2024 GOP Primary

Despite the majority of Americans not wanting Trump or Biden, the media and the RNC/DNC will basically decide who is POTUS.
 
He looms large as a big-time challenger. His impact on this primary could be huge. Everybody could be in for a gigantic surprise. He could stage an enormous upset.

140218-christie-2012-2014-weight-jms-1453.jpg

3d02b38a-6800-4cf9-be3c-ed6b1d04c0af-241c582a_00006.jpg

ctm_0205_CHRISTIE.jpg






He takes after President Taft (by being into baseball, of course...).
USATSI_7399757_168380803_lowres.jpg
 
Last edited:
14th Amendment

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


[Note, that the text states that "No person shall be ..." This alone does not prohibit some political party from running, and nominating, an ineligible candidate. If an ineligible candidate is elected, it seems that it would be upon the Federal Judge doing the inauguration to reject that candidate and refuse to inaugurate him. Either that, or on the VP or Senate to refuse to accept those votes of the electors who voted in an ineligible candidate. It appears to me that nothing in the 14th Amendment would prohibit the fictional 'Looney Party' from nominating a 12 year old born in Afghanistan. That person could not become president at that age, but some political party could nominate him or her.]
 
Mr. Deez said:
It's a ******** opinion. SCOTUS will and should wipe its *** with it. I'm not saying the argument can't be made at all. I'm saying that a factfinding of insurrection by a state trial court judge isn't going to cut it.
Click to expand...

You know you're too far gone when you make Minnesota look normal.
 
Kinda hard to be an insurrection when:

1) no one carried firearms
2) concrete visual evidence the capitol police started the violence
 
Let's pick how we think SCOTUS will go. I'm guessing 8-1 against Colorado. You can probably guess who I think the lone idiot will be.
 
Garmel said:
Let's pick how we think SCOTUS will go. I'm guessing 8-1 against Colorado. You can probably guess who I think the lone idiot will be.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of the Dems will vote to reverse. This is too much of a litmus test for them.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I don't think any of the Dems will vote to reverse. This is too much of a litmus test for them.
Click to expand...

You could be right.

A lot of blue courts around the country have shut all of this down with Colorado being the first and that court consisted of 7 dems. Went 4-3. Dems judges are not sold on this.

Of course the SCOTUS libs might be somewhat intimidated. We'll see.
 
Red and blue states might as well go their separate ways at this point. We don't want to live like them and they don't want to live like us.
 
Here's a pretty standard way of doing an analysis of whether there was (or was not) an "insurrection." Look at what the word "insurrection" meant to the drafters of that language in that context.

"Insurrection" meant something similar to the Civil War--where one group of States left (or purported to leave) The United States, passed formal written and signed documents announcing they were doing so, raised armies, and waged war using those armies against the armies of the United States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top