On 10/27/2023 11:16 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:uhgiep$2ag4p$3@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 10/27/2023 4:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> election process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common
>>>>>>>>>> misconseption. Courts DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can
>>>>>>>>>> direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing
>>>>>>>>> law to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law
>>>>>>>>> to specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts
>>>>>>>> don't write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is
>>>>>>>> note that no amendment has higher priority over another.  If an
>>>>>>>> amendment says that one can't be President due to sediition, you
>>>>>>>> must comply with all the other amendents.  In other words, due
>>>>>>>> process must apply and you must be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know
>>>>>> (I am betting on the former).
>>>>>
>>>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying
>>>>> action for the 14th to be used and frankly, I don't want them to.
>>>>> I want the voters to decide.
>>>>
>>>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to
>>>> steal an election.
>>>
>>> Hmm then we better start prosecuting those Democrat politician who
>>> required mail in voting in 2020.
>>
>> If mail-in voting steals an election, every election in Oregon has
>> been stolen for almost 20 years. What nonsense.
>>
>
> Trump, While Attacking Mail Voting,
> Casts Mail Ballot Again
> August 19, 2020
>
> https://tinyurl.com/2trvz2xy

There is no widespread vote fraud with mail-in voting.

On 10/27/2023 4:38 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <ncdojidpsa8copc3pu053bh9ac1a9ffttj@4ax.com>,
> governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 10:07:30 -0600, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

>>
>>> In article <7cQ_M.179149$0UVe.145705@fx17.iad>, rc.@hendrie.con says...
>>>>
>>>> On 10/26/2023 11:33 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for the 14th to be
>>>>>>> used and frankly, I don't want them to. I want the voters to decide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
>>>>>> an election.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that's exactly what democracy is.
>>>>
>>>> That's not what democracy is. At any given time, there is a set of electoral
>>>> rules. It is not "democracy" for one side ? the *losing* side, the *minority* ?
>>>> suddenly to refuse to abide by those rules and to claim victory in an election
>>>> they *lost*. "The voters" did *not* approve of Trump's attempt to steal the
>>>> election.
>>>
>>> He didn't. The election was already over.
>>
>> So you're stipulating that Biden won in 2020?
>
> He's president isn't he?

He's president because he won the election in 2020. You agree with that.

>>
>>>>> No, man, I don't want to spend the next several years in a fight about political
>>>>> persecution and gamesmanship. The hard right must be rejected by the GOP and the GOP must
>>>>> understand the price they paid for power from the nineties is too high. Only letting him
>>>>> run will accomplish that. I want to see if Trump and his preferred candidates can get
>>>>> into office or not.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. Section 14.3 is *part* of our electoral rules right now.
>>>> Insurrectionists who previously swore an oath to defend, uphold and support the
>>>> Constitution are *ineligible* to be president (or any other office), and we have
>>>> to find out how to enforce it. It applies to Trump.
>>>
>>> No insurrection. No one has been charged with insurrection. Not even
>>> Trump.
>>
>> The charges were mostly sedition and/or a charge that amounted to trespassing. The powers
>> that be had no desire to lock up hundreds of loyal Americans for decades. They saved the
>> heavy sentences for the ringleaders.
>
> No insurrection charges, therefore no insurrection.

False. There was an insurrection.

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:09:30 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

>NoBody wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>
>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>
>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>> betting on the former).
>>
>> Due Process.
>>
>
>Which will likely begin in court deciding how to decide. Praps
>they will decide this is political process they have to stay out
>of. Praps not.

There's no "praps" about it. The Constitution requires due process.
You can't declare someone guilty of sedition without a trial.

Damn you're dumb.

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:44:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 10/27/2023 4:26 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>
>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>
>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>> betting on the former).
>>
>> Due Process.
>
>... which may or may not require a conviction.

What's the definition of "due process"?
What do you suppose would happen if someone could be prevented from
running for office by a mere accusation? Your lack of concern about
this issue is troubling in itself.

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:45:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 10/27/2023 4:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>
>>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for the 14th to be
>>>> used and frankly, I don't want them to. I want the voters to decide.
>>>
>>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
>>> an election.
>>
>> Hmm then we better start prosecuting those Democrat politician who
>> required mail in voting in 2020.
>
>If mail-in voting steals an election, every election in Oregon has been
>stolen for almost 20 years. What nonsense.

When a government requires, by dictate of governors and not law, this
should raise eyebrows. This process was put in place with no real
checks and balances. Did Oregon just throw a switch with little
notice and tell you you can't vote in person anymore?

NoBody wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:09:30 -0700, Siri Cruise
> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> NoBody wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>
>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>> betting on the former).
>>>
>>> Due Process.
>>>
>>
>> Which will likely begin in court deciding how to decide. Praps
>> they will decide this is political process they have to stay out
>> of. Praps not.
>
> There's no "praps" about it. The Constitution requires due process.
> You can't declare someone guilty of sedition without a trial.
>
> Damn you're dumb.
>

And you're back to reading in 'conviction' in 14.3 which no one
else can.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.1 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On 10/28/2023 6:31 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:45:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/27/2023 4:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>
>>>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for the 14th to be
>>>>> used and frankly, I don't want them to. I want the voters to decide.
>>>>
>>>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
>>>> an election.
>>>
>>> Hmm then we better start prosecuting those Democrat politician who
>>> required mail in voting in 2020.
>>
>> If mail-in voting steals an election, every election in Oregon has been
>> stolen for almost 20 years. What nonsense.
>
> When a government requires, by dictate of governors and not law, this
> should raise eyebrows. This process was put in place with no real
> checks and balances. Did Oregon just throw a switch with little
> notice and tell you you can't vote in person anymore?

Where was mail-in voting instituted in 2020 by "dictate of governors,
and not the law"? Oregon initiated theirs by voter referendum.

On 10/28/2023 6:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:09:30 -0700, Siri Cruise
> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> NoBody wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>
>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>> betting on the former).
>>>
>>> Due Process.
>>>
>>
>> Which will likely begin in court deciding how to decide. Praps
>> they will decide this is political process they have to stay out
>> of. Praps not.
>
> There's no "praps" about it. The Constitution requires due process.
> You can't declare someone guilty of sedition without a trial.

14.3 isn't a declaration of being guilty of the crime of sedition. You
can repeat yourself over and over again, but it is not settled law what
constitutes acceptable due process for being disqualified under 14.3.

On 10/28/2023 6:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:44:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/27/2023 4:26 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>
>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>> betting on the former).
>>>
>>> Due Process.
>>
>> ... which may or may not require a conviction.
>
> What's the definition of "due process"?

For 14.3, we don't know. I suspect (but only suspect) it's review on
appeal by the courts on both the process and factual findings of the
decision maker (who might be the secretary of state).

> What do you suppose would happen if someone could be prevented from
> running for office by a mere accusation? Your lack of concern about
> this issue is troubling in itself.

I'd be concerned if the due process I just described above wasn't given.

On 10/28/2023 6:31 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:45:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/27/2023 4:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>
>>>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for the 14th to be
>>>>> used and frankly, I don't want them to. I want the voters to decide.
>>>>
>>>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
>>>> an election.
>>>
>>> Hmm then we better start prosecuting those Democrat politician who
>>> required mail in voting in 2020.
>>
>> If mail-in voting steals an election, every election in Oregon has been
>> stolen for almost 20 years. What nonsense.
>
> When a government requires, by dictate of governors and not law, this
> should raise eyebrows.

That's not a sentence. When a government requires *what*?

No government "required" anyone to vote by mail. Vote by mail was made available
as an option. Any voter could still go to a polling place or a ballot drop-off
location.

> This process was put in place with no real checks and balances.

Bullshit. There are lots of controls over the process.

On 10/28/2023 11:22 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <Cac%M.227076$8fO.25809@fx15.iad>, lb@cap.con says...
>>
>> On 10/27/2023 11:11 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:38:32 -0600, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <ncdojidpsa8copc3pu053bh9ac1a9ffttj@4ax.com>,
>>>> governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 10:07:30 -0600, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <7cQ_M.179149$0UVe.145705@fx17.iad>, rc.@hendrie.con says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 11:33 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for the 14th to be
>>>>>>>>>> used and frankly, I don't want them to. I want the voters to decide.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
>>>>>>>>> an election.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that's exactly what democracy is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not what democracy is. At any given time, there is a set of electoral
>>>>>>> rules. It is not "democracy" for one side ? the *losing* side, the *minority* ?
>>>>>>> suddenly to refuse to abide by those rules and to claim victory in an election
>>>>>>> they *lost*. "The voters" did *not* approve of Trump's attempt to steal the
>>>>>>> election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He didn't. The election was already over.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're stipulating that Biden won in 2020?
>>>>
>>>> He's president isn't he?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, man, I don't want to spend the next several years in a fight about political
>>>>>>>> persecution and gamesmanship. The hard right must be rejected by the GOP and the GOP must
>>>>>>>> understand the price they paid for power from the nineties is too high. Only letting him
>>>>>>>> run will accomplish that. I want to see if Trump and his preferred candidates can get
>>>>>>>> into office or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit. Section 14.3 is *part* of our electoral rules right now.
>>>>>>> Insurrectionists who previously swore an oath to defend, uphold and support the
>>>>>>> Constitution are *ineligible* to be president (or any other office), and we have
>>>>>>> to find out how to enforce it. It applies to Trump.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No insurrection.
>>
>> There was an insurrection: the one Trump organized, financed and directed.
>
> No one has proven that.

All proved beyond rational dispute.

>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The charges were mostly sedition and/or a charge that amounted to trespassing. The powers
>>>>> that be had no desire to lock up hundreds of loyal Americans for decades. They saved the
>>>>> heavy sentences for the ringleaders.
>>>>
>>>> No insurrection charges,
>>
>> There was an insurrection.
>
> None.

Yep: Jan 06, 2021. The one Trump organized, financed and directed.

On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 11:12:41 -0700, nickname unavailable
<"because_\\shitbag\\_was_taken"@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/28/2023 6:31 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:45:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/27/2023 4:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for the 14th to be
>>>>>> used and frankly, I don't want them to. I want the voters to decide.
>>>>>
>>>>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
>>>>> an election.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm then we better start prosecuting those Democrat politician who
>>>> required mail in voting in 2020.
>>>
>>> If mail-in voting steals an election, every election in Oregon has been
>>> stolen for almost 20 years. What nonsense.
>>
>> When a government requires, by dictate of governors and not law, this
>> should raise eyebrows.
>
>That's not a sentence. When a government requires *what*?

Anything.

Swill
--
You know what's more fun than watching Russians die on a Ukrainian
battlefield?

Watching Russians *burning* on a Ukrainian battlefield!
<https://twitter.com/TonyaLevchuk/status/1717158589725302984?s=20>
(Do not watch if you're a snowflake)

Not left, not right, https://www.forwardparty.com/

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:56:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 10/28/2023 6:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:44:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/27/2023 4:26 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>
>>>> Due Process.
>>>
>>> ... which may or may not require a conviction.
>>
>> What's the definition of "due process"?
>
>For 14.3, we don't know

Due process is already established in the Consitution. You're
pretending that it's a new thing.

>. I suspect (but only suspect) it's review on
>appeal by the courts on both the process and factual findings of the
>decision maker (who might be the secretary of state).

That is not due process.

>
>> What do you suppose would happen if someone could be prevented from
>> running for office by a mere accusation? Your lack of concern about
>> this issue is troubling in itself.
>
>I'd be concerned if the due process I just described above wasn't given.

It's NOT due process. End of story.

On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:47:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 10/28/2023 6:31 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:45:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/27/2023 4:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for the 14th to be
>>>>>> used and frankly, I don't want them to. I want the voters to decide.
>>>>>
>>>>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
>>>>> an election.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm then we better start prosecuting those Democrat politician who
>>>> required mail in voting in 2020.
>>>
>>> If mail-in voting steals an election, every election in Oregon has been
>>> stolen for almost 20 years. What nonsense.
>>
>> When a government requires, by dictate of governors and not law, this
>> should raise eyebrows. This process was put in place with no real
>> checks and balances. Did Oregon just throw a switch with little
>> notice and tell you you can't vote in person anymore?
>
>Where was mail-in voting instituted in 2020 by "dictate of governors,
>and not the law"? Oregon initiated theirs by voter referendum.

Oregon appeared to follow a process. NJ is an example of the governor
in power dictating that in person voting would not be permitted for
the 2022 election (unless you wanted to case a provisional vote that
would not be counted untiil several days after the election was over.)
There was no legislation passed to support this order.

On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:36:18 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

>NoBody wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:09:30 -0700, Siri Cruise
>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>
>>>> Due Process.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which will likely begin in court deciding how to decide. Praps
>>> they will decide this is political process they have to stay out
>>> of. Praps not.
>>
>> There's no "praps" about it. The Constitution requires due process.
>> You can't declare someone guilty of sedition without a trial.
>>
>> Damn you're dumb.
>>
>
>And you're back to reading in 'conviction' in 14.3 which no one
>else can.

So you're saying that someone can just make an accusation of sedition
and boom they're out?

Due process. Look into it.

On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:56:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 10/28/2023 6:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:09:30 -0700, Siri Cruise
>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>
>>>> Due Process.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which will likely begin in court deciding how to decide. Praps
>>> they will decide this is political process they have to stay out
>>> of. Praps not.
>>
>> There's no "praps" about it. The Constitution requires due process.
>> You can't declare someone guilty of sedition without a trial.
>
>14.3 isn't a declaration of being guilty of the crime of sedition. You
>can repeat yourself over and over again, but it is not settled law what
>constitutes acceptable due process for being disqualified under 14.3.

Due process is already defined in the Constitution. You do not need
to define it again. I truly can't believe we're having this
discussion....

On 10/29/2023 7:30 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:56:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2023 6:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:44:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/27/2023 4:26 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>
>>>>> Due Process.
>>>>
>>>> ... which may or may not require a conviction.
>>>
>>> What's the definition of "due process"?
>>
>> For 14.3, we don't know
>
> Due process is already established in the Consitution. You're
> pretending that it's a new thing.
>
>> . I suspect (but only suspect) it's review on
>> appeal by the courts on both the process and factual findings of the
>> decision maker (who might be the secretary of state).
>
> That is not due process.

Says you. There is no precedent that supports (or refutes) your claim.
It's not settled law.

>>> What do you suppose would happen if someone could be prevented from
>>> running for office by a mere accusation? Your lack of concern about
>>> this issue is troubling in itself.
>>
>> I'd be concerned if the due process I just described above wasn't given.
>
> It's NOT due process. End of story.

Sorry, your opinion - not supported by precedent - is not the end of the
story no matter how many times you repeat it, with or without CAPS.

On 10/29/2023 7:34 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:47:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2023 6:31 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:45:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/27/2023 4:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for the 14th to be
>>>>>>> used and frankly, I don't want them to. I want the voters to decide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
>>>>>> an election.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm then we better start prosecuting those Democrat politician who
>>>>> required mail in voting in 2020.
>>>>
>>>> If mail-in voting steals an election, every election in Oregon has been
>>>> stolen for almost 20 years. What nonsense.
>>>
>>> When a government requires, by dictate of governors and not law, this
>>> should raise eyebrows. This process was put in place with no real
>>> checks and balances. Did Oregon just throw a switch with little
>>> notice and tell you you can't vote in person anymore?
>>
>> Where was mail-in voting instituted in 2020 by "dictate of governors,
>> and not the law"? Oregon initiated theirs by voter referendum.
>
> Oregon appeared to follow a process. NJ is an example of the governor
> in power dictating that in person voting would not be permitted for
> the 2022 election (unless you wanted to case a provisional vote that
> would not be counted untiil several days after the election was over.)
> There was no legislation passed to support this order.

At the time of the executive order, there was no explicit legislation.
Murphy claimed he nonetheless had the legal authority under emergency
powers granted to him by the legislature.

Was this an illegal power grab? Perhaps, perhaps not. Trump sued, but
the case never made it court because the legislature reacted by
explicitly passing legislation enabling Murphy's plan.

https://legiscan.com/NJ/text/A4475/id/2208140

On 10/29/2023 7:36 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:56:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2023 6:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:09:30 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>
>>>>> Due Process.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which will likely begin in court deciding how to decide. Praps
>>>> they will decide this is political process they have to stay out
>>>> of. Praps not.
>>>
>>> There's no "praps" about it. The Constitution requires due process.
>>> You can't declare someone guilty of sedition without a trial.
>>
>> 14.3 isn't a declaration of being guilty of the crime of sedition. You
>> can repeat yourself over and over again, but it is not settled law what
>> constitutes acceptable due process for being disqualified under 14.3.
>
> Due process is already defined in the Constitution.

No, it is not.

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>> Due process is already defined in the Constitution.
>
> No, it is not.

Due process is whatever Congress says it is. Congress allows some
disputes to be brought into federal courts to be decided by a
judge if the judge agrees this a dispute for a court to decide.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.1 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On 10/29/2023 7:36 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:56:39 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2023 6:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:09:30 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>
>>>>> Due Process.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which will likely begin in court deciding how to decide. Praps
>>>> they will decide this is political process they have to stay out
>>>> of. Praps not.
>>>
>>> There's no "praps" about it. The Constitution requires due process.
>>> You can't declare someone guilty of sedition without a trial.
>>
>> 14.3 isn't a declaration of being guilty of the crime of sedition. You
>> can repeat yourself over and over again, but it is not settled law what
>> constitutes acceptable due process for being disqualified under 14.3.
>
> Due process is already defined in the Constitution.

Wrong. It is not even *mentioned* in the main body of the Constitution. The
fifth and fourteenth amendments both say that people may not be deprived of
life, liberty or property without due process of law, but neither one defines
due process. They take the meaning and definition as given /a priori/, exactly
the same as "natural born citizen."

You never know what you're talking about.

On 10/29/2023 8:00 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 7:34 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:47:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/28/2023 6:31 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:45:45 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/27/2023 4:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action
>>>>>>>> for the 14th to be
>>>>>>>> used and frankly, I don't want them to.  I want the voters to decide.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
>>>>>>> an election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm then we better start prosecuting those Democrat politician who
>>>>>> required mail in voting in 2020.
>>>>>
>>>>> If mail-in voting steals an election, every election in Oregon has been
>>>>> stolen for almost 20 years. What nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> When a government requires, by dictate of governors and not law, this
>>>> should raise eyebrows.  This process was put in place with no real
>>>> checks and balances.  Did Oregon just throw a switch with little
>>>> notice and tell you you can't vote in person anymore?
>>>
>>> Where was mail-in voting instituted in 2020 by "dictate of governors,
>>> and not the law"? Oregon initiated theirs by voter referendum.
>>
>> Oregon appeared to follow a process.  NJ is an example of the governor
>> in power dictating that in person voting would not be permitted for
>> the 2022 election (unless you wanted to case a provisional vote that
>> would not be counted untiil several days after the election was over.)
>> There was no legislation passed to support this order.
>
> At the time of the executive order, there was no explicit legislation. Murphy
> claimed he nonetheless had the legal authority under emergency powers granted to
> him by the legislature.

How is that any different than DeSantis removing *elected* prosecutors by
executive order? How is it any different than DeSantis issuing an executive
order telling Florida law enforcement officers to detain suspected "illegal aliens"?

>
> Was this an illegal power grab? Perhaps, perhaps not. Trump sued, but the case
> never made it court because the legislature reacted by explicitly passing
> legislation enabling Murphy's plan.
>
> https://legiscan.com/NJ/text/A4475/id/2208140

On 10/29/2023 7:37 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 10/29/2023 7:30 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 07:56:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/28/2023 6:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:44:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/27/2023 4:26 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Due Process.
>>>>>
>>>>> ... which may or may not require a conviction.
>>>>
>>>> What's the definition of "due process"?
>>>
>>> For 14.3, we don't know
>>
>> Due process is already established in the Consitution.  You're
>> pretending that it's a new thing.
>>
>>> . I suspect (but only suspect) it's review on
>>> appeal by the courts on both the process and factual findings of the
>>> decision maker (who might be the secretary of state).
>>
>> That is not due process.
>
> Says you. There is no precedent that supports (or refutes) your claim. It's not
> settled law.

Due process is not being denied. In the Colorado suit that is going to go to
trial, Trump and the Republiscums/QAnon will have an opportunity to argue
against a finding that Trump is ineligible. If he is held to be ineligible, they
will have the opportunity to appeal. *That* is due process, by definition.

>>>> What do you suppose would happen if someone could be prevented from
>>>> running for office by a mere accusation?  Your lack of concern about
>>>> this issue is troubling in itself.
>>>
>>> I'd be concerned if the due process I just described above wasn't given.
>>
>> It's NOT due process.  End of story.
>
> Sorry, your opinion - not supported by precedent - is not the end of the story
> no matter how many times you repeat it, with or without CAPS.

There has been no breach of due process, and there won't be.

|
| The campaign to use the U.S. Constitution's "insurrection"
| clause to bar former President Donald Trump from running
| for the White House again enters a new phase this week as
| hearings begin in two states on lawsuits that might end up
| reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.
|
| A weeklong hearing on one lawsuit to bar Trump from the
| ballot in Colorado begins Monday, while on Thursday oral
| arguments are scheduled before the Minnesota Supreme Court
| on an effort to kick the Republican former president off
| the ballot in that state.
| ...
<https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-ballot-14th-amendment-colorado-f5d6c6174476ec414208323785df6e15>

--bks

On 10/30/2023 7:01 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> |
> | The campaign to use the U.S. Constitution's "insurrection"
> | clause to bar former President Donald Trump from running
> | for the White House again enters a new phase this week as
> | hearings begin in two states on lawsuits that might end up
> | reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.
> |
> | A weeklong hearing on one lawsuit to bar Trump from the
> | ballot in Colorado begins Monday, while on Thursday oral
> | arguments are scheduled before the Minnesota Supreme Court
> | on an effort to kick the Republican former president off
> | the ballot in that state.

It is to be hoped that these efforts, and more to follow, will succeed. There
not only was an insurrection — not in rational dispute — but Trump organized,
financed and directed it. If that section of the amendment means anything, it
means that insurrectionists who previously swore an oath to
support/defend/uphold the Constitution, and who subsequently engage in
insurrection against the Constitution, are ineligible for any office.

If a court holds that Trump is ineligible, the order will be appealed. Suppose
any appeals, including to the Supreme Court, uphold the orders declaring Trump
ineligible to hold the presidency, and thus ineligible to appear on ballots.
What will the rabidly irrational right-wingnut pro-coup anti-American traitors
do then? Looking at you, Kremlin Girl / Bit of Nothingness and Hartung.