XPost: or.politics, ca.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: talk.politics.guns

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 19:18:37 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:

Stephens’s story sheds light on the momentous question the U.S. Supreme
Court takes up this week: whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment >disqualifies former president Donald Trump from running for president
again.

Trump wasn't even charged and indicted for insurrection. SCOTUS is going
to punt the ball and let congress decide.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: or.politics, ca.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: talk.politics.guns

Sam <samt@samt.invalid> wrote in news:l2q3svFpg4lU2@mid.individual.net:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 19:18:37 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:

Stephens’s story sheds light on the momentous question the U.S. Supreme >>Court takes up this week: whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment >>disqualifies former president Donald Trump from running for president >>again.

Trump wasn't even charged and indicted for insurrection. SCOTUS is

going

to punt the ball and let congress decide.

There's been multiple articles (many posted here) that showed that being convicted, indicted/charged with insurrection was not required.

==========
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a
criminal conviction, and historically,
one was not necessary

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

=============
Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not
required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under
Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection”
statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent
with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which
make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be
and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew- reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

==========

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: or.politics, ca.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: talk.politics.guns

On 2/10/2024 12:16 PM, Sam wrote:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 19:18:37 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:

Stephens’s story sheds light on the momentous question the U.S. Supreme
Court takes up this week: whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
disqualifies former president Donald Trump from running for president
again.

Trump wasn't even charged and indicted for insurrection.

Irrelevant. It *was* an insurrection whether anyone is charged with that statutory crime or not. Insurrection is not just a named crime in the criminal code. It is a *description* of an event. The attack on the Capitol on 01/06/2021
was an insurrection.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: or.politics, ca.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: talk.politics.guns

On 2/10/2024 1:16 PM, Sam wrote:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 19:18:37 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:

Stephens’s story sheds light on the momentous question the U.S. Supreme
Court takes up this week: whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
disqualifies former president Donald Trump from running for president
again.

Trump wasn't even charged and indicted for insurrection. SCOTUS is going
to punt the ball and let congress decide.

Remember the Trump impeachment? Congress already decided.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: or.politics, ca.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: talk.politics.guns

Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote in
news:LHSxN.315011$Wp_8.254287@fx17.iad:

On 2/10/2024 1:16 PM, Sam wrote:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 19:18:37 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:

Stephens’s story sheds light on the momentous question the U.S.
Supreme Court takes up this week: whether Section 3 of the 14th
Amendment disqualifies former president Donald Trump from running
for president again.

Trump wasn't even charged and indicted for insurrection. SCOTUS is
going to punt the ball and let congress decide.

Remember the Trump impeachment? Congress already decided.

They failed to convict because they thought Crimminal Court was more appropriate. The majority did decide, however, that it was an insurrection
and tRump was involved.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: or.politics, ca.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: talk.politics.guns

"Sam" <samt@samt.invalid> wrote in message news:l2q3svFpg4lU2@mid.individual.net...

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 19:18:37 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:

Stephens's story sheds light on the momentous question the U.S. Supreme >>Court takes up this week: whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment >>disqualifies former president Donald Trump from running for president >>again.

Trump wasn't even charged and indicted for insurrection. SCOTUS is going
to punt the ball and let congress decide.

Na, they would do better to resolve the issue, since if it goes to Congress,
it might just end back up in their laps anyway.

Because Congress has NO authority to do anything until and unless Trump is elected.. then they could TRY impeachment, but Democrats are already 0-2 on getting an impeachment conviction against Trump.

I don't see their odds getting better as they continue to run a candidate
shown to have committed crimes that would make him ineligible to run for or hold federal office...

Crimes for which there is clear evidence that he actually committed them.

Yea, Democrats would really have to be hypocrites to try that.. but then
they are hypocrites otherwise they wouldn't be running Biden, and they certainly wouldn't be ignoring the will of the people and simply telling
them that Joe Biden is the nomination and we don't need to have you f*$king voting on that.

Yea, we certainly see their concern for "the will of the people" as they announce there will be no primaries.. no votes, and you will accept who we
tell you to.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: or.politics, ca.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: talk.politics.guns

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uq8q9j$20c4$2@dont-email.me...

Sam <samt@samt.invalid> wrote in news:l2q3svFpg4lU2@mid.individual.net:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 19:18:37 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:

Stephens's story sheds light on the momentous question the U.S. Supreme >>>Court takes up this week: whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment >>>disqualifies former president Donald Trump from running for president >>>again.

Trump wasn't even charged and indicted for insurrection. SCOTUS is

going

to punt the ball and let congress decide.

There's been multiple articles (many posted here) that showed that being convicted, indicted/charged with insurrection was not required.

So you're saying Joe Biden can NOT run for reelection since as a felon, he
is disqualified from holding public office?

I mean conviction isn't necessary.. then the indictment and charges that Joe has against him should be more than enough to disqualify him.

Let me guess.. this is the moment in time you realize you need yet another double standard... we can only wonder which double standard you will come up with.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: or.politics, ca.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: talk.politics.guns

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uq9d82$8d80$7@dont-email.me...

Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote in
news:LHSxN.315011$Wp_8.254287@fx17.iad:

On 2/10/2024 1:16 PM, Sam wrote:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 19:18:37 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:

Stephensâ?Ts story sheds light on the momentous question the U.S.
Supreme Court takes up this week: whether Section 3 of the 14th
Amendment disqualifies former president Donald Trump from running
for president again.

Trump wasn't even charged and indicted for insurrection. SCOTUS is
going to punt the ball and let congress decide.

Remember the Trump impeachment? Congress already decided.

They failed to convict because they thought Crimminal Court was more appropriate.

And yet they didn't refer criminal charges.. Heck, they couldn't even obtain the impeachment.

The majority did decide, however, that it was an insurrection
and tRump was involved.

No they didn't. Congress acquitted Trump of any charges of insurrection.

Therefore the 14th doesn't apply and Trump can run, be elected, and hold office, and all your whining and lying means NOTHING.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: or.politics, ca.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: talk.politics.guns

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:uqdfm0$1jt8n$10@dont-email.me:

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uq8q9j$20c4$2@dont-email.me...

Sam <samt@samt.invalid> wrote in
news:l2q3svFpg4lU2@mid.individual.net:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 19:18:37 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:

Stephens's story sheds light on the momentous question the U.S.
Supreme Court takes up this week: whether Section 3 of the 14th >>>>Amendment disqualifies former president Donald Trump from running
for president again.

Trump wasn't even charged and indicted for insurrection. SCOTUS is

going

to punt the ball and let congress decide.

There's been multiple articles (many posted here) that showed that
being convicted, indicted/charged with insurrection was not required.

So you're saying Joe Biden can NOT run for reelection since as a
felon, he is disqualified from holding public office?

I mean conviction isn't necessary.. then the indictment and charges
that Joe has against him should be more than enough to disqualify him.

Let me guess.. this is the moment in time you realize you need yet
another double standard... we can only wonder which double standard
you will come up with.

There is NO indictment against Joe Biden.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: or.politics, ca.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: talk.politics.guns

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uqdlq6$1ku97$4@dont-email.me...

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:uqdfm0$1jt8n$10@dont-email.me:

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uq8q9j$20c4$2@dont-email.me...

Sam <samt@samt.invalid> wrote in
news:l2q3svFpg4lU2@mid.individual.net:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 19:18:37 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:

Stephens's story sheds light on the momentous question the U.S. >>>>>Supreme Court takes up this week: whether Section 3 of the 14th >>>>>Amendment disqualifies former president Donald Trump from running
for president again.

Trump wasn't even charged and indicted for insurrection. SCOTUS is

going

to punt the ball and let congress decide.

There's been multiple articles (many posted here) that showed that
being convicted, indicted/charged with insurrection was not required.

So you're saying Joe Biden can NOT run for reelection since as a
felon, he is disqualified from holding public office?

I mean conviction isn't necessary.. then the indictment and charges
that Joe has against him should be more than enough to disqualify him.

Let me guess.. this is the moment in time you realize you need yet
another double standard... we can only wonder which double standard
you will come up with.

There is NO indictment against Joe Biden.

And there's the double standard.

We note that Baxter wants to claim Trump is disqualified even thought "There
is NO indictment against" Donald Trump.

A clear double standard.

Point. Set. Match.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: or.politics, ca.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: talk.politics.guns

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uqdlre$1ku97$5@dont-email.me...

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:uqdfm0$1jt8n$11@dont-email.me:

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uq9d82$8d80$7@dont-email.me...

Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote in
news:LHSxN.315011$Wp_8.254287@fx17.iad:

On 2/10/2024 1:16 PM, Sam wrote:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 19:18:37 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:

Stephensâ?Ts story sheds light on the momentous question the U.S.
Supreme Court takes up this week: whether Section 3 of the 14th
Amendment disqualifies former president Donald Trump from running
for president again.

Trump wasn't even charged and indicted for insurrection. SCOTUS is
going to punt the ball and let congress decide.

Remember the Trump impeachment? Congress already decided.

They failed to convict because they thought Crimminal Court was more
appropriate.

And yet they didn't refer criminal charges.. Heck, they couldn't even
obtain the impeachment.

What makes you think the Senate can refer criminal charges?

Because they can. Any Congressional Committee or Member can refer criminal charges to the DOJ for investigation and possible criminal charges and conviction.

Sheese, you claim to know everything and that I know nothing... and yet you regularly show it's you who knows next to nothing while I know so much more than you do.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)