Yes what about "DUAL" or multiple Oaths...You know to the Crown/Vatican, or maybe to the CIA or Military, or etc....There are to many public figures abiding by their Dual oaths and not the Constitutional ones.
It's traditionally referred to as Jurisdiction The President and Vice-president are the only 2 positions in our Government that are voted on by the Citizens in every State. That AUTOMATICALLY pushes it from State up to the Federal Level care of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution.
And note, the second impeachment vote on a charge of insurrection was approved by majorities in both chambers. Not sufficient for conviction but isn't it sufficient to satisfy 14-3?
Yes they can because they said the president has immunity for official acts and the constitution does not say that. They can make up any nonsense they want, they don't follow the constitution.
Republican criminals will certainly be voted out in the midterms IF the midterms actually happen. Republicans are already actively trying to stop American citizens from voting with their fraudulent voter-suppression schemes. We should be laser-focused on stopping that treasonous agitation.
"If you want to understand any problem in America, you need to look at who PROFITS from that problem, not at who suffers from that problem." ~ Dr. Amos Wilson Our Fore Fathers are rolling in their graves....and we don't seem to care.
Something crazy is that there were Preachers telling people Trump had to win, and for what? So the preacher doesn't get taxed? or is it the Preachers hate for people that are different? because Trump is not a top christian person, plenty info out to show he is not from his court cases and cheating on his spouses, etc.
@@robertbrown7470 considering that this country was formed around the constitution and upholding it's contents, what we want is for that to continue. It is obvious that isn't going to happen.
We knew, in the '60s, that our protests against the Vietnam war would likely have no effect. Does that mean we shouldn't have protested? How about women's rights? We still haven't won that battle. Does that mean we should stop trying? Just because something is unlikely to succeed, doesn't mean we shouldn't TRY!
They are an institution out of touch with the people& country. They abuse their power to help themselves with greed & lies. These corrupt judges care only about themselves & the vile felon. 🙄
Following "bravely" in Jessica Denson's steps, eh? She carved a really great path for you, didn't she ? You wouldn't even allow her to open the discussion on your platform. It takes a woman 💪🏼
The constitution doesn’t say an individual cannot be on the ballot, but it DOES say an individual who participated in an insurrection or gives aid or comfort to an insurrectionist CANNOT hold public office and is therefore DISQUALIFIED
Congress has already acted on this. See below: Up until 1948 Congress enforced Amendment 14 Section 3 by enacting Sections 14 and 15 of the Enforcement Act of 1870. The pertinent portion of which was repealed in 1948; there is still a current federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) that was initially part of the Confiscation Act of 1862 (and revised in 1948), disqualifying insurrectionists from any federal office. The Enforcement Act of 1870 Sections 14 and 15 enforced section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by instructing federal prosecutors to use a writ of quo warranto to remove people from government offices who were disqualified by that amendment. Reasons for such disqualification include insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Holding office contrary to such disqualification became a misdemeanor. The Enforcement Act's quo warranto provisions were repealed in 1948. However, even after that repeal, there remained a federal statute initially contained in the Confiscation Act of 1862 which made insurrection a federal crime, and disqualified insurrectionists from federal offices. The current federal statute 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
I guarantee that trying to overturn election results of a candidate who won via popular vote is going to do more harm than good no matter how much you think you're in the right. It won't work, and it'll just make the party look even more like hypocrites.
The Supreme court didn't rule. That's the point...dicta is not a decision but a comment. You should look at posts by Glen Kirshner. The constitution does NOT need a vote to ablide by it.
Ben did an interview with Glen and Glen told him it was dicta and just because he thinks it won't work, doesn't mean we shouldn't do the right thing ! Ben is just trying to get someone to agree with him that we should give up. It's pathetic.
@@davemccrillis1470doesnt say a criminal conviction is necessary. Congress found him 2x guilty by impeachment and jan 6 committee found him responsible as well.
Amazing that regular Citizens without a Law Degree can interpret the Constitution more accurately than a Supreme Court Justice. Allowing Lifetime Appointments is proving to be a Giant Mistake. It most certainly is time for Term Limits.
That’s because the most normal citizens aren’t on the take. They also are not corrupt like the Supreme Court justices. Thomas Alito Barrett Kavanaugh should’ve been removed a long time ago.
Like most countries, definitely democracies, my country has taken politics (and religion) completely out of the justice system. Our judges and justices are civil servants, politicians have nothing to do with hiring them. They work under a very strict ethics code. In fact, our courts work very differently from the American courts. Any politician trying to interfere with the courts would in short order (as in within days) lead to said politician being excluded from their party, removed from any position of power and charged criminally. Thats the short version. Oh, and my small country of just under 6 million citizens have 18 Supreme Court justices. U dont get the entire Supreme Court, u get a panel of justices, and they only take cases, where there is new legislation, new precedents to be formed. And they do NOT get to write or rewrite legislation. On rare occasions, politicians might disagree and say, thats not, how we intended the law, and the Supreme Court says, well, thats how u wrote it, but thats it, the politicians can then rewrite the law for its original intent, and its done. Thats the extent of influences on legislation, our Supreme Court has. And in all courts, a persons fortune or social stature is irrelevant, only the crime is relevant. We truly DO have equal justice for all. And btw, we also do not have cash bail. Any criminal can be held in detention under a judges order, if the judges are convinced by the prosecution/police, that the criminal is A. dangerous to his/her surroundings, B. a flight risk, C. would interfere with further investigations and/or with witnesses. This is for 2 week intervals, then it is revisited in court, tho in very serious cases like murders, judges can detain for 2x2 or even 4x2 weeks at a time. U cannot pay ur way out of jail. Nor can u delay cases for years and years, the courts work with established time limits to make sure, that all cases are handled within months or 1-2 years at most for the most complicated cases. Neither the prosecution nor the criminal can delay except for extremely good reasons like new evidence, but its a limited delay then. Same goes for civil litigation. If the US was ever able to look past its own borders, maybe Americans could learn from our mistakes and our successes alike, instead of insisting on failing where we have failed and learned in the past, and insisting on having the "greatest justice system in the world" when it is objectively utter sh*t.
We the people are ready to start protesting. We are fed up with our constitution and laws not being enforced. I agree, the supreme court cannot overrule the constitution. We have had enough!
So this means the supreme court can rule that any constitutional statement can be made so convoluted that no action would ever resolve to the Plaintiff’s favor. That’s not “overuling”, it’s OBFUSCATING.
And unless it is amended out of the written rules...it has a consequence, just like the opinion of the Nixon...he was removed of his own conscience. Well, we ALL know there is no way Trump will ever be wholly conscientious of reality from his own actions.
Congress has already acted on this. See below: Up until 1948 Congress enforced Amendment 14 Section 3 by enacting Sections 14 and 15 of the Enforcement Act of 1870. The pertinent portion of which was repealed in 1948; there is still a current federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) that was initially part of the Confiscation Act of 1862 (and revised in 1948), disqualifying insurrectionists from any federal office. The Enforcement Act of 1870 Sections 14 and 15 enforced section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by instructing federal prosecutors to use a writ of quo warranto to remove people from government offices who were disqualified by that amendment. Reasons for such disqualification include insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Holding office contrary to such disqualification became a misdemeanor. The Enforcement Act's quo warranto provisions were repealed in 1948. However, even after that repeal, there remained a federal statute initially contained in the Confiscation Act of 1862 which made insurrection a federal crime, and disqualified insurrectionists from federal offices. The current federal statute 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Not quite. They would be giving aid or comfort to an enemy of the Constitution, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution. The Constitution WILL disqualify them from holding office. So every member of Congress who votes to support Trump will Constitutionally de-legitimise their own office. But in reality, they will not give a damn. The Constitution itself has been de-legitimsed by SCOTUS, and by Congress for failing to impeach SCOTUS.
I believe the biggest difference between republicans and Democrats is that republicans don't give two shakes what Democrats think of their actions. If the roles were reversed, you can bet that the republicans would pull out all the stops to prevent a Democrat from becoming President and to heck with the consequences.
True but, we must stride onward to civilised behaviour, lest we fallback into sword is mightier than the pen. (Mighty trying though dragging Neanderthals into the future)
Given what democrats did in the 1860s, and the segregation they imposed for 100 years as they lynched 5000 black people, they should've been abolished as a party. How do you justify their existence given what they've done to this country?
WWRD? Democrats need to stop being soft and weak. They should do what Republicans would do! Take everything to the courts and tie everything up. Scorched Earth with everything fighting Trump and his minions.
Yeah no brother, it is not that simple. BTC loves to say that but he's far from being a lawyer and Kirscherwas a criminal prosecuter. Plus Glenn has gotten out of my nerves already. Nothing he says has come to fruition and he jumps around with his scenarios to he even loses what he is trying to say lol.
Too late america people have spoken. The time the Democrats should have done this a long time ago. Not weight until he's already elected, you stupid people.
I am so ANGRY and DISAPPOINTED in EVERYONE that has had ANY part in allowing tRump to get to this point. There is too much complicated lawyer-speak, spinelessness and inaction when it mattered. tRump has had too much time and too many appeals. WHY, WHY, WHY is he given so much yet WE cannot rely on the law to protect us? I wish Biden would just stay in office since the SC said the President is immune. My worthless MAGA senator is of no help. MO, USA
Guess you seem to realize what people think of the current Vegetable thats been destroying the economy and harming children among other things. The pervert potato will be moving out.
TDS is strong within you…time to wake up and quick drinking the Kool Aid…Trump was not charged with insurrection and no one during the J6 was charged with insurrection. The J6 committee was already deemed unconstitutional.
The problem to me is Trump has not been convicted of insurrection. He has been accused but not legally found guilty. That is why we lost the battle because they took so long to prosecute him.
The US Constitution should hold precedent, not the current Supreme Court, Congress or the Executive Branch. The fact that SCOTUS is reacting to the possibility of Trump being disqualified means they are worried.
They are worried that Congress could make up a false claim to keep a President from taking office. Essentially, that is not Constitutional, it's a coup.
Ben, I understand what you and Harry say. But your words here belie your treatment of Denison in separating her from Meidas over this issue. Granted we don’t know the entire story. Like most of us, she knows the chance of success of applying a constitutional standard to Trump is microscopic…it is clear the judicial system in the US is hopelessly corrupt, just like its politics. But there are those of us who feel that the effort should be made regardless of political consequences simply because it should be. There has been too much hand-wringing and not enough tangible effort to fight against the disaster to come. Honestly, I have lost a great deal of respect for the legal profession…many of those in the law made the bed we’re going to be sleeping in and I detest those who have facilitated it.
I agree. We need to AOC this crap. DEMS - This law has literally been gold wrapped and handed to you, and if you don't take a stand then you are hurting americans. WOW - I thought this was done, but I have been reading up on it, and that's why colorado made sure to put insurrection in the wording, knowing what the SC would do. You will not get a chance like this again. Also, Ben, it can't go back to the supreme court as it was their wording that sent it to congress.. 20 percent - WOW - I had no idea. That would be one joyful day watching him pay for what he did that day. He may have avoided prison, but only 20% of folks are needed. I would be the 1st to remove his votes based on the wording. The dems and independents and some republicans need to go to town on this for the next month, and make everyone pay attention to the loophole that trump forgot about. HIS GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD CAME WITH THIS WARNING. So on that note I agree with you. Lets get back to common sense politics and give people some hope. keep the faith....
The only problem I have with Jessica is the way she left. MTN gave her a platform for her discussions. She is alienating other independent media which will only cause problems in further elections. She believed in Felon Donnie which means she could be easily lead down a path of conspiracy. She needed to discuss things with MTN instead of leaving and dissing them. IT IS A SHAME WHAT SHE IS DOING.
The supreme court never said Trump wasn't an insurrectionist they just said the states couldn't decide if he was eligible to run again after he incited an insurrection on our nation's capital. its time for congress to vote on this issue to see if he's eligible to run again 🤔
Does not matter one bit what congress has to say. He is a insurrectionist. Proven twice. Once in Colorado and once impeached in congress as a insurrectionist. They can only vote by 2/3 rds to relieve him from this conviction.
Ben, do it as a matter of principle. Who cares if dump gets another win. Let's not walk past the grave yard on this 14th Amendment issue. Ignoring doing something even for the record will just further the rot of our judicial system. Stand up for what you know is right Ben.
People we watch the Supreme Court give one man immunity right before our eyes we are watching the constitution disappear really really for Donald Trump
The Marxist Democrat Party cannot defeat Trump. Proof? We The People have spoken at the voting booth last November in a big way 312 Trump, 266 Harris. Plus Trump ALSO WON the popular vote! In contrast to the loser Biden crime family that tried to lawfare, and assassinate Trump (twice) out of opposing Biden, now loser giggles Harris. And if I were a democrat that voted for Biden in the democrat primary, I would be really really pissed right now! Because Biden, that the rank and file voted for, was kicked out of the running in favor of Giggles in a third world type coup d'état.
I hear you but IMO, one issue is that not even the J6'ers were charged with "insurection" and I believe Jack Smith also didn't bring this charge forward in his case. Then section 5 of the 14th amendment does have a clause that says that congress has the power to change the amendment but we all know that will very likely never happen. Jeremy Raskin said the same thing months ago when he did an interview with BTC.
Okay, @tommyclements6264 ... Make the case... Trump is not legally allowed to call up the Military to defend the Capitol building without a request from the DC Mayor and/or the Speaker of the House, at least not until after he has issued an proclamation for the rioters to disperse. Trump offered troops to the DC Mayor and the Speaker prior to 6 January. They turned it down. Trump issued a verbal order to Pentagon officials to prepare for military intervention to secure the Capitol building prior to 6 January should it be so needed -- an order which was promptly ignored and willfully disobeyed (which constitutes Sedition AND Mutiny under Article 94 of the UCMJ for military officers). On 6 January, Trump literally ADMONISHED the crowd to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." How exactly does that amount to an Incitement? In January and February 2021, Congress Impeached, tried, and AQUITTED Trump on charges of "Incitement of Insurrection." Jack Smith declined to bring charges against Trump for violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection... If the case was SO STRONG, then why didn't Smith have the balls to bring that charge in the Leftist-controlled DC Circuit? Because -- deep inside that pea-sized brain of yours -- you know the TRUTH... DJT didn't commit an Insurrection and not even a kangaroo court show-trial in the DC Circuit would make that conviction stick.
Wrong, @Jameson24241 ... Section 5 doesn't grant Congress the power the "change" anything... In vests Congress with the authority to ENFORCE all provisions of Amendment XIV through appropriate legislation. Congress exercised that authority with 18 U.S. Code § 2383 -- Rebellion or insurrection -- which stipulates that a person must be CONVICTED of the charge before they may be barred from Government service. Congress cannot pass a bill of attainder or ex post facto to bar Trump under Amendment XIV Section 3 per Article I Section 9 Clause 3. That would be an INAPPROPRIATE use of legislation to enforce Section 3. So, unless Trump is CONVICTED of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 before next Monday, there is no way Congress can legitimately bar Trump from office.
It's so annoying that Sotomayor argued that that would cause an inappropriate imbalance between state and federal powers. As if Trump had a chance of winning Colorado's electoral votes anyway. As if that would remove Trump from swing'state ballots. As if insurrectionists cannot exist at the federal level.
@@Tim_Russert I'm not entirely convinced the best legal minds were offered up on the Dem side either. Women were appointed but _Dobbs_ still go through. Women were appointed but we saw how slow SCOTUS was to take on _Moyle v. U.S.._
@ Tim_Russert "that Sotomayor" I thought having a greater variety of perspectives on the bench would prevent, say, _Dobbs_ from getting through, or the inertia we saw in the taking up of _Moyle v. U.S._ (the Idaho case that Harry covered so well).
Section 5 DOES NOT contradict with Section 3.....WTF are you guys talking about? This is Section 5: Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution gives Congress the power to enforce the other parts of the amendment through legislation. This is Section 3: Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office 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. @Ben: I thought you were finally getting some sense in you when you had Glen Kirshner on. And now you are trying to justify your position. THERE IS NO QUESTION! CONGRESS MUST DO THEIR JOB and UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. It's their job. It doesn't say that they should only do it if they can afford it financially. I can't stand it that you claim to be pro-democracy, but only if you can afford it???? People DIED for the constitution. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???
Just Donald's promise to 'Pardon' those found guilty of involvement on Jan. 6, engages in giving 'Aid/Comfort', and he is GUILTY! His statement to 'Go, and fight like hell', was direction to be lawless, as he remarked, 'You won't have a country any more'! He did nothing to stop the carnage, and that was, 'Dereliction of Duty', to which he ended up being impeached over! They failed TO impeach, but with 2 impeachments, Donald should be disqualified to be a candidate. Add now being a felon, again, this disqualifies him from EVER holding office!
America is in a very poor and dangerous place when our Constitution is being willfully ignored for political calculus... Arnold Schwarzenegger should have run for President and claim despite a Constitutional disqualification there is no legislation preventing it...
3449, That's what I'm saying is going to happen if the SCOTUS ruling continues to be interpreted the way it is. If states can't disqualify candidates for federal office on constitutional grounds, then there are bound to be candidates who aren't natural-born citizens, aren't yet 35 years old, or who aren't even U.S. residents, and they'll be qualified to run unless Congress passes legislation they can't, even though that law is already in the Constitution, like A14-3 is.
If an insurrectionist can run for President, so can a foreign born or underage person. The Supreme Court did not dispute that #45 was an insurrectionist. They ruled that the will of the people cannot be denied and so allowed them to decide with their votes. However, THIS is NOT what the Constitution says!
Aka "Alito's Way". One case he argues states can over rule federal mandates and let churches stay open during a global pandemic, the VERY NEXT CASE, he rules that states cannot deviate from federal guidelines for gun safety.
I don't think 9 people should make decisions for over 330 million people. They need to go! I don't respect them anymore. They are so obvious for making Trump get what he wants.
Why would you be fined if a lawyer brought this? It's legit to call it out. He is disqualified. How about having so many lawyers signing the court document. Kinda of like a petition.?
I would like to see Biden and Harris do it, yet they are the opposing party. We need a bipartisan invocation of the 14th amendment. Ie. Jack Smith should have included a change in the insurrection indictment in the Washington d.c. case. However, the January 6th committee has already found Trump to have incited the insurrection. That should be enough.
Congress has already acted on this. See below: Up until 1948 Congress enforced Amendment 14 Section 3 by enacting Sections 14 and 15 of the Enforcement Act of 1870. The pertinent portion of which was repealed in 1948; there is still a current federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) that was initially part of the Confiscation Act of 1862 (and revised in 1948), disqualifying insurrectionists from any federal office. The Enforcement Act of 1870 Sections 14 and 15 enforced section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by instructing federal prosecutors to use a writ of quo warranto to remove people from government offices who were disqualified by that amendment. Reasons for such disqualification include insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Holding office contrary to such disqualification became a misdemeanor. The Enforcement Act's quo warranto provisions were repealed in 1948. However, even after that repeal, there remained a federal statute initially contained in the Confiscation Act of 1862 which made insurrection a federal crime, and disqualified insurrectionists from federal offices. The current federal statute 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
The 14th amendment is self executing, there is no need for Congress to do anything just as he would be disqualified if he was 34 years old or born in Mexico. SCOTUS IS CORRUPT.
And half of America doesn't care. As long as there's no abortion and no gay marriage and Black people are not given equal chances in society, they're good to go. Anyone saying otherwise, is just not honest with themselves or anyone else. This is a cultural hold on a white supremacist past fueled by a bastardized version of Christianity and evangelism.
I have never been more worried about the future of our country. I am not a lawyer and I completely defer to those who practice and have studied. But the law seems like the law. An insurrection is an insurrection. I am confused because the language seems so clear.
14th amendment limits Supreme Court review. Dicta has no power and majority by uninterested judges is what we follow… not that which is written by interested parties
Justice is no longer blind. It is bought and paid for injustice. They used to preach "no one is above the law" but here we are witnessing the untruth of it. If I comitted 34 felonies Id be in prison for a very long time. Yet he was out campeigning. WE ALL SEE NOW that if you have enough $$$ you are ABOVE THE LAW.
Hey world! We let handful of immoral criminals change our laws and decide felons and insurrectionists can be president… and we do NOTHING about it. Don’t forget we do have a legal route to to stop him but even our own leaders won’t touch it… we don’t want to look bad yanno! 🙄😡
It wasn't a "decision", it was dicta, musings, opinions that were not asked for. It means nothing. But the Dems are too chicken shit to stand up for us, which is how we got where we are to begin with. They're all dirty.
Problem is if we take it to the Supreme Court, with the current Justices, he's right: they will hand Trump a win. I don't think we should give up, but I'm not sure what can be done given that a win for Trump in this scenario will with complete certainty make things worse going forward.
For what? Not ONE SINGLE person was charged with insurrection. Only his political enemies and their brain dead minions claim there was one. Now the evidence shows the FBI was there instigating the riot. Funny how the left has hundreds of riots but they are "peaceful", the right has one SMALL riot and it is insurrection. You people are ridiculous
In other words - we don't fight to uphold the Constitution and keep a maniac from being our president because we don't have total assurance of a win? Well we don't have total assurance of a loss either. No obeying in advance......fight the good fight.
It is OUT of scotus hands to even proceed to rule on this! It was a side note for them to give DJT 'Immuntiy', but that doesn't make Donald Trump exempt from his criminal acts! The planning of Jan. 6 (Marjorie Taylor-Greene LOVED bragging about how she just came from a meeting) for the planning of such, along with Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro (Green Bay Sweep) as well as Rudy bragging on his pocket Pardon, knew they were GUILTY of the plan! They cinched this SO perfectly, with a big red bow and a cherry on top! Lap up that whipped cream and savor the flavor of Victory, that takes them down!
That was just something SCOTUS made up out of thin air to protect Trump, that states can't disqualify a candidate from their ballot on constitutional grounds. What if Musk, not being a natural-born citizen, decides to run for president, or somebody under age 35 or a non-resident of U.S., let alone more insurrectionists? The ruling is that states can't disqualify candidates for "federal office," not just president, federal office would include members of Congress, too. We know Congress is already a mess, how is it going to handle passing legislation to stop unqualified candidates from running for the House/Senate & possibly winning seats?
He already is disqualified. Congress needs to uphold the Constitution and ignore the word salad *smoke and mirrors* from the Justices that did the overreach with their opinions. Those opinions weren't even required to answer the question before the court.
Ben makes a major error in giving 'dicta' a level of binding precedent. It does not. You should be all in with Lights On, which has it right. Don't blow your chance to nail Trump on this. The clock is running and your chickening out doesn't help.
Congress has already acted on this. See below: Up until 1948 Congress enforced Amendment 14 Section 3 by enacting Sections 14 and 15 of the Enforcement Act of 1870. The pertinent portion of which was repealed in 1948; there is still a current federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) that was initially part of the Confiscation Act of 1862 (and revised in 1948), disqualifying insurrectionists from any federal office. The Enforcement Act of 1870 Sections 14 and 15 enforced section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by instructing federal prosecutors to use a writ of quo warranto to remove people from government offices who were disqualified by that amendment. Reasons for such disqualification include insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Holding office contrary to such disqualification became a misdemeanor. The Enforcement Act's quo warranto provisions were repealed in 1948. However, even after that repeal, there remained a federal statute initially contained in the Confiscation Act of 1862 which made insurrection a federal crime, and disqualified insurrectionists from federal offices. The current federal statute 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
@@LRCW1 Disagree. It's just gutless Democrats who will let this go by and hope that Congress will turn blue in two years. In addition, Trump's promise, made while he is not yet in office, to pardon J6 perps is a clear violation of the give comfort words in section 3. DOJ or US attorney should bring action NOW based on that.
Agree 100%!!! Why should we care if we lose or not, just put it up for a vote and if we do not get 2/3 of congress to withdraw the disqualification than he IS DISQUALIFIED and will not be president!
You have it backwards - the Democrats should introduce legislation to relieve Trump of the disqualification for insurrection. Then have that vote fail in Congress. Now Congress has voted and decided not to remove the disability! This would be something the Supreme Court could NOT overturn
I have no idea if you're correct but at least you're not obeying in advance. And if you ARE correct, you're apparently smarter than every legal and Constitutional Scholar out there. Maybe Steve on the internet should be running things, FFS.
I had been thinking of the same idea. It would take a real HR revolt to get it on the floor for a vote. Maybe Johnson will be a “surprise leader “ and let it happen. I doubt that he supports the Constitution over his fear of Trump, though.
Requiring Congress to pass legislation to declare an adjudicated insurrectionist disqualified for engaging in insurrection is like requiring Congress to pass a law that says someone who is 32 is not old enough to become President. They don't need to pass any legislation for 14AS3 to apply, it's already in the Constitution. 14AS5 refers to the necessary legislation to enforce the myriad of stipulations listed in 14AS1 about equal rights, etc. 14AS3 requires no legislation at all. It self-executes just like the other disqualifications.
He was never charged or convicted in a FEDERAL court of law. States do not have jurisdiction to enforce Federal codes, that is the purview of the Department of Justice.
Anything That He Does Illegally He Gets Away With It! 'Coz They're Afraid, Cowardly Coward, And Scared To Do Anything About It! Somebody Or Someone Needs To Have A Guts To Fight Him For The Sake Of Our Country, Democracy Freedom, Future, People, And Society!!
Ben- that is so stupid and I think a class action lawsuit by the whole country should start.............. The Supreme Court need to go back to law school and try again.
It wasn't that they were re-writing the Constitution. The "overreach" was in giving a *smoke n mirrors* performance when none of that word salad was necessary AT ALL to answer the one question that was before them.
I don't disagree with what you are saying but Barrette agreed witht he 3 liberal justices, so it was 5-4. Ben just doesn't like to mention that a conservative was on board with the 3 other justices because it burns him LOL. In another video, he said 4 justices agreed on the overreach by accident and then immediately said 3 so that it looked like it was only the liberal justices that said it was an overreach.
They tried to be relevant in 'Ruling' as far as 'Immunity', what Donald has a cloak of coverage for his 'Acts', but the criminality and blatant immoral lawlessness of his causing the chaos then standing still, in his 'Dereliction of duty', laid the ground for his criminal acts (by NOT acting) to stop the madness! He's GUILTY, as well as DISQUALIFIED from EVER holding office! Madame President, it is!
There is to be a March in WASH DC on Jan 3-5, Google it -Now-March. I could not put the actual website on here cause everytime I try, YOutube or someone removes the comment. The more people who know and can go the better!!!!!
@@JohnBolenbaugh Seriously delusional!!! and amazing that anyone would still think that way, are you deaf and blind??? He is voted as THIRD WORST PRESIDENT in HISTORY
@@robinantonio8870 I know! The Supreme Court knew that it would be too hard to stop him if he got elected. That's why they chose that path instead of stopping him themselves. If we stop him now, the civil war would commence!
Disgrace! John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett ⚖️ lock them up! Prison for the traitors!!! ⚖️ Shame on Them!!!
What about (S.4573-Dec 2022) Electoral Count Reform Act; section 109, which states objections to Electoral Votes can be brought for votes not “regularly given”, meaning not pursuant to law, such as votes for an ineligible candidate. It further explicitly includes supporting insurrection as producing ineligibility. Members of Congress would disobey their Constitutional Oath if they allow an insurrection supporter to hold office. 🙏🇺🇸💙
Further, I think Trump's overt statements should be prima facie evidence that he is an enemy of the Constitution. One could plausibly argue that the Colorado decision was not intended to help Trump become President, but rather to allow him to be defeated at the ballot box, which would arguably have been better than having the Court uphold his disqualification, but a J6 vote for Donald Trump would represent giving aid and comfort to the enemy unless preceded by an unequivocal declaration that Trump would be ineligible unless or until 290 Representatives and 67 Senators vote to make him eligible, which could theoretically happen after the 2026 elecctions. The 20th Amendment would then present a clear path forward: Vance would serve as Acting President unless or until Trump qualifies (and if Trump never qualifies, Vance will be a VP who served for more than two years as Acting President, and could thus only be elected President once. A slightly better sequence of events would be if enough Republicans could be convinced to carry out a third impeachment trial which could then anambiguously make Trump ineligible (the argument that the Senate would cease to have jurisdiction at the end of Trump's term would no longer hold water now that Trump's own lawyers have claimed that only the Senate would have such jurisdiction).
@@JoyPeace-ej2uvabsolutely right case closed. All the people saying this and that. It's not going to happen. Trump was never convicted of any insurrection.
Let's just do it!! Lets get the ball rolling and invoke the 14th Amendment! The judges are getting sick of him and his crap. His E. Jean Carroll suit didn't get dismissed like he thought it would. Teflon doesn't last forever! Let's get this prick and uphold the Constitution!!! This is our land, not his!!
it's been this way for a long, long time. It's ironic that Dumptruck is the one who has really brought it all forward - but he only did so because of his unconstitutional actions and his profuse vomit spread all over social media. The level of hypocrisy and irony here is massive - especially from the GOP.
We must push this to the logical end, and get ALL congress people on record, and ALL Supreme Court members on record and work at recalling those who do not uphold their constitutional commitment. Even if we "know" it will fail and be a win for Trump. Members of congress can change their minds when the people stand up for what is right!
I'm a bit confused. I thought after hearing this that the first part says that in order for a insurrectionist to be put into office that Congress has to vote by 60% or 2/3rds to allow that person to take office. So, it seems to me that this needs to be done. I find it hard to believe that they would get that substantial a majority to waive the disqualification. The second part , if I understand it right, the second part states that any laws enacted concerning this matter has to comply with the first part. Am I wrong?
Send a letter to your representative requesting them to object to certification. Did that today, super easy and straight forward. It’s at least a step in the right direction.
Yet sec. 3 states ANY office. Having his name on a ballot constitutes as qualifying and eligible for the Office the ballot is for. Doesn't matter State ballot or ballot for US President, the "any" office still applies. So regardless of the Justices' ruling, the Constitution says he doesn't qualify to be on that ballot...Period. If I remember correctly, only the Legislative Branch can amend or rewrite the Constitution. Even a US Justice doesn't have the power to do it.
@@DJRaevenHeart , Exactly, as I pointed out the Chief Justice can NOT swear in Trump according to the Constitution. SCOTUS made up the Colorado ruling but sec3 14th Amendment says, Trump can't be sworn in, the Chief Justice will be ignoring the Constitution if he trys.
The thing is McCain had to prove he was a natural-born citizen when he ran for president before he was on the ballot (he was born to military parents I think it was in Panama and on the military base which is US property. There should be no ability for Trump to be able to take the oath especially since some of the people on January 6th were actually sentenced for insurrection if I recall correctly. His delay in acting on the insurrection on the 6th and his continued support of those involved should be enough to show aid and comfort to people involved in the insurrection. This would mean that in order to serve the office, Congress must follow the dictates of the Constitution to remove the restriction mentioned in the 14th amendment.
@@hsquared8774 I have and it's WELL WORTH doing so. I highly recommend checking her videos out. Brian Tyler Cohen also has an interview with Kirschner that's really clear about all of it but Denson is top notch.
As I recall the case was about whether he could run. It wasn't about whether he could serve. Two different topics! Challenge his certification in Congress and challenge him likewise in Court.
The Denver Court ruled that Trump was guilty of insurrection which disqualified him from holding office. However, nothing prevented Trump for running for the office he could not hold. Therefore, Trump's name remained on the CO ballot. This decision was upheld by the CO Supreme Court.
The state supreme courts said they believed he committed an insurrection. Either their ruling is legal or not. Just because the bought federal Supreme Court didn’t like the state’s rules I don’t understand how that makes it untrue.
Another perspective to view this discussion is that "just letting it go and continuing to fight afterwards by pointing out every inroad against democratic rule" is simply political pundits creating future job security for themselves by leaving the door open wide for them to just have lots of things to keep talking about in the future.
what's the point of making an oath if there are no consequences when you break that oath.
There isn’t. It’s all for show.
100%
When you're rich and controlled, the Republican Party....you can do whatever....the Law is enforced only if you are poor.....!!...😮😮😮
Yes what about "DUAL" or multiple Oaths...You know to the Crown/Vatican, or maybe to the CIA or Military, or etc....There are to many public figures abiding by their Dual oaths and not the Constitutional ones.
No shit…because republicans in congress would be disqualified…
It shouldn’t take a congressional new law to enact a section of the constitution! What is the constitution for then???
It's traditionally referred to as Jurisdiction
The President and Vice-president are the only 2 positions in our Government that are voted on by the Citizens in every State.
That AUTOMATICALLY pushes it from State up to the Federal Level care of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution.
Exactly 🎉
Yep, this SCOTUS would have said the 1868 Jefferson Davis - RE Lee pres ticket would have been perfectly fine...
You could swap out toilet paper for it.......
Apparently selling guns and allowing people to lie without consequence under the veneer of Free Speech™.
The Supreme Court cannot overrule the Constitution.
@@jeffreyjack9125 But it can tear it to scrap with deviant and illogical partisan decisions.
And note, the second impeachment vote on a charge of insurrection was approved by majorities in both chambers. Not sufficient for conviction but isn't it sufficient to satisfy 14-3?
Yes
Yes they can because they said the president has immunity for official acts and the constitution does not say that. They can make up any nonsense they want, they don't follow the constitution.
Xist. SC interprets the DEAD US constitution. If you don,t know how it died, educate yourself.
Great discussion. Let's vote 💙 .The Peoples March is January 18. Check where in your State
Republican criminals will certainly be voted out in the midterms IF the midterms actually happen. Republicans are already actively trying to stop American citizens from voting with their fraudulent voter-suppression schemes. We should be laser-focused on stopping that treasonous agitation.
Thank you!
Congress did pass legislation; THE 14th Amendment!
And, Confirmed by 3/4's of the States
It's not for States to decide willy nilly without due process.
SCOTUS decided this a year ago.
@@ericanderson2987 Section 5 requires adjudication. Has it been proven in court the oath was broken by ANYONE on that J6th?
Yes @@msimon6808
@@msimon6808 No, they would not even charge Trump with the existing insurrection law.
"If you want to understand any problem in America, you need to look at who PROFITS from that problem, not at who suffers from that problem." ~ Dr. Amos Wilson
Our Fore Fathers are rolling in their graves....and we don't seem to care.
What you want is Lawfare.
Something crazy is that there were Preachers telling people Trump had to win, and for what? So the preacher doesn't get taxed? or is it the Preachers hate for people that are different? because Trump is not a top christian person, plenty info out to show he is not from his court cases and cheating on his spouses, etc.
Yes, that definitely fits the mold of American Corruption. Bottom line...Greed.
@@DemoCATicMAN So you're saying all of humanity is corrupt? unless they are leftists, communists or Democrats
@@robertbrown7470 considering that this country was formed around the constitution and upholding it's contents, what we want is for that to continue. It is obvious that isn't going to happen.
WE are complicit if we do not call this out. Period.
I'm calling out Nancy and her goons for perpetrating the so called insurrection and initiating a coup by ins staling Biden.
You are already complacent for not calling out Biden as well as Kamala for tyranny. Why so late?
FIGHT
We knew, in the '60s, that our protests against the Vietnam war would likely have no effect. Does that mean we shouldn't have protested? How about women's rights? We still haven't won that battle. Does that mean we should stop trying? Just because something is unlikely to succeed, doesn't mean we shouldn't TRY!
It does if it’s unlikely to succeed…why waste our time? Sorry to be a killjoy but it is what it is….
Sister brother amen
We have a constitution people ❤🎉❤🎉❤
Turns out it is more like a religeous text and as such any zealot can twist its words to their will.
@@gavinreid9184 thats ugly but true. Darn.
And you also have toilet paper... which has more value?
No, we don't. Any rules that are optional do not form a constitution.
Not really anymore. And half of this country could care less.
I have absolutely no trust or faith in the U.S. Supreme Court.
We must not call it the Supreme Court.We Have to Call it What it Really is SUPREME CORRUPTION COURT
They are an institution out of touch with the people& country. They abuse their power to help themselves with greed & lies. These corrupt judges care only about themselves & the vile felon. 🙄
Same
I concur.
Obama blew it
Please never give up on speaking the truth, even though it feels futile sometimes.
The truth would be nice... no truth here!
If you find either of these two men ever speaking the truth, then please let me know. All I've heard them do is spew disinformation.
Yes. It looks futile but I still hold on to the tiniest sliver of hope
Truth is Trump won in a landslide.
Following "bravely" in Jessica Denson's steps, eh? She carved a really great path for you, didn't she ? You wouldn't even allow her to open the discussion on your platform. It takes a woman 💪🏼
phuq women's libers! but God Bless patriots in every gender... Fight!
The constitution doesn’t say an individual cannot be on the ballot, but it DOES say an individual who participated in an insurrection or gives aid or comfort to an insurrectionist CANNOT hold public office and is therefore DISQUALIFIED
Congress has already acted on this. See below:
Up until 1948 Congress enforced Amendment 14 Section 3 by enacting Sections 14 and 15 of the Enforcement Act of 1870.
The pertinent portion of which was repealed in 1948; there is still a current federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) that was initially part of the Confiscation Act of 1862 (and revised in 1948), disqualifying insurrectionists from any federal office.
The Enforcement Act of 1870
Sections 14 and 15 enforced section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by instructing federal prosecutors to use a writ of quo warranto to remove people from government offices who were disqualified by that amendment. Reasons for such disqualification include insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Holding office contrary to such disqualification became a misdemeanor. The Enforcement Act's quo warranto provisions were repealed in 1948. However, even after that repeal, there remained a federal statute initially contained in the Confiscation Act of 1862 which made insurrection a federal crime, and disqualified insurrectionists from federal offices.
The current federal statute
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Who is the insurectionist? I haven't found anyone charged w that charge much less convicted.
@@nordge44 he was found guilty in Colorado. And he did have defense attorneys at the hearing.
@@jeremybear573 Because his paypall buddies in the supreme court delayed the trail. You know that.
I guarantee that trying to overturn election results of a candidate who won via popular vote is going to do more harm than good no matter how much you think you're in the right. It won't work, and it'll just make the party look even more like hypocrites.
The Supreme court didn't rule. That's the point...dicta is not a decision but a comment. You should look at posts by Glen Kirshner. The constitution does NOT need a vote to ablide by it.
Ben did an interview with Glen and Glen told him it was dicta and just because he thinks it won't work, doesn't mean we shouldn't do the right thing ! Ben is just trying to get someone to agree with him that we should give up. It's pathetic.
@@christinaperdue5868 Ben is just trying to give an explanation and if you don't like it DON'T LISTEN. Quit trying to crap on MTN.
@@marianned346 It's an opinion he is giving. And everyone is entitled to one. If you don't like it, too bad.
@@christinaperdue5868 I agree. Not what I would expect from MTN. Pitiful.
@@marianned346Everyone is welcome to their own opinions. I agree that Ben does seem like he’s trying to convince people not to even try.
JUSTICE MATTERS.
I see what you did there. JUSTICE MATTERS.
Yes it does
Not in the corrupt Supreme Court of the United States, it doesn't. It's all about how to wield power over the dispossessed and disenfranchised.
The most hi matter .yall all will see
It does but I bet you think things should only be decided in your favor.
Congressional Democrats are too spineless to act on this.
Should a SC judge who is married to a known Insurrectionist be ruling on anything? 🤷🏼♀ I personally don't think so!
No. Duh! There are 2 wives that should disqualify their husbands, BUT THOSE HUSBANDS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED ON THEIR OWN BEHAVIORS!!!!!!
@@MsWarriordiva Duh!!
Certainly not on anything related to insurrection issues…
@@davemccrillis1470doesnt say a criminal conviction is necessary. Congress found him 2x guilty by impeachment and jan 6 committee found him responsible as well.
@@AldenRogers Especially since no one has ever been charged with insurrection
Amazing that regular Citizens without a Law Degree can interpret the Constitution more accurately than a Supreme Court Justice. Allowing Lifetime Appointments is proving to be a Giant Mistake. It most certainly is time for Term Limits.
Along with impeachments of Justices.
That’s because the most normal citizens aren’t on the take. They also are not corrupt like the Supreme Court justices. Thomas Alito Barrett Kavanaugh should’ve been removed a long time ago.
Like most countries, definitely democracies, my country has taken politics (and religion) completely out of the justice system. Our judges and justices are civil servants, politicians have nothing to do with hiring them. They work under a very strict ethics code. In fact, our courts work very differently from the American courts. Any politician trying to interfere with the courts would in short order (as in within days) lead to said politician being excluded from their party, removed from any position of power and charged criminally. Thats the short version.
Oh, and my small country of just under 6 million citizens have 18 Supreme Court justices. U dont get the entire Supreme Court, u get a panel of justices, and they only take cases, where there is new legislation, new precedents to be formed. And they do NOT get to write or rewrite legislation. On rare occasions, politicians might disagree and say, thats not, how we intended the law, and the Supreme Court says, well, thats how u wrote it, but thats it, the politicians can then rewrite the law for its original intent, and its done. Thats the extent of influences on legislation, our Supreme Court has.
And in all courts, a persons fortune or social stature is irrelevant, only the crime is relevant. We truly DO have equal justice for all. And btw, we also do not have cash bail. Any criminal can be held in detention under a judges order, if the judges are convinced by the prosecution/police, that the criminal is A. dangerous to his/her surroundings, B. a flight risk, C. would interfere with further investigations and/or with witnesses. This is for 2 week intervals, then it is revisited in court, tho in very serious cases like murders, judges can detain for 2x2 or even 4x2 weeks at a time. U cannot pay ur way out of jail. Nor can u delay cases for years and years, the courts work with established time limits to make sure, that all cases are handled within months or 1-2 years at most for the most complicated cases. Neither the prosecution nor the criminal can delay except for extremely good reasons like new evidence, but its a limited delay then. Same goes for civil litigation.
If the US was ever able to look past its own borders, maybe Americans could learn from our mistakes and our successes alike, instead of insisting on failing where we have failed and learned in the past, and insisting on having the "greatest justice system in the world" when it is objectively utter sh*t.
won't happen with King Maggot and the jokers running the WH, Senate, and Congress....what a f@cking disaster this is going to be.
AGREED!
We the people are ready to start protesting. We are fed up with our constitution and laws not being enforced. I agree, the supreme court cannot overrule the constitution. We have had enough!
Now you know how many feel about immigration
We the people should protest against Trump’s being allowed to be President.
So protest harder,because as far as I'm concerned,your protests ain't doing shitt.
So protest harder,because as far as I'm concerned,your protests ain't doing shitt.
@@JanneSmith-n8r
You are not very creative.
You would have to know something to disagree with it.
If it's in the Constitution, it trumps (no pun intended) any & all other forces to deny it. Obey the DAMN LAWS!!! 😡🤬
So this means the supreme court can rule that any constitutional statement can be made so convoluted that no action would ever resolve to the Plaintiff’s favor. That’s not “overuling”, it’s OBFUSCATING.
It's the reverse of what theyre supposed to be doing. How blatant can you get?
Naw naw. SCOTUS gave an opinion not a ruling
THAT IS TRUE!!!!!!!
😂
Agreed
And unless it is amended out of the written rules...it has a consequence, just like the opinion of the Nixon...he was removed of his own conscience. Well, we ALL know there is no way Trump will ever be wholly conscientious of reality from his own actions.
Begging 🙏🏼 everyone here to call your legislators, congress and senators! Our voices are all we have left ❤
Congress has already acted on this. See below:
Up until 1948 Congress enforced Amendment 14 Section 3 by enacting Sections 14 and 15 of the Enforcement Act of 1870.
The pertinent portion of which was repealed in 1948; there is still a current federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) that was initially part of the Confiscation Act of 1862 (and revised in 1948), disqualifying insurrectionists from any federal office.
The Enforcement Act of 1870
Sections 14 and 15 enforced section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by instructing federal prosecutors to use a writ of quo warranto to remove people from government offices who were disqualified by that amendment. Reasons for such disqualification include insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Holding office contrary to such disqualification became a misdemeanor. The Enforcement Act's quo warranto provisions were repealed in 1948. However, even after that repeal, there remained a federal statute initially contained in the Confiscation Act of 1862 which made insurrection a federal crime, and disqualified insurrectionists from federal offices.
The current federal statute
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
I have been. Get on it people
I have here in Wisconsin but Johnson is a Trump bootlicker
@Talks_with_Bruno Well, let him know you and your can primary his bohaha too
Ans we have spoken... time for you all to sit down and shut up.
LOVE YOU GUYS
THANK YOU FOR THE EDUCATION
Too bad Merrick Garland was such a spineless jellyfish.
And traitor. Along with Jack Smith and Merchan. If any one of them had done their jobs....
@@hebercloward1695 He is slow and deliberate - He would have made an excellent Supreme Court Judge
@@Songbird4everno good deed goes unpunished!
No one speeds the wheel of justice, only judges can slow it down. Blame Trump judges, not Garland.
he is a coward that should have been replaced 3 years ago when it became clear he was not upholding the law.
Congressmen who vote to seat Donald Trump are, themselves, committing insurrection.
So true.
Not quite. They would be giving aid or comfort to an enemy of the Constitution, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution. The Constitution WILL disqualify them from holding office. So every member of Congress who votes to support Trump will Constitutionally de-legitimise their own office. But in reality, they will not give a damn. The Constitution itself has been de-legitimsed by SCOTUS, and by Congress for failing to impeach SCOTUS.
And TREASON
No they are not
Thank you ! So anyone who thinks that's okay for our representatives to sit this fight out is baffling to me.
I believe the biggest difference between republicans and Democrats is that republicans don't give two shakes what Democrats think of their actions. If the roles were reversed, you can bet that the republicans would pull out all the stops to prevent a Democrat from becoming President and to heck with the consequences.
True but, we must stride onward to civilised behaviour, lest we fallback into sword is mightier than the pen.
(Mighty trying though dragging Neanderthals into the future)
They did that in 2021.
Given what democrats did in the 1860s, and the segregation they imposed for 100 years as they lynched 5000 black people, they should've been abolished as a party. How do you justify their existence given what they've done to this country?
WWRD? Democrats need to stop being soft and weak. They should do what Republicans would do! Take everything to the courts and tie everything up. Scorched Earth with everything fighting Trump and his minions.
Yup, it was called the J-6 insurrection! 😮
Come on Jamie Raskin and Congress, avail yourselves of the remedy Constitution provides.
We don't need to ask that someone enforce section 3 of the 14th amendment- it's a self-executing instrument- he's ineligible.
Nope, of course he eligible.
Yeah no brother, it is not that simple. BTC loves to say that but he's far from being a lawyer and Kirscherwas a criminal prosecuter. Plus Glenn has gotten out of my nerves already. Nothing he says has come to fruition and he jumps around with his scenarios to he even loses what he is trying to say lol.
@@chrischreative2245Trump is dq if the law is to be followed.
IS ANYONE GOING TO STOP TRUMP????
The Grim Reaper.
Military coup?
Are you serious TDS
Apparently not “the people”. The voters are his enablers.
Too late america people have spoken. The time the Democrats should have done this a long time ago. Not weight until he's already elected, you stupid people.
Nobody needs to disqualify him, he’s already disqualified, Congress would have to LIFT the disqualification! They must refuse to swear him in!
This would be hilarious on election day. I would pay to stand at the national mall just to see his face when they refuse to let him take over
So you are saying he is disqualified because the Democrat Party wants him disqualified.... lol
He must be stopped, PERIOD by all possible means !!
@@abegailmriga980stopped from what exactly ?
@maureenmcbride-jj8mv
From taking office of president. Or are you n9t following the discussion 🤔.
I am so ANGRY and DISAPPOINTED in EVERYONE that has had ANY part in allowing tRump to get to this point. There is too much complicated lawyer-speak, spinelessness and inaction when it mattered. tRump has had too much time and too many appeals. WHY, WHY, WHY is he given so much yet WE cannot rely on the law to protect us? I wish Biden would just stay in office since the SC said the President is immune. My worthless MAGA senator is of no help. MO, USA
Guess you seem to realize what people think of the current Vegetable thats been destroying the economy and harming children among other things. The pervert potato will be moving out.
TDS is strong within you…time to wake up and quick drinking the Kool Aid…Trump was not charged with insurrection and no one during the J6 was charged with insurrection. The J6 committee was already deemed unconstitutional.
Yes, it's all very pathetic and needs to end NOW!🙄
A dementia patient like Biden to remain in office? That wouldn’t be good. Cmon man
Constitutionally illegitimate President 😮
And enablers who play games with language !
@@susanw2869 well Susan, you are just going to have to take it. Illegitimate or not, he is still going to be president.
The problem to me is Trump has not been convicted of insurrection. He has been accused but not legally found guilty. That is why we lost the battle because they took so long to prosecute him.
Joe Biden
Better than the BIMBO.
The US Constitution should hold precedent, not the current Supreme Court, Congress or the Executive Branch. The fact that SCOTUS is reacting to the possibility of Trump being disqualified means they are worried.
They are worried that Congress could make up a false claim to keep a President from taking office. Essentially, that is not Constitutional, it's a coup.
Why would they be worried? They interpret the constitution and set the final ruling on it. They have nothing to fear.
They should do thair job and put Vance as presedent
Where the hell is Merrick Garland?
@@megnessel4945 He resigned 😂😂
Ben, I understand what you and Harry say. But your words here belie your treatment of Denison in separating her from Meidas over this issue. Granted we don’t know the entire story. Like most of us, she knows the chance of success of applying a constitutional standard to Trump is microscopic…it is clear the judicial system in the US is hopelessly corrupt, just like its politics. But there are those of us who feel that the effort should be made regardless of political consequences simply because it should be. There has been too much hand-wringing and not enough tangible effort to fight against the disaster to come. Honestly, I have lost a great deal of respect for the legal profession…many of those in the law made the bed we’re going to be sleeping in and I detest those who have facilitated it.
AMEN!
I agree. We need to AOC this crap. DEMS - This law has literally been gold wrapped and handed to you, and if you don't take a stand then you are hurting americans. WOW - I thought this was done, but I have been reading up on it, and that's why colorado made sure to put insurrection in the wording, knowing what the SC would do. You will not get a chance like this again. Also, Ben, it can't go back to the supreme court as it was their wording that sent it to congress.. 20 percent - WOW - I had no idea. That would be one joyful day watching him pay for what he did that day. He may have avoided prison, but only 20% of folks are needed. I would be the 1st to remove his votes based on the wording. The dems and independents and some republicans need to go to town on this for the next month, and make everyone pay attention to the loophole that trump forgot about. HIS GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD CAME WITH THIS WARNING. So on that note I agree with you. Lets get back to common sense politics and give people some hope. keep the faith....
👏🏼👏🏼 at this point the Constitution is merely toilet paper.
Well said!
The only problem I have with Jessica is the way she left. MTN gave her a platform for her discussions. She is alienating other independent media which will only cause problems in further elections. She believed in Felon Donnie which means she could be easily lead down a path of conspiracy. She needed to discuss things with MTN instead of leaving and dissing them. IT IS A SHAME WHAT SHE IS DOING.
This is what we get when the Supreme Court became the extreme court!!!👎👎👎
The supreme court never said Trump wasn't an insurrectionist they just said the states couldn't decide if he was eligible to run again after he incited an insurrection on our nation's capital. its time for congress to vote on this issue to see if he's eligible to run again 🤔
We have already held elections. It's over. Just STOP
Does not matter one bit what congress has to say. He is a insurrectionist. Proven twice. Once in Colorado and once impeached in congress as a insurrectionist. They can only vote by 2/3 rds to relieve him from this conviction.
This!!
It's a moot point, he can't run again, he is a lame duck
Again?
Nothing to be done? But it's in the Constitution. How pathetic.
Ben, do it as a matter of principle. Who cares if dump gets another win. Let's not walk past the grave yard on this 14th Amendment issue. Ignoring doing something even for the record will just further the rot of our judicial system. Stand up for what you know is right Ben.
Amen
🎯👏👏👏👏
Agreed 💯 percent
People we watch the Supreme Court give one man immunity right before our eyes we are watching the constitution disappear really really for Donald Trump
The law means nothing when it comes to Trump. It’s sickening
It Republicans that played this game. He should've been stripped in the impeachment. Just more failures of the Judicial...
The Marxist Democrat Party cannot defeat Trump. Proof? We The People have spoken at the voting booth last November in a big way 312 Trump, 266 Harris. Plus Trump ALSO WON the popular vote! In contrast to the loser Biden crime family that tried to lawfare, and assassinate Trump (twice) out of opposing Biden, now loser giggles Harris.
And if I were a democrat that voted for Biden in the democrat primary, I would be really really pissed right now! Because Biden, that the rank and file voted for, was kicked out of the running in favor of Giggles in a third world type coup d'état.
No, your version of how the law works is flawed.
@@deadwingdomain this is all we have to say to you shut up and sit down and stop. This is bullshit all the way bull crap
@ not my version my friend, I’m seeing it before my eyes
The Supreme Court is giving comfort to insurrection they should be moved from office immediately
They're an accessory to Trump's crimes.
I hear you but IMO, one issue is that not even the J6'ers were charged with "insurection" and I believe Jack Smith also didn't bring this charge forward in his case. Then section 5 of the 14th amendment does have a clause that says that congress has the power to change the amendment but we all know that will very likely never happen. Jeremy Raskin said the same thing months ago when he did an interview with BTC.
@@Jameson24241Sedition implies insurrection, doesn't it?
Okay, @tommyclements6264 ... Make the case...
Trump is not legally allowed to call up the Military to defend the Capitol building without a request from the DC Mayor and/or the Speaker of the House, at least not until after he has issued an proclamation for the rioters to disperse.
Trump offered troops to the DC Mayor and the Speaker prior to 6 January. They turned it down.
Trump issued a verbal order to Pentagon officials to prepare for military intervention to secure the Capitol building prior to 6 January should it be so needed -- an order which was promptly ignored and willfully disobeyed (which constitutes Sedition AND Mutiny under Article 94 of the UCMJ for military officers).
On 6 January, Trump literally ADMONISHED the crowd to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." How exactly does that amount to an Incitement?
In January and February 2021, Congress Impeached, tried, and AQUITTED Trump on charges of "Incitement of Insurrection."
Jack Smith declined to bring charges against Trump for violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection... If the case was SO STRONG, then why didn't Smith have the balls to bring that charge in the Leftist-controlled DC Circuit?
Because -- deep inside that pea-sized brain of yours -- you know the TRUTH... DJT didn't commit an Insurrection and not even a kangaroo court show-trial in the DC Circuit would make that conviction stick.
Wrong, @Jameson24241 ... Section 5 doesn't grant Congress the power the "change" anything... In vests Congress with the authority to ENFORCE all provisions of Amendment XIV through appropriate legislation.
Congress exercised that authority with 18 U.S. Code § 2383 -- Rebellion or insurrection -- which stipulates that a person must be CONVICTED of the charge before they may be barred from Government service.
Congress cannot pass a bill of attainder or ex post facto to bar Trump under Amendment XIV Section 3 per Article I Section 9 Clause 3. That would be an INAPPROPRIATE use of legislation to enforce Section 3.
So, unless Trump is CONVICTED of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383 before next Monday, there is no way Congress can legitimately bar Trump from office.
Colorado had it right. Why even put him on the ballot if he could never even hold office? It makes no sense to put the People through that. Period.
Republican Party for you
It's so annoying that Sotomayor argued that that would cause an inappropriate imbalance between state and federal powers. As if Trump had a chance of winning Colorado's electoral votes anyway.
As if that would remove Trump from swing'state ballots.
As if insurrectionists cannot exist at the federal level.
And then they argued that their arguments _in total_ were sufficient for the ruling.
Ten times zero is still zero.
@@Tim_Russert I'm not entirely convinced the best legal minds were offered up on the Dem side either.
Women were appointed but _Dobbs_ still go through.
Women were appointed but we saw how slow SCOTUS was to take on _Moyle v. U.S.._
@ Tim_Russert
"that Sotomayor"
I thought having a greater variety of perspectives on the bench would prevent, say, _Dobbs_ from getting through, or the inertia we saw in the taking up of _Moyle v. U.S._ (the Idaho case that Harry covered so well).
Section 5 DOES NOT contradict with Section 3.....WTF are you guys talking about?
This is Section 5: Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution gives Congress the power to enforce the other parts of the amendment through legislation.
This is Section 3: Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
@Ben: I thought you were finally getting some sense in you when you had Glen Kirshner on. And now you are trying to justify your position. THERE IS NO QUESTION! CONGRESS MUST DO THEIR JOB and UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. It's their job. It doesn't say that they should only do it if they can afford it financially. I can't stand it that you claim to be pro-democracy, but only if you can afford it???? People DIED for the constitution. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???
Just Donald's promise to 'Pardon' those found guilty of involvement on Jan. 6, engages in giving 'Aid/Comfort', and he is GUILTY! His statement to 'Go, and fight like hell', was direction to be lawless, as he remarked, 'You won't have a country any more'! He did nothing to stop the carnage, and that was, 'Dereliction of Duty', to which he ended up being impeached over! They failed TO impeach, but with 2 impeachments, Donald should be disqualified to be a candidate. Add now being a felon, again, this disqualifies him from EVER holding office!
You are so correct here. Ben M. must now be on trumps payroll.
America is in a very poor and dangerous place when our Constitution is being willfully ignored for political calculus... Arnold Schwarzenegger should have run for President and claim despite a Constitutional disqualification there is no legislation preventing it...
Yikes! Don't let President M hear you say that.
3449, That's what I'm saying is going to happen if the SCOTUS ruling continues to be interpreted the way it is. If states can't disqualify candidates for federal office on constitutional grounds, then there are bound to be candidates who aren't natural-born citizens, aren't yet 35 years old, or who aren't even U.S. residents, and they'll be qualified to run unless Congress passes legislation they can't, even though that law is already in the Constitution, like A14-3 is.
I agree Arnold should have run.
If an insurrectionist can run for President, so can a foreign born or underage person. The Supreme Court did not dispute that #45 was an insurrectionist. They ruled that the will of the people cannot be denied and so allowed them to decide with their votes. However, THIS is NOT what the Constitution says!
Jesse Ventura should’ve run. He’s very pro labor and public transportation
The Supreme Court is a clown car.
corrupt!
They are fools
More like a shit show!
Lol everything but the popcorn!
If that was true, you'd be the driver.
The problem arises from the majority of The SCOTUS starting with a decision and then forging a crude reasoning for that decision.
The definition of judicial activism that Republicans were so against for decades. They have no values only politics.
Yes. They changed what the constitution states. They do not have that right! Our Supreme Court is unconstitutional!
Aka "Alito's Way". One case he argues states can over rule federal mandates and let churches stay open during a global pandemic, the VERY NEXT CASE, he rules that states cannot deviate from federal guidelines for gun safety.
I don't think 9 people should make decisions for over 330 million people. They need to go! I don't respect them anymore. They are so obvious for making Trump get what he wants.
Most worthless and crooked SC we’ve ever had!!!
Why would you be fined if a lawyer brought this? It's legit to call it out. He is disqualified. How about having so many lawyers signing the court document. Kinda of like a petition.?
Would you sign it?
@davidwelsh8026 I don't understand why a lawyer would get fined? There's no nefarious reason just upholding the Constitution, right?
Pres. Biden & VP Kamala should onvoke the 14th AMENDMENT SEC 3
I would like to see Biden and Harris do it, yet they are the opposing party. We need a bipartisan invocation of the 14th amendment. Ie. Jack Smith should have included a change in the insurrection indictment in the Washington d.c. case. However, the January 6th committee has already found Trump to have incited the insurrection. That should be enough.
agree.
IT IS HIS JOB TO UPHOLD THE LAW (and the Constitution is the highest LAW in the US) well, before ROBERTS and his wrecking crew of CRIMINALS
They won't. R's might laugh at them. Apparently, being laughed at is their kryptonite.
Yes! Somebody do something! Anything! Pls!!!
How ridiculous. Either follow constitution or don't. It was clear years ago but nothing was done. Too little too late.
Congress has already acted on this. See below:
Up until 1948 Congress enforced Amendment 14 Section 3 by enacting Sections 14 and 15 of the Enforcement Act of 1870.
The pertinent portion of which was repealed in 1948; there is still a current federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) that was initially part of the Confiscation Act of 1862 (and revised in 1948), disqualifying insurrectionists from any federal office.
The Enforcement Act of 1870
Sections 14 and 15 enforced section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by instructing federal prosecutors to use a writ of quo warranto to remove people from government offices who were disqualified by that amendment. Reasons for such disqualification include insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Holding office contrary to such disqualification became a misdemeanor. The Enforcement Act's quo warranto provisions were repealed in 1948. However, even after that repeal, there remained a federal statute initially contained in the Confiscation Act of 1862 which made insurrection a federal crime, and disqualified insurrectionists from federal offices.
The current federal statute
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
He is definitely NOT qualified
The 14th amendment is self executing, there is no need for Congress to do anything just as he would be disqualified if he was 34 years old or born in Mexico. SCOTUS IS CORRUPT.
And half of America doesn't care. As long as there's no abortion and no gay marriage and Black people are not given equal chances in society, they're good to go. Anyone saying otherwise, is just not honest with themselves or anyone else. This is a cultural hold on a white supremacist past fueled by a bastardized version of Christianity and evangelism.
NoJoe was never qualified, Nor was Harris.... both committed treason by protecting the enemy through open borders and open invitations.
Biden? Agreed
Why not?
If trump is gone before I wake, I pray the lord the news ain’t fake 🙏🏻
I love this. - oh that it will one day be true..
😊
i cant wait for that day. was 1 inch close recently.. who said 1 small inch doesnt matter... we all know what stormy told us about his small hands lol
😂thanks for making me laugh...a nice change from the overwhelming horror
@@user-cf6ff8kc7l Happy to oblige 😁 May peace be with you throughout the New Year 🥳
The appropriate resolution is right in front of them, but they continue to look left… Just Do IT! 🤷♂️
I have never been more worried about the future of our country. I am not a lawyer and I completely defer to those who practice and have studied. But the law seems like the law. An insurrection is an insurrection. I am confused because the language seems so clear.
There was no insurrection. Democrats lying about 'insurrection' doesn't equate to an insurrection.
14th amendment limits Supreme Court review. Dicta has no power and majority by uninterested judges is what we follow… not that which is written by interested parties
*It's funny that the US still calls the “Supreme Court” a court. It has nothing to do with law or justice - and the whole world sees and knows it* 🤣
Justice is no longer blind. It is bought and paid for injustice. They used to preach "no one is above the law" but here we are witnessing the untruth of it. If I comitted 34 felonies Id be in prison for a very long time. Yet he was out campeigning. WE ALL SEE NOW that if you have enough $$$ you are ABOVE THE LAW.
Hey world! We let handful of immoral criminals change our laws and decide felons and insurrectionists can be president… and we do NOTHING about it. Don’t forget we do have a legal route to to stop him but even our own leaders won’t touch it… we don’t want to look bad yanno! 🙄😡
We've called it other things.
The Supreme Courts only job is to interpret laws as constitutional or not. That’s it and that’s all. They rule based on that.
Bless your heart!
Supreme court should reconsider their decision!!!
With their ethics issue, why should the people trust any of their decisions?
Why should SCOTUS care about what anyone thinks of them ? They can act without impunity, under the current system.
It wasn't a "decision", it was dicta, musings, opinions that were not asked for. It means nothing. But the Dems are too chicken shit to stand up for us, which is how we got where we are to begin with. They're all dirty.
Problem is if we take it to the Supreme Court, with the current Justices, he's right: they will hand Trump a win.
I don't think we should give up, but I'm not sure what can be done given that a win for Trump in this scenario will with complete certainty make things worse going forward.
Yeah right. They are going to say, oh never mind, we were wrong. HA!
They don't, they're not even internationally recognized. States need to start taking action.
You don’t have to have a law degree or be a judge to know that this guy should be disqualified. It’s in black and white, wake up scotus.
Exactly
But they dont want to wake up.
Your entire comment is meaningless. You say it's black and white as if the statement alone is fact or proof.
For what? Not ONE SINGLE person was charged with insurrection. Only his political enemies and their brain dead minions claim there was one. Now the evidence shows the FBI was there instigating the riot. Funny how the left has hundreds of riots but they are "peaceful", the right has one SMALL riot and it is insurrection. You people are ridiculous
More like wake up Congress. SCOTUS has no say on what happens on January 6th 2025. It's up to Congress to remove the disqualification
This current Supreme Court totally sucks. Especially Clarence Thomas and Alito.....who should BOTH be Impeached and Removed!
In other words - we don't fight to uphold the Constitution and keep a maniac from being our president because we don't have total assurance of a win? Well we don't have total assurance of a loss either. No obeying in advance......fight the good fight.
🎯🤨🤬
Totally agree, Noone ever wins anything without at least trying. You cant win the lottery if you dont buy a ticket!
@criscaudill2733
These guys are pussies, they don't want to fight.
They don't know what will happen, you are supposed to fight to the death.
Wrong Ben! If this _SCOTUS_ is "warped" then let them be "warped", for future posterity to judge! Don't allow them to crawl away in silence!
It is OUT of scotus hands to even proceed to rule on this! It was a side note for them to give DJT 'Immuntiy', but that doesn't make Donald Trump exempt from his criminal acts! The planning of Jan. 6 (Marjorie Taylor-Greene LOVED bragging about how she just came from a meeting) for the planning of such, along with Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro (Green Bay Sweep) as well as Rudy bragging on his pocket Pardon, knew they were GUILTY of the plan! They cinched this SO perfectly, with a big red bow and a cherry on top! Lap up that whipped cream and savor the flavor of Victory, that takes them down!
This is such a tease, but holy crap it would be amazing for him to get disqualified! He should not have been on the ballot in the first place!! 🤬
That was just something SCOTUS made up out of thin air to protect Trump, that states can't disqualify a candidate from their ballot on constitutional grounds. What if Musk, not being a natural-born citizen, decides to run for president, or somebody under age 35 or a non-resident of U.S., let alone more insurrectionists? The ruling is that states can't disqualify candidates for "federal office," not just president, federal office would include members of Congress, too. We know Congress is already a mess, how is it going to handle passing legislation to stop unqualified candidates from running for the House/Senate & possibly winning seats?
He already is disqualified. Congress needs to uphold the Constitution and ignore the word salad *smoke and mirrors* from the Justices that did the overreach with their opinions. Those opinions weren't even required to answer the question before the court.
All of this for one man F---g Unbelievable!
@@ab6565 The incoming Congress is Republican-leaning. They're not going to vote against Trump. We all know this.
@@humanhelvete let alone, WIN
Justice Robert's should be aware that swearing in a constitutionally unqualified president is an impeachable offense.
Ben makes a major error in giving 'dicta' a level of binding precedent. It does not. You should be all in with Lights On, which has it right. Don't blow your chance to nail Trump on this. The clock is running and your chickening out doesn't help.
Completely agree. I don’t understand why MT doesn’t support Lights On and the peaceful march on Jan 3-5.
Congress has already acted on this. See below:
Up until 1948 Congress enforced Amendment 14 Section 3 by enacting Sections 14 and 15 of the Enforcement Act of 1870.
The pertinent portion of which was repealed in 1948; there is still a current federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) that was initially part of the Confiscation Act of 1862 (and revised in 1948), disqualifying insurrectionists from any federal office.
The Enforcement Act of 1870
Sections 14 and 15 enforced section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by instructing federal prosecutors to use a writ of quo warranto to remove people from government offices who were disqualified by that amendment. Reasons for such disqualification include insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Holding office contrary to such disqualification became a misdemeanor. The Enforcement Act's quo warranto provisions were repealed in 1948. However, even after that repeal, there remained a federal statute initially contained in the Confiscation Act of 1862 which made insurrection a federal crime, and disqualified insurrectionists from federal offices.
The current federal statute
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
@@hsquared8774 Possibly, like so many other 'all talk and no action' cowards (ABC anyone?) he is afraid of Trump targetting him and the Meidas Touch.
@@LRCW1 Disagree. It's just gutless Democrats who will let this go by and hope that Congress will turn blue in two years. In addition, Trump's promise, made while he is not yet in office, to pardon J6 perps is a clear violation of the give comfort words in section 3. DOJ or US attorney should bring action NOW based on that.
Agree 100%!!! Why should we care if we lose or not, just put it up for a vote and if we do not get 2/3 of congress to withdraw the disqualification than he IS DISQUALIFIED and will not be president!
You have it backwards - the Democrats should introduce legislation to relieve Trump of the disqualification for insurrection. Then have that vote fail in Congress.
Now Congress has voted and decided not to remove the disability!
This would be something the Supreme Court could NOT overturn
You're presuming Johnson would allow it to come to the floor… There isn't enough time left for a discharge petition.
I have no idea if you're correct but at least you're not obeying in advance. And if you ARE correct, you're apparently smarter than every legal and Constitutional Scholar out there. Maybe Steve on the internet should be running things, FFS.
WTF are you thinking?? Every Republican in [and out of] Congress would vote for THAT!! DUMB IDEA!!!!
I had been thinking of the same idea. It would take a real HR revolt to get it on the floor for a vote. Maybe Johnson will be a “surprise leader “ and let it happen. I doubt that he supports the Constitution over his fear of Trump, though.
@@Catlover4ever100 they don’t have a 2/3 majority
Requiring Congress to pass legislation to declare an adjudicated insurrectionist disqualified for engaging in insurrection is like requiring Congress to pass a law that says someone who is 32 is not old enough to become President. They don't need to pass any legislation for 14AS3 to apply, it's already in the Constitution.
14AS5 refers to the necessary legislation to enforce the myriad of stipulations listed in 14AS1 about equal rights, etc. 14AS3 requires no legislation at all. It self-executes just like the other disqualifications.
Exactly, you get it. What's hard to understand is why so many people don't.
That's the way it should be. That's what everyone argued. THE SUPREME COURT DISAGREED WITH THE LANGUAGE, AND EXCUSED T**** BY THEMSELVES.
The vocabulary and text is very direct, yes!
Adjudicated insurrectionist, where do you get this stuff from - dreams?
He was never charged or convicted in a FEDERAL court of law. States do not have jurisdiction to enforce Federal codes, that is the purview of the Department of Justice.
Anything That He Does Illegally He Gets Away With It! 'Coz They're Afraid, Cowardly Coward, And Scared To Do Anything About It! Somebody Or Someone Needs To Have A Guts To Fight Him For The Sake Of Our Country, Democracy Freedom, Future, People, And Society!!
Ben- that is so stupid and I think a class action lawsuit by the whole country should start.............. The Supreme Court need to go back to law school and try again.
Three Supreme Court justices made it clear that they thought they were overreaching, i.e, re-writing the Constitution.
It wasn't that they were re-writing the Constitution. The "overreach" was in giving a *smoke n mirrors* performance when none of that word salad was necessary AT ALL to answer the one question that was before them.
@@ab6565that word salad is called dicta.
That's because they were, but their rewrite is outside of their authority and therefore both an illegal ruling and a crime.
I don't disagree with what you are saying but Barrette agreed witht he 3 liberal justices, so it was 5-4. Ben just doesn't like to mention that a conservative was on board with the 3 other justices because it burns him LOL. In another video, he said 4 justices agreed on the overreach by accident and then immediately said 3 so that it looked like it was only the liberal justices that said it was an overreach.
@Jameson24241 Thanks for that !
It has never will never be in the Supreme Court’s Job Description to Abrogate any CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS !
They tried to be relevant in 'Ruling' as far as 'Immunity', what Donald has a cloak of coverage for his 'Acts', but the criminality and blatant immoral lawlessness of his causing the chaos then standing still, in his 'Dereliction of duty', laid the ground for his criminal acts (by NOT acting) to stop the madness! He's GUILTY, as well as DISQUALIFIED from EVER holding office! Madame President, it is!
I will never forgive the USA for Trump!!!
I’m showing up January 6, 2025 to protest.
👏🏻👏🏻Be safe 🇺🇸
YO TAMBIÉN CON TODA MI FAMILIA
TODOS A LA CALLE POR FAVOR 💙 💙 💙 💙 💙 💙 💙 💪💪💪💪💪💪💪💪
There is to be a March in WASH DC on Jan 3-5, Google it -Now-March. I could not put the actual website on here cause everytime I try, YOutube or someone removes the comment. The more people who know and can go the better!!!!!
The march is being held Jan 3-5.
Peacefully and patriotic.
IF Federal legislation is required to enact the 14th amendment then IT SHOULD BE DONE NOW!!
Will never happen. Trump is amazing. A true patriot and American hero. Best President in my lifetime
@@JohnBolenbaugh G F Y traitor.
@@JohnBolenbaugh Seriously delusional!!! and amazing that anyone would still think that way, are you deaf and blind??? He is voted as THIRD WORST PRESIDENT in HISTORY
The Roberts Court reeks of raw sewage bubbling up through the sinkhole that is Thomas and Alito.
It’s not just Alito and Thomas it’s also the Sexual Predator Kavanaugh Gorsuch Barrett and Robert’s. They are all Bought and Paid for
The "Extreme Court" has wandered far off the reservation!
Why is the constitution ignored where the incoming messiah is concerned? Why is he thought so special?
Why is he immune from the law? Why doesn’t he have to pay taxes, but we do?
He is not messiah he only thinks he is when yahusha comes he will be made to atone
@@Elishaaedenyeah, that's never going to happen.
Millions and millions of dollars spent to buy the court system, right the way up to SCOTUS,
That's what I'd like yo know also .....I guess that's why he needsso many billionaires....they can buy it 😅😅😅
There's a differences between being elected, vs being sworn in. He could run, but he can't be allowed.
This!!
So why allowed to run? Pointless
He’s going to be sworn in because the people elected him. He also won the popular vote. If you deny the election you’re a threat to our democracy.
@@robinantonio8870 I know! The Supreme Court knew that it would be too hard to stop him if he got elected. That's why they chose that path instead of stopping him themselves. If we stop him now, the civil war would commence!
This is false.
So Biden and Kamala refuse to leave the White House. Simple as that!!!!
.....they conceded....wtf dream f'n world do you f'n live in? Brains matter.
Or Vance becomes president and needs to pardon trump
When did you hear them say that?
@@angelabuchan9872I don’t think it works like that. The entire ticket would be canceled.
Simple English for justice’s wordplay.
Disgrace! John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett ⚖️ lock them up! Prison for the traitors!!! ⚖️ Shame on Them!!!
What about (S.4573-Dec 2022) Electoral Count Reform Act; section 109, which states objections to Electoral Votes can be brought for votes not “regularly given”, meaning not pursuant to law, such as votes for an ineligible candidate. It further explicitly includes supporting insurrection as producing ineligibility. Members of Congress would disobey their Constitutional Oath if they allow an insurrection supporter to hold office.
🙏🇺🇸💙
Further, I think Trump's overt statements should be prima facie evidence that he is an enemy of the Constitution. One could plausibly argue that the Colorado decision was not intended to help Trump become President, but rather to allow him to be defeated at the ballot box, which would arguably have been better than having the Court uphold his disqualification, but a J6 vote for Donald Trump would represent giving aid and comfort to the enemy unless preceded by an unequivocal declaration that Trump would be ineligible unless or until 290 Representatives and 67 Senators vote to make him eligible, which could theoretically happen after the 2026 elecctions. The 20th Amendment would then present a clear path forward: Vance would serve as Acting President unless or until Trump qualifies (and if Trump never qualifies, Vance will be a VP who served for more than two years as Acting President, and could thus only be elected President once. A slightly better sequence of events would be if enough Republicans could be convinced to carry out a third impeachment trial which could then anambiguously make Trump ineligible (the argument that the Senate would cease to have jurisdiction at the end of Trump's term would no longer hold water now that Trump's own lawyers have claimed that only the Senate would have such jurisdiction).
Excellent Trump did not support an insurrection so we are good to go. He specifically said go peaceably and make your voices heard.
@@JoyPeace-ej2uvabsolutely right case closed. All the people saying this and that. It's not going to happen. Trump was never convicted of any insurrection.
Let's just do it!! Lets get the ball rolling and invoke the 14th Amendment! The judges are getting sick of him and his crap. His E. Jean Carroll suit didn't get dismissed like he thought it would. Teflon doesn't last forever! Let's get this prick and uphold the Constitution!!! This is our land, not his!!
you're absolutely delusional
Yes, let's stop Trump NOW!!!
@@jpartin3471every accusation is a confession.
@@jpartin3471 No ! ! The convicted criminal and rapist is ! So are his cult followers . Grow up 🤡
@@MiracleFound HUH????
The US as a country is over. Corruption has prevailed.
it's been this way for a long, long time. It's ironic that Dumptruck is the one who has really brought it all forward - but he only did so because of his unconstitutional actions and his profuse vomit spread all over social media. The level of hypocrisy and irony here is massive - especially from the GOP.
So Right, especially when attorneys like these find any excuse to not even try to fight for our freedom.
What corruption has prevailed?
I am afraid you're right.
Would t it be great if the constitution stands firm with the help of congress.
Yes. But, unfortunately, Congress is infested with MAGATs. They will do nothing.
We must push this to the logical end, and get ALL congress people on record, and ALL Supreme Court members on record and work at recalling those who do not uphold their constitutional commitment. Even if we "know" it will fail and be a win for Trump. Members of congress can change their minds when the people stand up for what is right!
I'm a bit confused. I thought after hearing this that the first part says that in order for a insurrectionist to be put into office that Congress has to vote by 60% or 2/3rds to allow that person to take office. So, it seems to me that this needs to be done. I find it hard to believe that they would get that substantial a majority to waive the disqualification. The second part , if I understand it right, the second part states that any laws enacted concerning this matter has to comply with the first part. Am I wrong?
SCOTUS IS ILLEGITIMATE!
Bless your hearts!!
Send a letter to your representative requesting them to object to certification. Did that today, super easy and straight forward. It’s at least a step in the right direction.
Already did like 5 or 6 times
Dear god everyone knows right from wrong…. It’s a fight not looking for a sure win. Fight for our constitution!!!!
SCOTUS said Colorado couldn't remove Trump from the ballot, it said nothing about sec3, 14th Amendment in the case of swearing in.
Yet sec. 3 states ANY office. Having his name on a ballot constitutes as qualifying and eligible for the Office the ballot is for. Doesn't matter State ballot or ballot for US President, the "any" office still applies.
So regardless of the Justices' ruling, the Constitution says he doesn't qualify to be on that ballot...Period. If I remember correctly, only the Legislative Branch can amend or rewrite the Constitution. Even a US Justice doesn't have the power to do it.
@@DJRaevenHeart , Exactly, as I pointed out the Chief Justice can NOT swear in Trump according to the Constitution.
SCOTUS made up the Colorado ruling but sec3 14th Amendment says, Trump can't be sworn in, the Chief Justice will be ignoring the Constitution if he trys.
The thing is McCain had to prove he was a natural-born citizen when he ran for president before he was on the ballot (he was born to military parents I think it was in Panama and on the military base which is US property. There should be no ability for Trump to be able to take the oath especially since some of the people on January 6th were actually sentenced for insurrection if I recall correctly. His delay in acting on the insurrection on the 6th and his continued support of those involved should be enough to show aid and comfort to people involved in the insurrection. This would mean that in order to serve the office, Congress must follow the dictates of the Constitution to remove the restriction mentioned in the 14th amendment.
You recalled incorrectly, no one has ever been charged or convicted of insurrection. It was all just a peaceful protest.
My President Joe needs to call DARK BRANDON!!!
He's called "dark brandon" because there is no light on
That's really funny. I'm sure Palestinian children are laughing it up.
@@trustno1167 And vp trump does😂😂😂
@@ShloggerJoe has never been to Palestine
@@roseblake5803
Thank you, Harry and Ben. I would have lost my mind without you guys.
Same here 😵💫
Have you checked out Jessica Denson, she’s been on this for a while.
All you dems have already lost your minds
Ben is making me crazy.
@@hsquared8774 I have and it's WELL WORTH doing so. I highly recommend checking her videos out. Brian Tyler Cohen also has an interview with Kirschner that's really clear about all of it but Denson is top notch.
As I recall the case was about whether he could run. It wasn't about whether he could serve. Two different topics!
Challenge his certification in Congress and challenge him likewise in Court.
The law says “hold office”
The Denver Court ruled that Trump was guilty of insurrection which disqualified him from holding office. However, nothing prevented Trump for running for the office he could not hold. Therefore, Trump's name remained on the CO ballot. This decision was upheld by the CO Supreme Court.
@@1020kerry Yes, the CONSTITUTION says he can't "hold office'. Which is what the poster was referring to.
Not Americans: John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett
Corruption shouldn't have a vote
Both political parties are seriously corrupt. Do you think that neither party votes in Congress or that both parties are not corrupt?
States may not be able to block him from holding office, but Federal Congress can! Do your job!
Unfortunately Republicans hold the majority in Congress
The state supreme courts said they believed he committed an insurrection. Either their ruling is legal or not. Just because the bought federal Supreme Court didn’t like the state’s rules I don’t understand how that makes it untrue.
The federal Supreme Court can overrule a state Supreme Court, you know this. Cmon man
... that decision from the supreme court was bot & paid for, it couldnt hav hapnd anyothr way... 😮
Great, so all we can do is hope someone does what they’re supposed to do. Had no idea our democratic system was this flimsy.
Same with the legal profession
Another perspective to view this discussion is that "just letting it go and continuing to fight afterwards by pointing out every inroad against democratic rule" is simply political pundits creating future job security for themselves by leaving the door open wide for them to just have lots of things to keep talking about in the future.
Well, said. It's an incredibly ridiculous notion.
One does have to wonder ……🤨