrection 18 USC 2383
Seditious Conspiracy 18 USC 2384
If there was no difference, there would be no need for two different statutes and/or definitions.
Name one confederate leader (military officer or politician) from the Civil War who was charged with insurrection. You can’t. Does that mean the Civil War was not an insurrection? Of course not.
This has absolutely nothing to do with present day circumstances and the assertion of using 14/3 against Trump, fucktard. Yet another false equivalency fallacy.
Regardless...
Kenneth H. Worthy, County Sheriff, Held local office in a Confederate state. Worthy was not accused of engaging in violence, Mandamus action by Worthy to challenge his disqualification by county commissioners under state law implementing Section 3. Court ruling: Yes. Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N.C. 199 (1869), appeal dismissed, 76 U.S. 611 (1869)
William L. Tate, County Attorney, Served as an officer in the Confederate Army, Mandamus action by Tate challenging his Section 3 disqualification by state judge. Court ruling: Yes. In re Tate, 63 N.C. 308, 309 (1869).
J.D. Watkins, District Attorney, “Engaged in the late rebellion” (unclear precisely what Watkins did), Quo warranto action filed against Watkins under state law and Section 3., Court Ruling: Yes. Louisiana ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631 (La. 1869). Reasoning: Court confirmed state courts can enforce Section 3 and that Section 3 is not a criminal punishment but a qualification for office.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Fight is a subjective term.
I've fought the government myself many times, just not in "armed" ways. I used my words when fighting for the rights of disabled veterans to get their earned disability compensation.
Protesters that get permits to be where they are authorized to be and protests peacefully = fighting for their voice to be heard.
Context is important. And when Trump said "peacefully and patriotically," that gave the necessary context for J6.
So stop being a fucking idiot.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Irrelevant garbage.
Created:
Posted in:
ROTFLMAO!!!
That's all you got? Childish "I know you are, but what am I" retorts?
ROTFLMAOA!!!!!
Created:
NO!!!! YOU are fucking stupid!!!!!! You used Tarrio as an equal comparative example to Trump, APPLES TO ORANGES, double dumbass!!!No, you are a moron. Tarrio participated in insurrection just like Trump. You are clueless.Trump will be banned because he participated in an insurrection just like Tarrio did. Trump had taken an oath of office so he’s banned from serving under 14/3.Thank God your genes end with you being the childless eunuch that you are.
NO!!!!! You continue to prove what a fucking idiot dumbass moron YOU ARE!
There was NO fucking insurrection, jackass. Even the FBI, as clearly noted in my analysis, declared there was NO insurrection on J6.
Not a single person charged with "insurrection"!
There was NO FUCKING INSURRECTION!!!
Trump participated in nothing regarding J6. The 14.3 requirement is "shall have engaged," which means, as noted, personal engagement. Trump wasn't there. No personal engagement. And the aiding and abetting criteria isn't met either since no foreign enemies were present that day.
You're a fucking moron doubling down, tripling down on your fucking stupidity.
Everything you throw at me in the way of ad hominems is nothing but pure intellectual cowardice and psychological projection.
FanDick!
Created:
14th Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:
"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 key legal term in that criteria is "shall": Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive.
Second key term here is "engaged": involved in activity; involved especially in a hostile encounter
Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
The final legal term (phrase) in that criteria is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy": SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.
"The two branches of treason, "levying war," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," are distinct, and do not embody synonymous actions."
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."
"...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power."
President Donald J. Trump did NOT (shall have) directly engage in an armed insurrection "in a hostile encounter" against the United States Constitution for which he gave oath to support. Equally, President Donald J. Trump did NOT give aid and comfort to the enemy since there was no enemy (a foreign power) to give aid and comfort to on January 6, 2020. More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I. emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection. Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riot and/or directly engaging in said riot that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol.
"The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials."
No insurrection, as such no rebellion either.
No enemies (agents of a foreign power) were present at the events of J6 either. Therefore, no enemies for anyone to give aid and comfort thereto.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not apply where President Donald J. Trump is concerned.
He can and will likely serve another term as POTUS.
Created:
Normal average citizens do not apply. Period.You are stupid. I’m not talking about a normal an average citizen, I’m talking about Trump. Trump engaged in insurrection the same way Tarrio did.
NO!!!! YOU are fucking stupid!!!!!! You used Tarrio as an equal comparative example to Trump, APPLES TO ORANGES, double dumbass!!!
Tarrio is not subject to 14/3 as idiots like you claim Trump is.
Trump is therefore banned from serving. Tarrio is not banned from serving so when he gets out of jail, he can run for state or federal office.Thank God your genes end with you being childless eunuch that you are.
Trump is NOT banned from serving office again, and never will be under 14/3, MORON FANCHICK!!!
Created:
Posted in:
Another Fanchick TDS spamming/trolling thread... *yawn*
Created:
The only person that the 14th Section 3 would apply to are those who served as "a Senator or Representative of Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who have previously taken an oath..."Tarrio never held "any Office" in the US Government, Trump did.Are you stupid? Is that why you’re unemployed?The comparison of Tarrio and Trump was to illustrate they both engaged in insurrection despite the fact both of them were not at the capital.Tarrio was convicted. Trump will be convicted.
BWAAAAHAAHAAAHAAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!!
Your ignorance of the subject matter is boundless!!!!!
Please, keep demonstrating your ignorance with these stupid double dumbass retorts proving just how fucking stupid you are on point, and your lack of reading comprehension skills!!!!
the 14th Section 3, the subject of this thread, does not and CANNOT apply to ANYONE other than those clearly identified within that Section. Normal average citizens do not apply. Period.
Ignorance irrelevant comparison (false equivalence fallacy).
You're dismissed, Fanchick!!!
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Childish irrelevant comment spamming/trolling this thread.
Created:
And as I outlined in my 100% factually accurate legal analysis, 14/3 cannot and will not be applied to Trump for the analysis given.You mean the “legal analysis” of a weak minded, unemployed, uneducated, disabled, childless (sterilized), MAGA Moron?
Typical of the intellectual cowardice denialists proven flat out wrong in their ignorant rebuttals, this is the result. Sophomoric banal ad hominems crying like the little bitch in those grumpy the cat memes. Thanks, Fanchick, for proving that your emasculation is now complete.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Still irrelevant to the subject of the thread.
Stop spamming/trolling threads!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Still irrelevant to the subject of the thread.
Stop spamming/trolling threads.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Childish irrelevant comment spamming/trolling this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I can't wait until Republicans take away the right to vote from Blacks and Women.
Never going to happen.
"According to the Library of Congress, in the House of Representatives 144 Republicans voted to approve the 15th Amendment, with zero Democrats in favor, 39 no votes, and seven abstentions. In the Senate, 33 Republicans voted to approve, again with zero Democrats in favor."
Please, tell us again who you cannot wait for to take away the right to vote from Blacks and Women???
DUNCE!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
See Melania Trump in the January 1997 issue of Max Magazine.
Thanks for the tip, after all she is gorgeous.
Still, Melania has nothing to do with this thread.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Your reply is a big simmering pile of ad hominem stinking shit.
Typical of those who are ill-equipped to have a legit discussion on the subject at hand.
Created:
14th Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:
"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 key legal term in that criteria is "shall": Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive.
Second key term here is "engaged": involved in activity; involved especially in a hostile encounter
Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
The final legal term (phrase) in that criteria is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy": SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.
"The two branches of treason, "levying war," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," are distinct, and do not embody synonymous actions."
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."
"...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power."
President Donald J. Trump did NOT (shall have) directly engage in an armed insurrection "in a hostile encounter" against the United States Constitution for which he gave oath to support. Equally, President Donald J. Trump did NOT give aid and comfort to the enemy since there was no enemy (a foreign power) to give aid and comfort to on January 6, 2020. More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I. emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection. Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riot and/or directly engaging in said riot that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol.
"The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials."
No insurrection, as such no rebellion either.
No enemies (agents of a foreign power) were present at the events of J6 either. Therefore, no enemies for anyone to give aid and comfort thereto.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not apply where President Donald J. Trump is concerned.
He can and will likely serve another term as POTUS.
Created:
Also, this false equivalency fallacy of yours…Tarrio hasn’t held a political office. So the 14/3 wouldn’t apply to himBullshit LCpl.. Not false equivalency
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Thank you for this reply of yours. It proves not only your flagrant ignorance of the subject matter at hand, but also your utter lack of attention to detail via piss poor reading comprehension skills.
You are saying an American (Trump) can’t be charged with insurrection unless they “shall engaged”
STRAWMAN FALLACY!!!!!!!! I never said what you claim.
You clearly did not read the 14th Section 3, because if you had, you would realize just how stupid your retort is.
"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."
I never said anything about an American, and neither does the 14th Section 3 as noted above PROVING your asinine ignorant retort = [a] false equivalency fallacy.
Tarrio wasn’t there.
No shit Fanchick! And he NEVER previously served as "a Senator or Representative of Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who have previously taken an oath..."
He hadn’t “shall engaged” in insurrection by your stupid standards yet he was convicted of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to 22 years in prison.
Still a false equivalence fallacy as noted above. 14/3 doesn't apply to him, period. Your argument is pathetically ignorant precisely because you do not know how to read the Constitution or any other law statutory or otherwise.
Also, it is "shall have engaged," not "shall engaged." More evidence of your lack of attention to detail.
Trump engaged just as much as Tarrio. Since Trump had taken an oath to protect the constitution, he is no longer eligible to hold office in the United States under 14/3.
Wrong. Wrong and still wrong, double dumbass that you so clearly painted yourself as throughout this entire thread.
The only person that the 14th Section 3 would apply to are those who served as "a Senator or Representative of Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who have previously taken an oath..."
Tarrio never held "any Office" in the US Government, Trump did.
Comparing Tarrio to Trump is a patently ridiculous Apples to Oranges argument.
And as I outlined in my 100% factually accurate legal analysis, 14/3 cannot and will not be applied to Trump for the analysis given.
ADDITION:
Trump isn’t being charged with seditious conspiracy or insurrection.Irrelevant. The 14th amendment doesn’t ban people who were charged or convicted, it bans people who engaged.Everyone saw this with their own eyes. Trump engaged just like Tarrio engaged.The charges to overturn the election will put him in jail.His conduct leading up to and on J6 make him ineligible to hold office.
You're sounding/looking like a desperate emasculated tiny man who cannot admit they are wrong (i.e., intellectual cowardice denialism).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I wonder why you won't.
Yeah, all the threads I started and engaged in, the debate I initiated and engaged in, and others threads I’ve jumped in and engaged in….not a single one contains any argued position written by me. 🙄
You’re such a 😫 🤡 who makes little to no sense with such idiocy as noted above.
Created:
Tarrio wasn’t there.
Also, this false equivalency fallacy of yours…Tarrio hasn’t held a political office. So the 14/3 wouldn’t apply to him. Special dumbass that you so clearly are. Down Syndrome is it, Fanchick?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I think the belief is that it is the privilege afforded by being white that gives one the power to save people of color.
Wrong.
It’s racism. Pure and simple.
White guilt liberals are bar none the most racist in society. Then black on black racism being second. All else following. Those two at the top is what should truly concern everyone, but it doesn’t fit the MSM narrative being peddled by race hustlers. After all, they live, work and okay among them. Can’t make money of others misery if you expose yourself as being one of the charlatans of their misery, playing them like a cheap fiddle.
Created:
This thread is truly spam in violation of the Coc. This little 💩 has posted on this subject more than once at the onset of the claims against Paxton.
His TDS knows no bounds.
Created:
Conspiracy doesn’t require one to “shall have engaged in” personally/physically…dumbazz.
Trump isn’t being charged with seditious conspiracy or insurrection. So yeah, it is a fucking false equivalency fallacy there ✏️ Richard Fanchick!!!
Created:
He did not "shall have engaged" in anything.Either did Tarrio. He’s going to jail for 22 years
Childishly ignorant false equivalency fallacy.
More intellectual cowardice denialism with fallacious retorts. Pure fucking childish ignorance.Greatest Hits!
truth hurts, don’t it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
A flat earther can make better arguments justifying a flat earth than a random person that thinks the earth is spherical because the flat earther thought about their position way more. I believe the earth is spherical, but I don't think I could win a debate with a flat earther on the earth's shape because they've thought their position on this issue through much more than I could. The same thing would apply for pro pedophilia people vs your typical anti pedophilia person.
Total copout excuse.
Sophistry is no reason to allow another dumbass to win a debate that is so patently obviously WRONG!!!!
Created:
-->
@Double_R
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>JFC, this subject was already covered and I shut it down with actual legal facts and proper analysis of the 14th Section 3. Again…Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
You are presenting a legal argument that your own definitions do not support.First, you seem to be relying on the idea that arms = guns, which is not true. Arms simply means weapons, and the rioters who broke into the capitol carried all kinds of weapons from mace, flag poles, hell even the riot shields they stole from the capitol police.
Well, it is about fucking time you took this up, as I noticed the first time, I put this stupid ass argument to rest you were curiously silent. And no matter what I or anyone say to discredit your ignorance on the subject, your intellectual cowardice denialism will not allow you to admit failure. I know that going into this, but I will enjoy discrediting you, nonetheless.
"First, you seem to be..." = strawman fallacy. No one cares what you think, feel, believe or perceive as "seem to be" as it means shit. The only thing that matters is what you can PROVE!
It is patently condescending and wholeheartedly ignorant of you to assume what arms even means given the contextual nature of the events under charge of "rebellion" across the ages. For fucks sake, back in 1786-1787 during Shay's Rebellion all they had were what tools were available to them. Anything can be used as a weapon, but some tools were more effective than others; and all soldiers (or those experienced with combat) know that the more effective the tool, the more valuable the tool. No one is going to pick up a table fork (i.e., silverware) to fight with when a pitchfork is available. The higher the effectiveness of the weapon, the greater the use it is as an "arm(s)."
Terms evolve over time just the same as the tools evolve over time for the purposes of insurrection, rebellions, and quite obviously war. And it takes more than one, three, or a handful among THOUSANDS of individuals to be armed to quantify the act as an actual "insurrection," "rebellion" or "act of war." Given the glaring FUCKING FACT that the corrupt government's own FBI did not classify J6 as an insurrection or anything else other than a minor riot (i.e., skirmish). You and anyone on the left have ZERO LEVERAGE on this matter regarding the historical acts and legislative history upon which it is based upon in defining and applying said terms within the 14th Amendment, Section 3.
Second and more importantly, you ignored the second part of your own definition of rebellion which specified it's main qualifier ("perhaps a more correct sense") as a "forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued". That couldn't describe what occurred on January 6th any more perfectly.
Remind us all again where you matriculated to earning some degree in the legal arena that would equip you with the requisite academic credentials and/or professional experience to competently understand the subject at hand? Oh, that's right. Nowhere. You're a layman, and a very ignorant one at that when it comes to reading, understanding and correctly interpreting the law. Especially Constitutional Law.
I ignored nothing. You simply do not know how to read legal statutes, Constitutional, federal, state or otherwise correctly. Which is exactly why I said to the author of this thread how/why everyone gets this topic wrong. Plain readings of the law never work. Period.
The part you cite is not the qualifier, the premise (or preamble) is: The taking up arms traitorously against the government. The part you cite is merely the augmentation of that, it is not the actual legal qualifier. Taking up arms is. Arms is the essential criterion here. Cause no matter how many idiots you have carrying spoons, forks, pencils, a few with a handgun, and one with a riot shield breaking a mere fucking window still will not ever qualify J6 as an insurrection, much less Trump being directly involved in it: shall have engaged in.
Moreover, you seem to not understand the entire point of the 14th amendment -
This coming from a guy with ZERO legal academic and/or professional experience telling me what I "seem to not understand" about a subject I am every bit more qualified, academically and professionally, to comment on. You're a pathetic joke, Double_R. Pathetic. Using ad homs as some defense against my factually accurate legal analysis of the 14th, of which I have demonstrated far more knowledge on this subject than you could ever hope to full in that tiny pencil between your legs.
it was passed in the aftermath of the civil war. It's entire point at conception was to stop Americans who tried to overthrow our constitution for running for office. That's literally what Trump did, so the argument that it couldn't apply to him because the rioters were not a foreign power is absurd on its face.
No, it is to YOU who does not understand the point of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, you ignoramus.
What fucking part of this did you fail to utterly NOT comprehend:
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to itssettled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies onlyto the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility withus. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their owngovernment." 8
Only thing absurd on its face here is your own flagrant intellectual cowardice denialism stupidity!!!
More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I.emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection."Or rebellion..."
The terms are fucking synonymous you dumbass.
Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riotand/or directly engaging in said riotThere is nothing about the 14th amendment requiring this.
The argument is the basis of the idiots imposing the claim asserting 14/3.
"...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
He did not "shall have engaged" in anything.
that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol.Cause when all else fails, go full blown Alex Jones on us.
More intellectual cowardice denialism with fallacious retorts. Pure fucking childish ignorance. You're definitely not smarter than a fifth grader.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Sophistry... Yeah, I get that alot and it amuses me every time. If someone has an argument to show why my position is wrong, one would think, if there's anywhere it would be challenged, it would be on a debate site.
Others, like me, have proven you wrong but your intellectual cowardice and cognitive dissonance just won't let you admit that fact. You are a denialist on the Dunning-Kruger level. Period.
Created: