The Supreme Dead Beats

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm not following. Who is losing liberties?

CO and ME is using the 14th amendment to remove a citizens liberty. That liberty being to run for office. In order to achieve this, using an obscure interpretation of the amendment. Subverting due process.

They are saying that the section is self executing. So I asked you if you knew of any other self executing laws. You said citizenship. That's an affirmation of rights. Not a removal. Which is fine because you answered my question.

What I mean is what other self executing law removes rights?

Nobody is losing property, liberty or life by Donald Trump being ineligible to hold office based on his actions leading up to and the day of Jan 6th.

You can keep saying this but its demonstrably false. CO and ME are trying to remove Trumps liberty from running for office. There already exists a qualification section of the Constitution and they have been met.

The law requires, if convicted, a financial fine, (property) and/or prison time (liberty). The 14th Amendment makes no such requirement. It is merely a disqualification.

Yet it does in section 1 and section 5. Why are you refusing to take these within the context of the 14th amendment?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

He'll be getting even more Sue Process from SCOTUS!

Freudian slip?

HAHA

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Got due process? How so? 😃

In Colorado and in Maine, due process all the way to SCOTUS!

No


Public defender: Even Trump has due process rights, which Colorado Supreme Court put aside
😬

Colorado did not hold a jury trial to determine if Trump was an insurrectionist, nor provide the evidence to be used against him. Colorado did not adhere to stringent rules of evidence or procedures. And the burden of proof used against Trump was not beyond a reasonable doubt. Rules matter. Due process matters.

a reply to: xuenchen

Colorado did not hold a jury trial to determine if Trump was an insurrectionist, nor provide the evidence to be used against him. Colorado did not adhere to stringent rules of evidence or procedures. And the burden of proof used against Trump was not beyond a reasonable doubt. Rules matter. Due process matters.

LOL
That's because Trump was not criminally tried. You don't need a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for civil cases. And yet, due process does happen in civil court every day. It happened in Colorado and it happened in Maine.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well then he was never actually convicted! 😃

And The "Jury" thing still applies. 😃

a reply to: JinMI

CO and ME is using the 14th amendment to remove a citizens liberty. That liberty being to run for office. In order to achieve this, using an obscure interpretation of the amendment. Subverting due process.

It's a privilege, not a liberty. Not just anybody can be a republican candidate. There are RNC rules, funding thresholds, signature thresholds, etc. Trump is ineligible for the privilege of serving as the President of United States, a privilege, not a liberty or a right, after having incited an insurrection, and all.

The 14th Amendment, Section 3's purpose is to remove the privilege from any citizen, who previously took an oath to protect the US Constitution, from holding office.

What I mean is what other self executing law removes rights?

A felon's right to vote and to bear arms. It's self executing through the 13th Amendment, I believe.

Nobody is losing property, liberty or life, by Donald Trump being ineligible to hold office based on his actions leading up to and the day of Jan 6th.
You can keep saying this but its demonstrably false.

Well, you haven't demonstrated that it is, yet.

Yet it does in section 1 and section 5. Why are you refusing to take these within the context of the 14th amendment?

Due process has happened.

Congress has not written a law saying that the 14th A, Section 3 can only be enforced through criminal court. Congress wrote a criminal law addressing insurrection, that also reiterates the 14th A, Section 3's disqualification.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It's a privilege, not a liberty. Not just anybody can be a republican candidate. There are RNC rules, funding thresholds, signature thresholds, etc. Trump is ineligible for the privilege of serving as the President of United States, a privilege, not a liberty or a right, after having incited an insurrection, and all.

I don't buy your semantical substitution. Because privilege is synonymous with a "right" as the word is even in the definition. The RNC rules, funding etc are irrelevant to the case.

So yes, it's Trump's liberty to be able to run for office and is being impeded by the government.

A felon's right to vote and to bear arms. It's self executing through the 13th Amendment, I believe.

A felon's right is removed upon a being found guilty of a felony. I mean it's literally right in the amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Well, you haven't demonstrated that it is, yet.

The argument that restricting liberty sans due process is the proof.

Due process has happened.

Again with your "nuh-uh" arguments. They aren't serious and are dismissed as such.

Congress has not written a law saying that the 14th A, Section 3 can only be enforced through criminal court. Congress wrote a criminal law addressing insurrection, that also reiterates the 14th A, Section 3's disqualification.

They sure did, it's right here:

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.

Are you saying congress did not adopt this law?

a reply to: JinMI

I don't buy your semantical substitution. Because privilege is synonymous with a "right" as the word is even in the definition. The RNC rules, funding etc are irrelevant to the case.

A felon's right is removed upon a being found guilty of a felony. I mean it's literally right in the amendment:

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about felons losing 2nd Amendment rights and voting rights, automatically. They have to petition to get them back.

Due process has happened.
Again with your "nuh-uh" arguments.

LOL It's a "Uh" huh, as in the affirmative, as in "Due process does happen in civil court, every day."

Are you saying congress did not adopt this law?

Congress has not written a law saying that the 14th A, Section 3 can only be enforced through a criminal court conviction. If this were a clear cut and dry case, as you insist, it wouldn't be at the Supreme Court, with so many constitutional scholars all with different opinions.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm not watching your video, thanks.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about felons losing 2nd Amendment rights and voting rights, automatically. They have to petition to get them back.

Yea..do you know where those come from? The answer may surprise you.....

Hint: Jim Crow

LOL It's a "Uh" huh, as in the affirmative, as in "Due process does happen in civil court, every day."

Thanks Kamala.

Congress has not written a law saying that the 14th A, Section 3 can only be enforced through a criminal court conviction. If this were a clear cut and dry case, as you insist, it wouldn't be at the Supreme Court, with so many constitutional scholars all with different opinions.

I'm sorry hasn't tailored their adoption of the statute to your suiting. Yet it exist in verbiage and definition.

Keep going because this entire argument you are making is exactly what the D's did to black folks.


Should you care to enlighten yourself by tracking down those "civil death" statutes, you should reach the same conclusion.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Colorado can't ' decide' someone is guilty of a crime that haven't been charged with my friend.

Regardless of WHO it is... Donald Trump or John Q.Citizen.

I am not fan of Trump either.

You should blame Attorney General Merrick Garland for not charging Trump in the first place, but he was too busy charging the poor fools who were lead into a Fool's Errand on Jan 6th. Easy to go after the little fish....and those insanely long sentences.

Meanwhile....nothing....no charges on Trump for leading the pack.

Nope. Trump was not charged for Insurrection and wasn't convicted. He shouldn't have been denied ballot status.

States have rights but they can't just violate an American's Right to Due Process.

Otherwise we have Feudalism.

Pro Libertate!
-OSR

a reply to: xuenchen

He also like All American Citizens , has the Lawful Right to Attorney Client Privilege which has been Unlawfully Taken Away from him in these Illegal Kangaroo Courts Proceedings . It simply Amazes me the Degree of Ignorance shown here on ATS by Posters who Obviously know Nothing about Our Laws . You are the Butt of your Own Joke !.........

A damn fine observation! A million stars if I could give them to you!

originally posted by: OneSmarticusRaticus
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Colorado can't ' decide' someone is guilty of a crime that haven't been charged with my friend.

Regardless of WHO it is... Donald Trump or John Q.Citizen.

I am not fan of Trump either.

You should blame Attorney General Merrick Garland for not charging Trump in the first place, but he was too busy charging the poor fools who were lead into a Fool's Errand on Jan 6th. Easy to go after the little fish....and those insanely long sentences.

Meanwhile....nothing....no charges on Trump for leading the pack.

Nope. Trump was not charged for Insurrection and wasn't convicted. He shouldn't have been denied ballot status.

States have rights but they can't just violate an American's Right to Due Process.

Otherwise we have Feudalism.

Pro Libertate!
-OSR

a reply to: OneSmarticusRaticus

Colorado can't ' decide' someone is guilty of a crime that haven't been charged with my friend

Happens every day in civil court, my friend.

Lets say for example, someone punches someone in the face, and now one of them needs a doctor and dentist. The person who was harmed sues the person who punched them in face for medical expenses, punitive damages and pain and suffering. Yet, no arrest or assault charge was ever made. Happens all the time.

You should blame Attorney General Merrick Garland for not charging Trump in the first place

That's a problem, if that's how SCOTUS rules, because Attorney Generals, like Bill Barr and Merrick Garland, and political appointees, under the Executive Branch, and therefore have an innate conflict of interest to impeach their president or one of their own.

a reply to: JinMI

I'm not watching your video, thanks.

Fine, but you can't keep arguing that rights and privileges are one in the same. They are not.

Keep going because this entire argument you are making is exactly what the D's did to black folks.

Not seeing it. But, loop holes in the law are not rare, and are usually on purpose.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Fine, but you can't keep arguing that rights and privileges are one in the same. They are not.

Look, I was trying to leave you some latitude. But if you insist on using privilege, fine.

Privilege according to Webster:

: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : PREROGATIVE
especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office

Liberty:

: the quality or state of being free:
a
: the power to do as one pleases
b
: freedom from physical restraint
c
: freedom from arbitrary or despotic (see DESPOT sense 1) control
d
: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e
: the power of choice

Not seeing it. But, loop holes in the law are not rare, and are usually on purpose.

You're not seeing how by removing rights of people before they are convicted of crimes and it's historical analogies to what once was reserved for black folks?

Even invoking felons "civil death" as a pretext? That being when a felon is stripped of rights post conviction?

a reply to: JinMI

Definition of PRIVILEGE (Black's Law Dictionary) Definition of PRIVILEGE: A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption.

Black’s Law Online Dictionary


Nobody has a right to the office of President of the United States. Holding that office is a privilege.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

From your own link:

A right, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, against or beyond the course of the law.

I already conceded. We can use privilege if you wish.


No problem.


So why are you then still advocating for the removal of rights sans any due process and conviction?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

From your own link:

A right, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, against or beyond the course of the law.

So why are you then still advocating for the removal of rights sans any due process and conviction?

Simple

Orange man bad

a reply to: JinMI

So why are you then still advocating for the removal of rights sans any due process and conviction?

Holding the office of the President of the United States is a privilege, not a right.

Nobody is losing a right, i.e. property, liberty or life, by being ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States. However, both Colorado and Maine did apply due process in their courts, all the way up to the state supreme courts and to the US Supreme Court, not under the burden of proof of criminal law, but under the burden of proof of civil law.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Holding the office of the President of the United States is a privilege, not a right.

Considering the fact that they were assumedly elected, I don't think privilege applies there either.

Nobody is losing a right, i.e. property, liberty or life, by being ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States. However, both Colorado and Maine did apply due process in their courts, all the way up to the state supreme courts and to the US Supreme Court, not under the burden of proof of criminal law, but under the burden of proof of civil law.

You keep saying this and it doesn't become true by repeating it.

Removing Trump from the ballot. That being the state denying Trump access is quite literally denying him his liber...errr privilege, ergo "right."

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Getting found responsible or liable does not = a criminal conviction. Big difference. 😃

Trump has not been found guilty of Insurrection. 😃

Trump has not been charged with insurrection. 😃

None of the Jan6 related charges for anybody else has charged insurrection. 😃