nope, not possible.
If you are guilty of insurrection against the US in one state, you are guilty in all states, and only the Congress can remedy it.
you cannot be the President of the United States excluding Colorado. And if CO says you are guilty of insurrection, then you can not be the President of the US.
Which of course doesn’t matter one whit, when one remembers that this is a deflection. But for the insurrection, additional security wouldn’t have been needed in the first place.
In other words, you are trying to shift the blame
1 Like
I’m not shifting anything, I was just answering a post claiming McConnell was equally responsible.
That’s just plainly wrong. Texas is under no obligation here to keep Trump of their ballot. The only power able to make this national is the feds.
it is a federal issue from the start.
the prohibition is that a person who partakes in insurrection cannot be President. That would be President of all 50 states. If CO says he is guilty of insurrection, then he cannot be the President of the US because he cannot be President of the US in CO. You are either the President of all of them, or none of them.
suppose for just one second this was upheld federally. Trump gets elected… what then? Is he the President of the US in CO? or is he ineligible? Who would be guilty of insurrection then? Should the federal troops march into CO and arrest the entire state government?
Does the state of CO sue the nation to enforce their determination of ineligibility? Who does the federal workforce in CO listen to? According to the state, Trump cannot be President. Who do the armed forces in CO listen to? And what of the CO national guard?
I suppose if you really do want a civil war this is one way to make it happen.
2 Likes
Jezcoe
1316
That is quite the stretch.
assuming she is not responsible for her underling is a stretch
1 Like
conan
1318
A state can punish individual for a said crime they didn’t do in another state?
Do you libs ever listen to yourselves?
1 Like
Jezcoe
1319
The Sergeant of Arms is not an Underling.
You have a funhouse mirror view of the org chart.
1 Like
yes, he certainly is. he reports directly to the speaker
1 Like
Jezcoe
1321
Not for day to day security matters.
So in this funhouse mirror world… the riot was the fault of Pelosi because the fortethought by the Sergeant at arms failed to divine that Trump’s supporters were going to violently riot and he would sit back and enjoy it AND Pelosi didn’t see this either and didn’t step in add additional security.
Man… shift the blame by not understanding an esoteric artifact of how Capitol security works.
It’s just wild.
Ultimately? No. I think we all know this is going to be settled on a federal level.
1 Like
All of this wrong.
The due process clause guarantees that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Even accepting that one has a liberty interest in running for President, in this context, procedural “due process” means three things: notice (that you are informed of the allegations against you within a reasonable time), opportunity (you are given opportunity to respond to the allegations against you, know and examine the evidence against you, present evidence on your behalf, cross examine witnesses, and be represeneted by counsel), and (a written decision) by an unbiased tribubal.
The trial in Colorado met all of those criteria. All parties were noticed. A trial was held. Witnesses were called and cross-examined, and evidence was presented by both sides. The court considered the evidence, and rendered a written decision.
2 Likes
LucyLou
1324
It’s weird that people think that whatever random politician with whatever random background would be “in charge” of security at a high profile government building like the Capitol complex. Certainly Mike Johnson has zero experience in this type of safety measures.
Good Lord.
for all matters the sergeant at arms of the house falls directly under the speaker of the house. The speaker is responsible for the conduct of the sergeant at arms in the conduct of his duties. authority can be delegated, responsibility cannot be.
3 Likes
They rendered a decision declaring him ineligible due to a crime he had not been charged with that happened outside of their jurisdiction where they have no authority at all to determine whether or not a crime was committed in the first place.
This is not due process.
by the way… major fail
1 Like
No, they didn’t.
They decided he was ineligible because they found that he had engaged in insurrection.
No criminal statutes were involved. Whether or not a “crime” was committed is irrelevant.
1 Like
which is a crime and always has been. we’ve already established that
Ruling against Trump does not make them a biased tribunal by default, not matter how much you guys might wish it so.
1 Like
