In article <9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
>
> On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
> >
> >
> > "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
> >> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
> >>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
> >>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> {snip}
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
> >>>>>>>> under 14.3.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
> >>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
> >>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
> >>>>>>>    -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
> >>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
> >>>>>> to judicial review.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
> >>>>
> >>>> No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law, was
> >>>> filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant to
> >>>> 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection
> >>>> and engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 was an
> >>>> insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
> >>>
> >>> Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
> >>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
> >>
> >> People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than insurrection.
> >
> > Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
>
> There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison term
> of 20 years; insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years. Seditious
> conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by definition.
>
> >
> > What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection.
>
> Irrelevant.

Of course, as long as you "win".
>
>
> >
> >> It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and convicted of statutory insurrection.
> >
> > IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
>
> There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with the
> statutory crime of insurrection.

None or believe me they would already have Trump in jail.
>
> >
> >> Insurrection is not just a statutory crime ? it is a description of an event.
> >
> > We don't punish people because of an invented description.
>
> It's not invented.

It's a description, not a crime.
>
> >
> >>
> >>> so there has never been a legal finding of facts on this matter and
> >>
> >> That's false. Judge Wallace meticulously examined what constitutes an in
> >> insurrection and concluded one occurred on 01/06/2021. She is correct.
> >
> > I'm glad she has an opinion,
>
> An informed legal opinion.

A biased opinion.
>
> > but without a criminal trial
>
> No. Section 3 of the 14th amendment does not require a criminal trial.
>
> > Further, seems to me like a valid cause to overturn her ruling
>
> Her ruling was appealed to the Colorado supreme court, which upheld her finding
> regarding insurrection.

and she still lost.
>
>
> > given that there is no actual evidence of any insurrection
>
> That's false. We know the violent storming of the Capitol on 01/06/2021 was an
> insurrection. This is settled.

None. There was a nasty protest.

In article <ezwrN.295268$xHn7.113462@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
>
> On 1/22/2024 4:47 AM, scooter lied:
> >
> >
> > "NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:sfgqqilvl3rij61l4afqlvvf7pdun7jahp@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
> >> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >>> news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> {snip}
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
> >>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
> >>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
> >>>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
> >>>>>>>>>>     -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
> >>>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision
> >>>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
> >>>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
> >>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
> >>>>> through incitement."
> >>>>
> >>>> When was he criminally charged and convicted?  A trial without charges
> >>>> or arrest?  Wow, what is it you advocate?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
> >>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
> >>
> >> Who were these "tens of thousands"?
> >
> > and which court stated they were barred from office without a conviction
>
> None ? the people petitioning for removal of disability already knew they were
> disqualified, scooter.

Were you there?
>
> > much less did so after they were pardoned.
>
> There were no pardons, scooter.

On 1/22/2024 8:34 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
> says...
>>
>> On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
>>>> On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
>>>>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>      -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
>>>>>>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
>>>>>>>>>> to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.  A
>>>>>>>>> civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
>>>>>> through incitement."
>>>>>
>>>>> Was he indicted?
>>>>
>>>> The hearing was civil.
>>>>
>>>>> Was he booked?
>>>>
>>>> It was a civil case.
>>>>
>>>>> Did he attend?
>>>>
>>>> Could have if he wished.
>>>>
>>>>> Face his accusers?
>>>>
>>>> There were none.
>>>
>>> And right there your whole argument fails.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> 5th and 6th Amendments.
>>
>> Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a criminal
>> conviction.
>>
>>>
>>> Without proper due process
>>
>> Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a criminal
>> trial, scooter.
>
> He never went to court for it.

Trump was free to attend the civil trial in Colorado. His lawyers were at the
trial and questioned and challenged the witnesses.

Due process was observed.

On 1/22/2024 8:37 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
> says...
>>
>> On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
>>>> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
>>>>>>>>>> under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
>>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>    -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
>>>>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
>>>>>>>> to judicial review.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law, was
>>>>>> filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant to
>>>>>> 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection
>>>>>> and engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 was an
>>>>>> insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
>>>>>
>>>>> Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
>>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
>>>>
>>>> People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than insurrection.
>>>
>>> Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
>>
>> There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison term
>> of 20 years; insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years. Seditious
>> conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by definition.
>>
>>>
>>> What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> Of course, as long as you "win".

No. It's irrelevant because 14.3 doesn't require it.

>>
>>
>>>
>>>> It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and convicted of statutory insurrection.
>>>
>>> IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
>>
>> There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with the
>> statutory crime of insurrection.
>
> None or

Irrelevant.

>>>
>>>> Insurrection is not just a statutory crime ? it is a description of an event.
>>>
>>> We don't punish people because of an invented description.
>>
>> It's not invented.
>
> It's a description, not a crime.

Insurrection is both a statutory crime and a description of an event.

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> so there has never been a legal finding of facts on this matter and
>>>>
>>>> That's false. Judge Wallace meticulously examined what constitutes an in
>>>> insurrection and concluded one occurred on 01/06/2021. She is correct.
>>>
>>> I'm glad she has an opinion,
>>
>> An informed legal opinion.
>
> A biased opinion.

No — an informed, thoughtful legal opinion by a qualified judge.

>>
>>> but without a criminal trial
>>
>> No. Section 3 of the 14th amendment does not require a criminal trial.
>>
>>> Further, seems to me like a valid cause to overturn her ruling
>>
>> Her ruling was appealed to the Colorado supreme court, which upheld her finding
>> regarding insurrection.
>
> and she still lost.

She lost on her conclusion that the presidency is not covered by 14.3. Her
conclusion that an insurrection occurred and that Trump engaged in it was
upheld. She didn't lose on that.

>>
>>
>>> given that there is no actual evidence of any insurrection
>>
>> That's false. We know the violent storming of the Capitol on 01/06/2021 was an
>> insurrection. This is settled.
>
> None.

There was an insurrection. This is settled. It's the verdict of history.

On 1/22/2024 8:38 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <ezwrN.295268$xHn7.113462@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
> says...
>>
>> On 1/22/2024 4:47 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sfgqqilvl3rij61l4afqlvvf7pdun7jahp@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
>>>>>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>     -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
>>>>>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision
>>>>>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
>>>>>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
>>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
>>>>>>> through incitement."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When was he criminally charged and convicted?  A trial without charges
>>>>>> or arrest?  Wow, what is it you advocate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
>>>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
>>>>
>>>> Who were these "tens of thousands"?
>>>
>>> and which court stated they were barred from office without a conviction
>>
>> None ? the people petitioning for removal of disability already knew they were
>> disqualified, scooter.
>
> Were you there?

It's a matter of public record.

>>
>>> much less did so after they were pardoned.
>>
>> There were no pardons, scooter.
>
>

Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com:

> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
>>> Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
>>> Show us the exact quote.
>
> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
>> 5th Amendment.
>> We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
>
> Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
> -WBE

Running for Office is a privilege - not a right. The REQUIREMENT set by
the 14th is not a criminal or even a civil penalty - it is a REQUIREMENT
and nothing else.

Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401846f511460451990f27@usnews.blocknews.net:

> In article <VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
> says...
>>
>> On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
>> >
>> >
>> > "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
>> >> On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>> >>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> >>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>> >>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>> >>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> {snip}
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>> >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Oh?� How so?
>> >>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.� I saw nothing in there that I would interpret
>> >>>>>>>>> as mere accusation being sufficient.
>> >>>>>>>>> ���� -WBE� [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
>> >>>>>>>> There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
>> >>>>>>>> state's decision is subject to judicial review.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those
>> >>>>>>> charges.� A civil court can not determine if someone
>> >>>>>>> committed a crime.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
>> >>>> trial and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January
>> >>>> 6, 2021 through incitement."
>> >>>
>> >>> Was he indicted?
>> >>
>> >> The hearing was civil.
>> >>
>> >>> Was he booked?
>> >>
>> >> It was a civil case.
>> >>
>> >>> Did he attend?
>> >>
>> >> Could have if he wished.
>> >>
>> >>> Face his accusers?
>> >>
>> >> There were none.
>> >
>> > And right there your whole argument fails.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> > 5th and 6th Amendments.
>>
>> Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a
>> criminal conviction.
>>
>> >
>> > Without proper due process
>>
>> Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a
>> criminal trial, scooter.
>
> He never went to court for it.

Yet is somehow was a court that decided - and another court reviewed and
agreed with that part of the decision.

On 1/22/2024 7:53 AM, Winston wrote:
> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
>>> Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
>>> Show us the exact quote.
>
> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
>> 5th Amendment.
>> We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
>
> Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).

I don't know about superseding the fifth amendment, but Baude and Paulsen very
much make the point that the 14th supersedes the first on this point. Until the
14th, a person who had previously taken an oath to
support/defend/protect/preserve (they are *all* synonyms) the Constitution would
have enjoyed a first amendment right to advocate insurrection, and not be
disqualified. Following adoption of the 14th, he would *lose* first amendment
protection for advocating insurrection, at least in terms of preserving his
eligibility for office. Read the Baude and Paulsen paper. You can find it here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751

It requires the creation of an SSRN account, but it's free.

The see this section:

See "III. Section Three Supersedes, Qualifies, or Satisfies Prior Constitutional
Provisions"

"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ezwrN.295268$xHn7.113462@fx14.iad...
> On 1/22/2024 4:47 AM, scooter lied:
>>
>>
>> "NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:sfgqqilvl3rij61l4afqlvvf7pdun7jahp@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
>>>> news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh? How so?
>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
>>>>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
>>>>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision
>>>>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
>>>>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
>>>>>> through incitement."
>>>>>
>>>>> When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without charges
>>>>> or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
>>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
>>>
>>> Who were these "tens of thousands"?
>>
>> and which court stated they were barred from office without a conviction
>
> None — the people petitioning for removal of disability already knew they
> were disqualified, scooter.

No, that only shows they THOUGHT they were impacted.

Assumption vs Fact.. two vastly different things which you should be well
aware of given how often your assumptions are contrary to fact.

>
>> much less did so after they were pardoned.
>
> There were no pardons, scooter.

Then you apparently don't know history..
But we already knew that.

"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
>>> Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
>>> Show us the exact quote.
>
> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
>> 5th Amendment.
>> We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
>
> Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
> -WBE

Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing in the
14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such disqualifications due to a
finding in a criminal case.

We don't deny people their liberties because simply they have been accused..
it's a hallmark of our system of law.
Oh, yes, we can do it temporarily pending a trial, but there has been no
trial and there aren't even pending criminal charges for such a trial.

So why would you think their liberties are suddenly removed because of the
14th?

We might as well make an argument that EVERYONE'S right to run for public
office has been removed because we have all be accused of something, by
someone, somewhere at some time.

But we still have all out liberties, freedoms and rights.

So, no, Rudy simply waving your hands and claiming the 5th and 6th don't
apply to criminal matters that would cause such a prohibition under the 14th
is an unfounded assertion that is utterly contrary to the very foundations
of our jurisprudence.

First you have to establish the crime.. then the 14th could apply.

As usual you are trying to put the cart before the horse and failing
miserably.

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomfqj$s640$1@dont-email.me...
> Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in
> news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com:
>
>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
>>>> Show us the exact quote.
>>
>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
>>> 5th Amendment.
>>> We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
>>
>> Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
>> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
>> -WBE
>
> Running for Office is a privilege - not a right.

Perhaps, but you still have to prove someone isn't qualified first if you
are to deny them.

> The REQUIREMENT set by
> the 14th is not a criminal or even a civil penalty - it is a REQUIREMENT
> and nothing else.

Fine.. show me where Trump has been convicted of insurrection.
Heck show us that anyone from January 6th as been convicted of Insurrection.

Kind of hard to assert someone is disqualified for something that didn't
happen.

"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WywrN.295237$xHn7.800@fx14.iad...
> On 1/22/2024 4:56 AM, scooter lied:
>>
>>
>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
>>> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:2iipqi1uosepc9kum92kbbj7j68jhrc734@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh? How so?
>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
>>>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
>>>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision
>>>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
>>>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>>>
>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
>>>>> through incitement."
>>>>
>>>> Was he indicted? Was he booked? Did he attend? Face his accusers?
>>>> Was he represented by counsel who argued his case for him.
>>>>
>>>> Unless all these criteria were met, said trial was a kangaroo court,
>>>> irrelevant and powerless.
>>>>
>>> Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
>>> Show us the exact quote.
>>
>> 5th Amendment.
>
> No. The fifth amendment says nothing about a criminal trial being required
> in order to secure disqualification under the 14th.

So we can deny your liberties.. just because?

>
> Disqualification does not require a criminal conviction.

"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad...
> On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
>>
>>
>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
>>> On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh? How so?
>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
>>>>>>>>>> mere
>>>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
>>>>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is
>>>>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>>>> to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A
>>>>>>>> civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>>>
>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
>>>>> through incitement."
>>>>
>>>> Was he indicted?
>>>
>>> The hearing was civil.
>>>
>>>> Was he booked?
>>>
>>> It was a civil case.
>>>
>>>> Did he attend?
>>>
>>> Could have if he wished.
>>>
>>>> Face his accusers?
>>>
>>> There were none.
>>
>> And right there your whole argument fails.
>
> Nope.
>
>> 5th and 6th Amendments.
>
> Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a
> criminal conviction.

Where does it say that? We don't remove people's rights just because you
claim they did something.. Not even yours. Which is probably a very good
thing for you.

>> Without proper due process
>
> Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a
> criminal trial, scooter.

So you can't read either?

Then why did they put the term in an Amendment having to do with criminal
matters..

How can you assert Trump "shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime" without a grand jury and an due process under the
6th Amendment.

It's matters like this why no one trusts you to decide what our right to
arms is or means.

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomgal$s640$5@dont-email.me...
> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
> news:MPG.401846f511460451990f27@usnews.blocknews.net:
>
>> In article <VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
>>> >> On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> >>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> >>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> >>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> >>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> >>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> {snip}
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>> >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh? How so?
>>> >>>>>>>>> I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret
>>> >>>>>>>>> as mere accusation being sufficient.
>>> >>>>>>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
>>> >>>>>>>> There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
>>> >>>>>>>> state's decision is subject to judicial review.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those
>>> >>>>>>> charges. A civil court can not determine if someone
>>> >>>>>>> committed a crime.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
>>> >>>> trial and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January
>>> >>>> 6, 2021 through incitement."
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Was he indicted?
>>> >>
>>> >> The hearing was civil.
>>> >>
>>> >>> Was he booked?
>>> >>
>>> >> It was a civil case.
>>> >>
>>> >>> Did he attend?
>>> >>
>>> >> Could have if he wished.
>>> >>
>>> >>> Face his accusers?
>>> >>
>>> >> There were none.
>>> >
>>> > And right there your whole argument fails.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> > 5th and 6th Amendments.
>>>
>>> Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a
>>> criminal conviction.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Without proper due process
>>>
>>> Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a
>>> criminal trial, scooter.
>>
>> He never went to court for it.
>
> Yet is somehow was a court that decided - and another court reviewed and
> agreed with that part of the decision.

Yea, but you sort of missed the grand jury, the criminal trial and the jury
of his peers as required to answer for a "shall be held to answer for a
capital, or otherwise infamous crime" such as would be required to become
disqualified under the 14th Amendment.

After all we don't punish people just because idiots accuse them.. we don't
even throw people in jail because of a civil matter.

"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
> On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont-
>>> email.me:
>>>
>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh? How so?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
>>> There
>>>>>>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
>>> decision
>>>>>>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
>>>>>>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
>>> trial
>>>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
>>>>>>>> through incitement."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without
>>> charges
>>>>>>> or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
>>>>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who were these "tens of thousands"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stupidity limit reached.
>>>>
>>> ===============
>>> At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be
>>> disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the
>>> Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
>>
>> Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
>
> Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be disqualified.

Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of those eight.

Meanwhile I will note we went from tens of thousands to eight.. and Trump
isn't one of those eight.

"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
> On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
>>
>>
>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
>>> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
>>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh? How so?
>>>>>>>> I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
>>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is
>>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>> to judicial review.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado
>>>>> law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state,
>>>>> pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what
>>>>> constitutes insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the
>>>>> event of 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it.
>>>>> Trump was not on trial.
>>>>
>>>> Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
>>>
>>> People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than
>>> insurrection.
>>
>> Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
>
> There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum
> prison term of 20 years;

Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.

> insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.

Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.

>Seditious
> conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by definition.

Post the definition.

Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.. and you're still left having
to show us where he was convicted of a infamous crime.

>
>>
>> What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection.
>
> Irrelevant.

Totally relevant to your argument.

>>> It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and
>>> convicted of statutory insurrection.
>>
>> IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
>
> There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with the
> statutory crime of insurrection.

Right, the mythical insurrection that no one has ever been shown to have
participated in...

Sorry we don't deny people their rights because you're having delusions.

On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
>
>
> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
>> On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
>>>> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
>>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>    -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
>>>>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
>>>>>>>> to judicial review.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law,
>>>>>> was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant
>>>>>> to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes
>>>>>> insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the event of
>>>>>> 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not
>>>>>> on trial.
>>>>>
>>>>> Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
>>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
>>>>
>>>> People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than
>>>> insurrection.
>>>
>>> Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
>>
>> There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison
>> term of 20 years;
>
> Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.

I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3
disqualification, scooter.

>
>> insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
>
> Great.

Yes.

>> Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by definition.
>
> Post the definition.

It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a harsher penalty
is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by definition, scooter.
That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.

> Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.

There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of whether or not
anyone was charged with that statutory crime. Insurrection doesn't only mean a
statutory crime, scooter. It's a description of an event, and that event meets
all the criteria for being an insurrection.

>>
>>>
>>> What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> Totally relevant

No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not what "proves"
that the event was an insurrection, scooter.

>>>> It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and convicted
>>>> of statutory insurrection.
>>>
>>> IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
>>
>> There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with the
>> statutory crime of insurrection.
>
> Right,

Right, scooter.

> the mythical insurrection

No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on 01/06/2021, scooter.

On 1/22/2024 12:41 PM, scooter lied:

>
>
> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:uomgal$s640$5@dont-email.me...
>> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
>> news:MPG.401846f511460451990f27@usnews.blocknews.net:
>>
>>> In article <VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> > news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
>>>> >> On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>> >>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> >>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> >>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> >>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
>>>> >>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret
>>>> >>>>>>>>> as mere accusation being sufficient.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>      -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
>>>> >>>>>>>> There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
>>>> >>>>>>>> state's decision is subject to judicial review.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those
>>>> >>>>>>> charges.  A civil court can not determine if someone
>>>> >>>>>>> committed a crime.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
>>>> >>>> trial and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January
>>>> >>>> 6, 2021 through incitement."
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Was he indicted?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The hearing was civil.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Was he booked?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It was a civil case.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Did he attend?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Could have if he wished.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Face his accusers?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> There were none.
>>>> >
>>>> > And right there your whole argument fails.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> > 5th and 6th Amendments.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a
>>>> criminal conviction.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Without proper due process
>>>>
>>>> Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a
>>>> criminal trial, scooter.
>>>
>>> He never went to court for it.
>>
>> Yet is somehow was a court that decided - and another court reviewed and
>> agreed with that part of the decision.
>
> Yea, but you sort of missed the grand jury, the criminal trial and

Not required for 14.3, scooter. Trump was not "held to answer," scooter.

On 1/22/2024 12:40 PM, scooter lied:

>
>
> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad...
>> On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
>>>> On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
>>>>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>      -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
>>>>>>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
>>>>>>>>>> to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.  A
>>>>>>>>> civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
>>>>>> through incitement."
>>>>>
>>>>> Was he indicted?
>>>>
>>>> The hearing was civil.
>>>>
>>>>> Was he booked?
>>>>
>>>> It was a civil case.
>>>>
>>>>> Did he attend?
>>>>
>>>> Could have if he wished.
>>>>
>>>>> Face his accusers?
>>>>
>>>> There were none.
>>>
>>> And right there your whole argument fails.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> 5th and 6th Amendments.
>>
>> Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a criminal
>> conviction.
>
> Where does it say that?

Because it's not in the amendment, scooter.

> We don't remove people's rights just because you claim
> they did something.

No one did that with Trump, scooter. A person doesn't have an unconditional
"right" to run for president, scooter.

>
>
>>> Without proper due process
>>
>> Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a criminal
>> trial, scooter.
>
> So you can't read either?

I can, scooter. I know that "due process" does not mean a criminal trial in and
of itself, scooter.

> Then why did they put the term in an Amendment having to do with criminal matters

It doesn't only deal with criminal matters, scooter.

> How can you assert Trump "shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
> infamous crime"

He wasn't, scooter. "Held to answer" *means* being charged criminally, scooter.
Trump wasn't charged criminally, scooter, so he was not "held to answer."

On 1/22/2024 12:34 PM, scooter lied:
>
>
> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:WywrN.295237$xHn7.800@fx14.iad...
>> On 1/22/2024 4:56 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:2iipqi1uosepc9kum92kbbj7j68jhrc734@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
>>>>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>     -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
>>>>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision
>>>>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
>>>>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
>>>>>> through incitement."
>>>>>
>>>>> Was he indicted?  Was he booked?  Did he attend?  Face his accusers?
>>>>> Was he represented by counsel who argued his case for him.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless all these criteria were met, said trial was a kangaroo court,
>>>>> irrelevant and powerless.
>>>>>
>>>> Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
>>>> Show us the exact quote.
>>>
>>> 5th Amendment.
>>
>> No. The fifth amendment says nothing about a criminal trial being required in
>> order to secure disqualification under the 14th.
>
> So we can deny your liberties.. just because?

No, scooter.

There is no liberty interest to be considered eligible to run for president,
scooter. Arnold Schwarzenegger may not run for president, and no liberty has
been denied to him, scooter. And furthermore, he hasn't been denied due process,
either. He simply isn't eligible, scooter.

>>
>> Disqualification does not require a criminal conviction.
>

On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:

>
>
> "Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
>>>> Show us the exact quote.
>>
>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
>>> 5th Amendment.
>>> We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
>>
>> Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
>> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
>> -WBE
>
> Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing in the 14th
> sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such disqualifications due to a finding
> in a criminal case.

A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.

On 1/22/2024 12:23 PM, scooter lied:
>
>
> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ezwrN.295268$xHn7.113462@fx14.iad...
>> On 1/22/2024 4:47 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sfgqqilvl3rij61l4afqlvvf7pdun7jahp@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
>>>>>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>     -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
>>>>>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision
>>>>>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
>>>>>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
>>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
>>>>>>> through incitement."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When was he criminally charged and convicted?  A trial without charges
>>>>>> or arrest?  Wow, what is it you advocate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
>>>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
>>>>
>>>> Who were these "tens of thousands"?
>>>
>>> and which court stated they were barred from office without a conviction
>>
>> None — the people petitioning for removal of disability already knew they were
>> disqualified, scooter.
>
> No,

Yes. They were southern traitors who were former officeholders who had sworn an
oath to support the constitution, and they knew they were disqualified.

>>
>>> much less did so after they were pardoned.
>>
>> There were no pardons, scooter.
>
> Then you apparently don't know history

There were no pardons issued to people who were disqualified under 14.3 that
removed their disqualification, scooter. The removal of 14.3 disqualifications
could *only* come from Congress, scooter. That's why the southern traitors sent
their amnesty petitions to Congress, scooter, and not to the pardon office.

On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:

>
>
> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
>> On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont-
>>>> email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
>>>> There
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
>>>> decision
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
>>>>>>>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
>>>> trial
>>>>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
>>>>>>>>> through incitement."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When was he criminally charged and convicted?  A trial without
>>>> charges
>>>>>>>> or arrest?  Wow, what is it you advocate?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
>>>>>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who were these "tens of thousands"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stupidity limit reached.
>>>>>
>>>> ===============
>>>> At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be
>>>> disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the
>>>> Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
>>>
>>> Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
>>
>> Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be disqualified.
>
> Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of those eight.

No one said he was before now, scooter.

Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 12:24:31 -0800, David Hartung
> <shithole.starkville@southern.traitors.r.us> wrote:
>
>>On 1/21/2024 8:10 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>> Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
>>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
>>>
>>> Who were these "tens of thousands"?
>>
>> Section 3 adjudications against former Confederates were rare in the
>> aftermath of the Civil War. That is because it was widely understood that
>> former Confederates who took an oath to support the Constitution before the
>> Civil War were disqualified under Section 3 and therefore many likely did not
>> seek office in the first place. In fact, ex-Confederates flooded Congress
>> with _thousands of amnesty requests_ [link in original] to "remove" their
>> Section 3 disqualification, demonstrating that they understood themselves to
>> be disqualified even without a formal adjudication. In addition, the window
>> for disqualifying ex-Confederates was small: the Fourteenth Amendment was
>> ratified on July 9, 1868, and Congress removed the Section 3 disqualification
>> for most ex-Confederates less than four years later in the Amnesty Act of May
>> 22, 1872 (that statute withheld amnesty from Confederate leaders such as
>> Jefferson Davis). So while only eight officials have been formally ruled to
>> be disqualified under Section 3, thousands more were understood to be
>> disqualified in the period between the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification
>> in 1868 and Congress's passage of the Amnesty Act in 1872 that applied to
>> former Confederates.
>>
>>https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
>>
>>https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Confederate-Amnesty-Petitions-PI_0233_Select-Committee-on-Reconstruction-1867-71.pdf
>>
>>Document at the second link has names. Read it.
>>
>
> Thanks, Rudy! Good job on that one!
>
> Swill

Military officers who served the U.S. before the War, who became members
of the Confederate military during the War, pretty clearly meet the
criteria, and, because of 14.3, would have been barred from continuing
to serve in comparable positions after the War. While that doesn't
apply to enlisted men (14.3 says not just anyone, but members of
specific groups who have done as described), that could still be
hundreds or thousands of people from just that group. Their service
record alone would be sufficient, I would expect.

The people of the time pretty clearly viewed the War as qualifying as an
insurrection or rebellion, as evidenced by those terms being the ones
used in the amendment. OTOH, J6 was mostly unarmed people milling about
and listening to speeches and didn't last for years, so there's
considerably less agreement among citizenry at large about it qualifying
as an actual insurrection (as opposed to that term being pushed for the
express political purpose of being used to keep Trump from ever running
again).
-WBE

Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:r4CrN.221408$Ama9.64651@fx12.iad:

> I can, scooter. I know that "due process" does not mean a criminal
> trial in and of itself, scooter.
>
For instance, Eminent Domain requires Due Process and is NOT a criminal
matter at all.