A question for Trump supporters

[John Clark]

Now that the Supreme Court has decreed that it's constitutional to ignore the 14th amendment to the US Constitution and allow Trump to remain on the ballot, would it also be constitutional to ignore the second amendment to the Constitution?

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

4It

[howardmarks]

Sorry, Supreme Court did not ignore the 14th Amendment to the USC. How can it be construed as "insurrection" to ask a group not at the Capitol, words to the effect of "peacefully" going to the Capital to "lawfully protest . . . "?  And, it's doubtful 2nd Amendment will be allowed by the owners of 300 million guns in the US to be ignored.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2P5WvhDJg_SEmo0Yp9Q55pWBBi-t5AhFbPSDuQJp%2BzaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:16 PM howardmarks <howar...@doitnow.com> wrote:

> How can it be construed as "insurrection" to ask a group not at the Capitol, words to the effect of "peacefully" going to the Capital to "lawfully protest . . . "? 

Something like that couldn't be interpreted as an insurrection, but I was talking about the failed January 6, 2021 coup d'état. And by the way, the words "trial by combat" and "peacefully" are not usually considered to be synonyms.  

   John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

tds

[Dylan Distasio]

Even if we allow for the sake of a hypothetical that Trump directly was part of an "insurrection,"  states have no authority to make this determination around eligibility under the 14th amendment.    The ruling was unanimous including from liberals on the court who despise Trump, and does nothing to ignore the 14th amendment which I'm sure John actually realizes.   He just doesn't like the outcome so we've moved on to the hyperbole phase.   Whether Trump was actually guilty of insurrection is a moot point from a legal perspective in ruling on a state taking this kind of action.   It would have to come from Congress.    The Constitution has not been violated here and everyone should feel good that the SCOTUS put personal feelings aside, and did their job.

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:16 PM howardmarks <howar...@doitnow.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c36e2f6c-2028-405e-8aff-3f555194ac5b%40doitnow.com.

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:41 PM Dylan Distasio <inte...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

> Whether Trump was actually guilty of insurrection is a moot point from a legal perspective in ruling on a state taking this kind of action.   It would have to come from Congress.

Then why didn't the 14th amendment specify that the federal government, not the states, were the ultimate authority on who committed insurrection and who did not? Historically, unless the US Constitution said otherwise, the states were allowed to write their own election laws. For example, Wyoming gave women the right to vote as early as 1869, but the 19th amendment which gave all women in all the states the right to vote didn't become law until 1920.  Another example would be the direct election of senators, in 1908 Oregon law said senators would be determined by the popular vote, but that didn't become universal across the country until 1913 with the passage of the 17th amendment. 

 > everyone should feel good that the SCOTUS put personal feelings aside, and did their job.

It's absolutely outrageous that Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself on this decision because his wife was part of the mob that attacked the capital on January 6, 2021. And I do NOT feel good about that because if that isn't a conflict of interest then what the hell is?  

There's something else I don't feel good about. When it comes to a criminal case that is likely to harm Trump, like deciding if a former president can be prosecuted for ordering seal team six to assassinate a political rival, the Supreme Court is doing everything in its power to slow down the case until after the elections because after he becomes president again Trump will simply make that criminal case against him disappear. 

Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity

But when it comes to a case that could help Trump like this one, then the supreme court  moves at warp speed. It's stuff like that gives hypocrisy a bad name.  

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

thb

[Brent Meeker]

The liberal Supremes joined the MAGAts in dodging responsibility.  Were Confederate officers who previously served in the US Army denied election one-by-one by acts of Congress?  I don't think so.  Why is any "action" needed unless someone challenges their disqualification on factual grounds.

Brent

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJrqPH9tzmLkvFRdUVs765OBpGS6r4AESsJa9q72uRhAgM4dFA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dylan Distasio]

Out of curiosity, have you read the full text of the ruling?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/226808d9-362c-4b16-ad49-773102b0757b%40gmail.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 3/4/2024 12:24 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:41 PM Dylan Distasio <inte...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

> Whether Trump was actually guilty of insurrection is a moot point from a legal perspective in ruling on a state taking this kind of action.   It would have to come from Congress.

Then why didn't the 14th amendment specify that the federal government, not the states, were the ultimate authority on who committed insurrection and who did not? Historically, unless the US Constitution said otherwise, the states were allowed to write their own election laws. For example, Wyoming gave women the right to vote as early as 1869, but the 19th amendment which gave all women in all the states the right to vote didn't become law until 1920.  Another example would be the direct election of senators, in 1908 Oregon law said senators would be determined by the popular vote, but that didn't become universal across the country until 1913 with the passage of the 17th amendment. 

 > everyone should feel good that the SCOTUS put personal feelings aside, and did their job.

It's absolutely outrageous that Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself on this decision because his wife was part of the mob that attacked the capital on January 6, 2021. And I do NOT feel good about that because if that isn't a conflict of interest then what the hell is?  

There's something else I don't feel good about. When it comes to a criminal case that is likely to harm Trump, like deciding if a former president can be prosecuted for ordering seal team six to assassinate a political rival,

They won't make that ruling though, because then Joe can order the Secret Service Presidential Security detail to just off Donald Dump.

Brent

the Supreme Court is doing everything in its power to slow down the case until after the elections because after he becomes president again Trump will simply make that criminal case against him disappear. 

Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity

But when it comes to a case that could help Trump like this one, then the supreme court  moves at warp speed. It's stuff like that gives hypocrisy a bad name.  

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

thb

 

Now that the Supreme Court has decreed that it's constitutional to ignore the 14th amendment to the US Constitution and allow Trump to remain on the ballot, would it also be constitutional to ignore the second amendment to the Constitution?

  

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3yDQA3ROxrz6iOYty1307PaY7X7s26di3nCZdkHNrV%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[PGC]

On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 11:20:44 PM UTC+1 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 3/4/2024 12:24 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:41 PM Dylan Distasio <inte...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

> Whether Trump was actually guilty of insurrection is a moot point from a legal perspective in ruling on a state taking this kind of action.   It would have to come from Congress.

Then why didn't the 14th amendment specify that the federal government, not the states, were the ultimate authority on who committed insurrection and who did not? Historically, unless the US Constitution said otherwise, the states were allowed to write their own election laws. For example, Wyoming gave women the right to vote as early as 1869, but the 19th amendment which gave all women in all the states the right to vote didn't become law until 1920.  Another example would be the direct election of senators, in 1908 Oregon law said senators would be determined by the popular vote, but that didn't become universal across the country until 1913 with the passage of the 17th amendment. 

 > everyone should feel good that the SCOTUS put personal feelings aside, and did their job.

It's absolutely outrageous that Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself on this decision because his wife was part of the mob that attacked the capital on January 6, 2021. And I do NOT feel good about that because if that isn't a conflict of interest then what the hell is?  

There's something else I don't feel good about. When it comes to a criminal case that is likely to harm Trump, like deciding if a former president can be prosecuted for ordering seal team six to assassinate a political rival,

They won't make that ruling though, because then Joe can order the Secret Service Presidential Security detail to just off Donald Dump.

Brent

Yes, but this and/or slowdown can be exploited to demonstrate that immunity for the sake of future presidents being freed from frivolous prosecution must have constraints; and that without such constraints, say in legislation blocking climates, somebody has to prosecute anti-democratic moves/intentions without precedence. Otherwise why not do what Cuban said a couple of weeks ago? 

https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1741537504124162193?lang=en

I wish Biden would come out and say  he wants Trump on the ballot. The 14th doesn't apply.  Then thanks him for the playbook describing how to never leave office and the appreciation of knowing he can't be charged, no matter what he does.  And ends it with " My Fellow Americans , I'm not ever going to leave the White House and there is nothing you can do to me. "

Which would confirm exactly why SCOTUS will keep Trump off the ballots and why Trump will never get immunity.

Anti-democratic threats have to be confronted with more boldness of this kind. People who threaten it are not eligible for office or voting. The TOE relevance to this list? In any theory or system, one cannot have agents benefiting from rights/powers/abilities (e.g. universal voting rights) to promote undermining of the same. In game theory as an example, this would be a participant in a scenario, that forgoes the use of their own abilities/powers. This renders the system/game futile for those participants. Therefore via any systemic thinking or rational implication, they are not true participants. In any universe, with any physics or TOE.

Interesting times. Authoritarians and absolutists everywhere bending everything every which way... and the rest thinking about how to act best in accordance with their principles. At some point, the rest may realize what's at stake and find the balls to execute Cuban like moves. It looks too slow and weak.