Should Trump be removed from the primary ballots?

[gounion]

Nope. Elected executives. Members of congress are not officers either. Officers under the United States is a different animal - Military, federal marshal, Supreme Court justice, federal court Justice, etc. The fact that congress and officers under the United States are distinguished from one another in the same sentence tells you congress are not officers.

Elected Official and officer are not the same.

Yes they are.

[bird]

What due process for Joe Biden?

Hunter Biden is a private citizen who doesn’t work in government. Idiot.

Tell that to Kevin McCarthy and the rest of your party. Idiot.

[Bludogdem]

The President and VP are officers of the United States.

“§ 791. A question arose upon an impeachment before the senate in 1799, whether a senator was a civil officer of the United States, within the purview of the constitution; and it was decided by the senate, that he was not; and the like principle must apply to the members of the house of representatives. This decision, upon which the senate itself was greatly divided, seems not to have been quite satisfactory (as it may be gathered) to the minds of some learned commentators. The reasoning, by which it was sustained in the senate, does not appear, their deliberations having been private. But it was probably held, that "civil officers of the United States" meant such, as derived their appointment from, and under the national government, and not those persons, who, though members of the government, derived their appointment from the states, or the people of the states. In this view, the enumeration of the president and vice president, as impeachable officers, was indispensable; for they derive, or may derive, their office from a source paramount to the national government. And the clause of the constitution, now under consideration, does not even affect to consider them officers of the United States. It says, "the president, vice-president, and all civil officers (not all other civil officers) shall be removed," &c. The language of the clause, therefore, would rather lead to the conclusion, that they were enumerated, as contradistinguished from, rather than as included in the description of, civil officers of the United States. Other clauses of the constitution would seem to favour the same result; particularly the clause, respecting appointment of officers of the United States by the executive, who is to "commission all the officers of the United States;" and the 6th section of the first article, which declares, that "no person, holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office;" and the first section of the second article, which declares, that "no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector." It is far from being certain, that the convention itself ever contemplated, that senators or representatives should be subjected to impeachment; and it is very far from being clear, that such a subjection would have been either politic or desirable.”

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 758--69, 771--78, 780--803, 810--11

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founder ... _5s18.html

I suggest everyone should read Story’s Commentaries. You might actually learn to understand the Constitution. From someone who was there at the nations beginning.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/U ... 1251-1.pdf
Nowhere in this article does it say that the President, Vice President, or members of Congress are officers of the United States.

[gounion]

“§ 791. A question arose upon an impeachment before the senate in 1799, whether a senator was a civil officer of the United States, within the purview of the constitution; and it was decided by the senate, that he was not; and the like principle must apply to the members of the house of representatives. This decision, upon which the senate itself was greatly divided, seems not to have been quite satisfactory (as it may be gathered) to the minds of some learned commentators. The reasoning, by which it was sustained in the senate, does not appear, their deliberations having been private. But it was probably held, that "civil officers of the United States" meant such, as derived their appointment from, and under the national government, and not those persons, who, though members of the government, derived their appointment from the states, or the people of the states. In this view, the enumeration of the president and vice president, as impeachable officers, was indispensable; for they derive, or may derive, their office from a source paramount to the national government. And the clause of the constitution, now under consideration, does not even affect to consider them officers of the United States. It says, "the president, vice-president, and all civil officers (not all other civil officers) shall be removed," &c. The language of the clause, therefore, would rather lead to the conclusion, that they were enumerated, as contradistinguished from, rather than as included in the description of, civil officers of the United States. Other clauses of the constitution would seem to favour the same result; particularly the clause, respecting appointment of officers of the United States by the executive, who is to "commission all the officers of the United States;" and the 6th section of the first article, which declares, that "no person, holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office;" and the first section of the second article, which declares, that "no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector." It is far from being certain, that the convention itself ever contemplated, that senators or representatives should be subjected to impeachment; and it is very far from being clear, that such a subjection would have been either politic or desirable.”

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 758--69, 771--78, 780--803, 810--11

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founder ... _5s18.html

I suggest everyone should read Story’s Commentaries. You might actually learn to understand the Constitution. From someone who was there at the nations beginning.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/U ... 1251-1.pdf
Nowhere in this article does it say that the President, Vice President, or members of Congress are officers of the United States.

Story’s opinion. Nothing more. I do realize you consider Trump a king who can do whatever he wants and the Constitution or laws do not apply to him.

[Number6]

Until TFG is convicted of insurrection his name will appear on states' ballots provided he gets enough signatures to put it on the primary ballots.

[Bludogdem]

Story’s opinion. Nothing more. I do realize you consider Trump a king who can do whatever he wants and the Constitution or laws do not apply to him.

Coming from one of the nation’s foremost authorities and scholars on the constitution it’s a great deal more than an opinion.

The constitution and laws apply to him. That part of the 14th doesn’t, just like it doesn’t apply to everyone. And the myriad of prosecutors who have investigated him would charge him if they could establish a clear cut violation. They are smart enough not to go in with a questionable prosecution. Oddly, trump is entitled to the constitutional and legal protections we all are.

[gounion]

Coming from one of the nation’s foremost authorities and scholars on the constitution it’s a great deal more than an opinion.

Ah yes and we can always put up another “foremost authority and scholar on the constitution” but you won’t take THAT opinion. I read it like it reads, but you conservatives always like to change the plain meaning into something else. The Courts haven’t ruled on it. So it’s all bullshit opinions.

The constitution and laws apply to him. That part of the 14th doesn’t, just like it doesn’t apply to everyone. And the myriad of prosecutors who have investigated him would charge him if they could establish a clear cut violation. They are smart enough not to go in with a questionable prosecution. Oddly, trump is entitled to the constitutional and legal protections we all are.

Isn’t it funny how Donald Trump has all the rights and gets away with everything, in your opinion?

And when he’s indicted, you’ll be here telling us how the DOJ is out to get him, yadda yadda yadda. We’ve Heard your broken record before.

[Bludogdem]

Ah yes and we can always put up another “foremost authority and scholar on the constitution” but you won’t take THAT opinion. I read it like it reads, but you conservatives always like to change the plain meaning into something else. The Courts haven’t ruled on it. So it’s all bullshit opinions.

Isn’t it funny how Donald Trump has all the rights and gets away with everything, in your opinion?

And when he’s indicted, you’ll be here telling us how the DOJ is out to get him, yadda yadda yadda. We’ve Heard your broken record before.

The plain meaning is best explained by a man of the period. Justice Story fits the bill. You haven’t a clue as to the intent and meaning where the framers are concerned. You know nothing of the history leading to the creation of the constitution. Story is correct. Your simple minded reading is wrong.

Trump has all the rights of any citizen. I’m sure you’d be glad to ignore those rights for those you don’t like.

If indicted it’ll be dependent on the strength of the case. He’s been under investigation for years and no one is rushing to bring charges. That usually implies that prosecutors don’t have a case.

[gounion]

The plain meaning is best explained by a man of the period. Justice Story fits the bill. You haven’t a clue as to the intent and meaning where the framers are concerned. You know nothing of the history leading to the creation of the constitution. Story is correct. Your simple minded reading is wrong.

Trump has all the rights of any citizen. I’m sure you’d be glad to ignore those rights for those you don’t like.

If indicted it’ll be dependent on the strength of the case. He’s been under investigation for years and no one is rushing to bring charges. That usually implies that prosecutors don’t have a case.

Again, I posted experts too.

So, you think Trump is innocent and no one has a case.

[Bludogdem]

Again, I posted experts too.

So, you think Trump is innocent and no one has a case.

I didn’t see any expert posts from you.

Well, no one has yet to bring a case and it’s been how many years. Never said he’s innocent. But then again he’s not been charged.

[gounion]

I didn’t see any expert posts from you.

Well, no one has yet to bring a case and it’s been how many years. Never said he’s innocent. But then again he’s not been charged.

Yes, you ARE saying he’s innocent. It’s hilarious how you guys say you don’t support him but all you do is defend him.

[Bludogdem]

Yes, you ARE saying he’s innocent. It’s hilarious how you guys say you don’t support him but all you do is defend him.

I’ll defend anybody’s right to legal and constitutional protections. Unlike you.

[Bludogdem]

Again, I posted experts too.

Here’s your level of expertise. It’s possible, but unlikely, that you maight actually understand it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_o ... ted_States

[gounion]

I’ll defend anybody’s right to legal and constitutional protections. Unlike you.

Bullshit. What about the Constitutional rights of the officers who were wounded and killed at the Capitol? What about the rights of the lawmakers whose lives were in jeopardy?

What about our nation’s Constitution that Trump was trying to overturn? The Constitution he’s calling to terminate?

You don’t give a shit for that. Only Trump. You’re for your King.

[gounion]

Here’s your level of expertise. It’s possible, but unlikely, that you maight actually understand it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_o ... ted_States

Just admit it, you’re a royalist, who wants Trump to be King.

[Bludogdem]

Bullshit. What about the Constitutional rights of the officers who were wounded and killed at the Capitol? What about the rights of the lawmakers whose lives were in jeopardy?

What about our nation’s Constitution that Trump was trying to overturn? The Constitution he’s calling to terminate?

You don’t give a shit for that. Only Trump. You’re for your King.

So you don’t think he’s entitled to a proper legal investigation. Got it.

[Bludogdem]

Just admit it, you’re a royalist, who wants Trump to be King.

I never want to see him anywhere near government. Didn’t want him when he was in office.

[gounion]

So you don’t think he’s entitled to a proper legal investigation. Got it.

You didn’t give a shit for the rights of the people that died in his insurrection, now, do you?

[gounion]

I never want to see him anywhere near government. Didn’t want him when he was in office.

Bullshit. You want him back. You think he’s innocent.

[Toonces]

Why would you want that?

He's a weight on the party.

If he's still in the mix there is no way the party can stay in array. If he gets removed, you're actually doing Republicans a favor.

[bird]

Should he? Yes.

Will he? A different question altogether.

[gounion]

Why would you want that?

He's a weight on the party.

If he's still in the mix there is no way the party can stay in array. If he gets removed, you're actually doing Republicans a favor.

The GOP Senate SHOULD have voted to remove him from office. Then they’d have been done with him and could move forward, and wouldn’t have had to defend him. But they were too scared of him.

[Drak]

From today.




Pee Paw delivering a solid Xmas Eve message.

[Glennfs]

Oh? Really? I'm sorry, but it says it applies to everyone.

Your hero Eugene Debbs ran for president from prison. Convicted of sedition

[Glennfs]

Your hero Eugene Debbs ran for president from prison. Convicted of sedition.