• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

JANUARY 6TH CONSPIRACY theories

Gord_in_Toronto said:
If they start to blame the x-P in court, things might get interesting.

:popcorn1 or even :popcorn6
Click to expand...

I know I was thinking of filing a federal Lawsuit in Kentucky trying to get support for it, to block Trump from ever Running for office again in the state, under the 14th Amendment.
 
This thread reminds me that I need to pick up another copy of The Catcher in the Rye.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I know I was thinking of filing a federal Lawsuit in Kentucky trying to get support for it, to block Trump from ever Running for office again in the state, under the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense at all.

The 14th doesn't prohibit insurrectionists from running for office.

A federal lawsuit can't bar someone from running for office in a particular state. That would have to be decided at the state level.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I could have scheduled a meeting with him if I had wanted sat in his office many times, and knew the Lady I gave the Message too well! That confederate flag photo you see Mitch In front of was done by the Sons of the confederacy, in the Expo center in Louisville Kentucky during the state Fair, Mitch actually tried to purswade me to join but I declined.
I actually did a performance for some of his guests Senators he invited, shortly after that! You see I was actually friends with Mitch though My Family which were all Republican on my Quaker dad side.
Click to expand...

And yet you have no filings with the FEC as a candidate, PAC or a 527 organization (and yes, I know where to look).
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/01/12/insurrection-suit-carolina-cawthorn/
Click to expand...

Like I said, it doesn't make sense. I get that they're suing on that basis. I don't think their lawsuit makes sense.

Also, you're appealing to what? Authority, here? Popularity? Just because some jackass is trying it, doesn't mean it makes sense. It could just mean they're a jackass.

The way I read the amendment, they can run for office, and even win the election, but can't take office without the Congressional waiver. That raises awkward constitutional questions about who *can* take office - the runner up? Nobody?

But that's a different question.

Anyway, this is basically just another "I could if I wanted to, but I just don't want to" type claim. Long on coulda done it, short on actually did it.
 
theprestige said:
Like I said, it doesn't make sense. I get that they're suing on that basis. I don't think their lawsuit makes sense.

Also, you're appealing to what? Authority, here? Popularity? Just because some jackass is trying it, doesn't mean it makes sense. It could just mean they're a jackass.

The way I read the amendment, they can run for office, and even win the election, but can't take office without the Congressional waiver. That raises awkward constitutional questions about who *can* take office - the runner up? Nobody?

But that's a different question.

Anyway, this is basically just another "I could if I wanted to, but I just don't want to" type claim. Long on coulda done it, short on actually did it.
Click to expand...

The way the Amendment was interpreted Historicly they are banned from the Ballot itself.
 
theprestige said:
The 14th doesn't prohibit insurrectionists from running for office.
Click to expand...

It doesn't?

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…
Click to expand...

Read more here.
 
theprestige said:
Like I said, it doesn't make sense. I get that they're suing on that basis. I don't think their lawsuit makes sense.

Also, you're appealing to what? Authority, here? Popularity? Just because some jackass is trying it, doesn't mean it makes sense. It could just mean they're a jackass.

The way I read the amendment, they can run for office, and even win the election, but can't take office without the Congressional waiver. That raises awkward constitutional questions about who *can* take office - the runner up? Nobody?

But that's a different question.

Anyway, this is basically just another "I could if I wanted to, but I just don't want to" type claim. Long on coulda done it, short on actually did it.
Click to expand...

Candidacy and ballot access laws are established by the individual States. In North Carolina he would not be eligible to run because under GS 163-106.5 "When any candidate files a notice of candidacy with a board of elections...the board of elections shall...cancel the notice of candidacy of any person who does not meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications for the office..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom