On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 07:10:19 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On 11/7/2023 4:00 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 07:28:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/6/2023 3:59 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 05 Nov 2023 09:56:28 -0500, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But the damage is being done NOW. Those who don't inform themselves
>>>>> already believe Trump is guilty because of this process and the media
>>>>> parrots. You know this but because you don't like Trump you make room
>>>>> for this nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting that Josh left out this portion in his response. Says all
>>>> I need to know about his motivations.
>>>
>>> What damage? His poll numbers keep going up. My motivation is an honest
>>> belief that Trump is disqualified under 14.3.
>>
>> The damage to the process itself is done by attempting political
>> assassination via the law. But you did finally give yourself away.
>> You said your reason the process could continue because it was
>> "unsettled law". Now you gave yourself away.
>
>What I "gave away" was that I hope for a certain outcome
>(disqualification). But, that hope is not connected to the reason the
>process can continue. I will accept whatever SCOTUS says.

Motivation tends to skew opinion. Thus far your argument hasn't made
much legal sense so your reveal ties it together for me.

On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 07:11:47 -0500, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 07:28:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 11/6/2023 3:51 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 07:51:09 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/5/2023 6:56 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 08:14:37 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can repeat over and over again (and I'm sure you will) that a trial
>>>>>> is necessary and you still could be wrong (or right). Patience
>>>>>> grasshopper (and no, Trump will not be kept off the ballot without first
>>>>>> exhausting the appeals process).
>>>>>
>>>>> You can repeat over and over again (and I'm sure you will) that a
>>>>> trial is not necessary and you would still be wrong.
>>>>
>>>> You insist you are correct, "end of story." I gave my opinion but
>>>> recognize the law is not settled.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well the Constitution is the Constitution so there's that...
>>
>>And how to interpret the Constitution is whatever you say it is, end of
>>story. Sorry, no.
>
>All you have to do is look into the due process clause. It says all
>you need to know. And yes, that is the end of the story.
>
>>
>>>>>>> Associate Justice Barry Anderson said he saw a “very serious problem”
>>>>>>> with the challengers’ argument that courts are the appropriate venue
>>>>>>> to resolve this “political question.” (Just last week, a federal court
>>>>>>> in New Hampshire rejected a similar lawsuit, citing those grounds.)
>>>>>>> Hudson also said the Constitution as a whole suggests “this is a
>>>>>>> national matter for Congress to decide.” "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's an interesting, but scary take. Let's say Trump is on the ballot
>>>>>> and wins, but the Democrats take back the House and hold on to the
>>>>>> Senate. Would you be OK (from a process perspective) with Congress
>>>>>> refusing to certify Trump's victory because he isn't eligible under 14.3?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/02/politics/minnesota-supreme-court-14th-amendment-trump/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> And you seriously think they won't do this anyway????
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I seriously think they won't do it if the courts determine Trump is
>>>> not disqualified under 14.3.
>>>
>>> I'll look forward to your apology when they actually it. Will you
>>> commit to do so?
>>
>>Yep.
>
>Honestly I doubt you will do it. But in the meanwhile here's
>something for you to think about:
>
>https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judges-have-no-legal-authority-to-bar-trump-from-2024-ballots/ar-AA1jtt9J
>
>"As state court proceedings get under way in Colorado, Michigan and
>Minnesota in lawsuits aimed at barring Donald Trump from appearing as
>a presidential candidate on the ballot in next year’s presidential
>election, the judges in those cases should understand that the text,
>history, and application of the 14th Amendment make it clear that they
>have no legal authority to take any such action.
>
>Due to Trump’s supposed actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the challengers are
>trying to argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the
>disqualification clause, prevents him from being president even if he
>is elected, so he should be removed from the ballot by state election
>officials.
>
>Section 3 provides that:
>
> No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
>elector for President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or
>military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an
>oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States …
>to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged
>in insurrection or rebellion against the same … . But Congress may, by
>a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
>
>Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the
>challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3.
>
>There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
>
>First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were
>previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,”
>or a state official. Trump has never been any of those. He has never
>held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the
>U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are
>only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the
>federal government.
>
>Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice
>president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3. The
>Supreme Court reiterated that view in 2010 in Free Enterprise Fund v.
>Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, in which Chief Justice John
>Roberts concluded “the people do not vote for ‘Officers of the United
>States.’” They are appointed under Article II of the Constitution.
>
>It must also be noted that while Section 3 applies to an “elector for
>President or Vice President,” it does not specify that it applies to
>the president or vice president. This supports the argument that the
>drafters did not mean for Section 3 to apply to the president and vice
>president, which, again, is not surprising, since they are not
>“Officers of the United States.”
>
>Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in
>“insurrection or rebellion” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2383, which
>makes it a crime to engage in “any rebellion or insurrection against
>the authority of the United States.”
>
>More importantly, in the second impeachment resolution of Trump on
>Jan. 11, 2021, he was charged by the House of Representatives in
>Article I with “Incitement of Insurrection.” Yet, he was acquitted by
>the Senate.
>
>Given our federal constitutional system, state and federal courts
>should not gainsay the findings of Congress on this issue. The risk of
>inconsistent rulings from state and county election officials, as well
>as from the many different courts hearing these challenges, could
>cause electoral chaos.
>
>Further, Congress has never passed a federal statute providing any
>type of enforcement mechanism in the courts for Section 3. While some
>argue that this provision is self-executing and no legislation is
>required, legal scholars such as Josh Blackman and Sett Tillman point
>to an 1869 decision of a federal circuit court presided over by U.S.
>Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, which held that
>“legislation by Congress is necessary to give effect to” Section 3.
>
>Under that holding, in the absence of such legislation, states do not
>have the ability to throw accused insurrectionists off a federal
>ballot, whether they are running for Congress or the presidency.
>
>Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already
>adopted by one federal court—that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore
>as a constitutional matter.
>
>Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the
>end of the Civil War. It was aimed at the former members of the
>Confederate government and military who had previously been in
>Congress or held executive posts.
>
>All of the challengers filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from
>their state ballots are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3,
>which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the
>Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause
>“by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
>
>Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act
>of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3
>“are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of
>the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign
>officials.
>
>Note that there is no time limit in this language.
>
>Congress even got rid of these remaining exceptions in the Amnesty Act
>of 1898, which stated that “the disability imposed by section 3 of the
>Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
>heretofore incurred is hereby removed.” There was no language
>preserving any of the disqualifications for future cases.
>
>In short, these anti-Trump ballot challenges are lawfare at its worst,
>trying to use the law and the courts as a political weapon. All of
>these lawsuits should be dismissed.
>
>But if any of these state courts rule against Trump, they should
>immediately stay their decisions and allow Trump to remain on the
>ballot. If they don’t, and their decisions are later overturned by an
>appellate court after the election when votes have already been cast,
>there will be no viable remedy.
>
>On the other hand, if their rulings are upheld, then even if Trump won
>the election, he could still be barred from actually serving, although
>I seriously doubt that the ultimate decider on this issue, the U.S.
>Supreme Court, would uphold any such ruling, given the weakness of the
>challengers’ claims.

|
| The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that former
| president Donald Trump can appear on the primary ballot
| next year but left open the possibility he could be struck
| from the general election ballot because of the Jan. 6,
| 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/08/minnesota-supreme-court-2024-ballot-trump/>

--bks

On 11/8/2023 4:02 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 07:11:47 -0500, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 07:28:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/6/2023 3:51 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 07:51:09 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/5/2023 6:56 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 08:14:37 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can repeat over and over again (and I'm sure you will) that a trial
>>>>>>> is necessary and you still could be wrong (or right). Patience
>>>>>>> grasshopper (and no, Trump will not be kept off the ballot without first
>>>>>>> exhausting the appeals process).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can repeat over and over again (and I'm sure you will) that a
>>>>>> trial is not necessary and you would still be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> You insist you are correct, "end of story." I gave my opinion but
>>>>> recognize the law is not settled.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well the Constitution is the Constitution so there's that...
>>>
>>> And how to interpret the Constitution is whatever you say it is, end of
>>> story. Sorry, no.
>>
>> All you have to do is look into the due process clause. It says all
>> you need to know. And yes, that is the end of the story.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> Associate Justice Barry Anderson said he saw a “very serious problem”
>>>>>>>> with the challengers’ argument that courts are the appropriate venue
>>>>>>>> to resolve this “political question.” (Just last week, a federal court
>>>>>>>> in New Hampshire rejected a similar lawsuit, citing those grounds.)
>>>>>>>> Hudson also said the Constitution as a whole suggests “this is a
>>>>>>>> national matter for Congress to decide.” "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's an interesting, but scary take. Let's say Trump is on the ballot
>>>>>>> and wins, but the Democrats take back the House and hold on to the
>>>>>>> Senate. Would you be OK (from a process perspective) with Congress
>>>>>>> refusing to certify Trump's victory because he isn't eligible under 14.3?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/02/politics/minnesota-supreme-court-14th-amendment-trump/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you seriously think they won't do this anyway????
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I seriously think they won't do it if the courts determine Trump is
>>>>> not disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>
>>>> I'll look forward to your apology when they actually it. Will you
>>>> commit to do so?
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>> Honestly I doubt you will do it. But in the meanwhile here's
>> something for you to think about:
>>
>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judges-have-no-legal-authority-to-bar-trump-from-2024-ballots/ar-AA1jtt9J
>>
>> "As state court proceedings get under way in Colorado, Michigan and
>> Minnesota in lawsuits aimed at barring Donald Trump from appearing as
>> a presidential candidate on the ballot in next year’s presidential
>> election, the judges in those cases should understand that the text,
>> history, and application of the 14th Amendment make it clear that they
>> have no legal authority to take any such action.
>>
>> Due to Trump’s supposed actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the challengers are
>> trying to argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the
>> disqualification clause, prevents him from being president even if he
>> is elected, so he should be removed from the ballot by state election
>> officials.
>>
>> Section 3 provides that:
>>
>> No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
>> elector for President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or
>> military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an
>> oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States …
>> to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged
>> in insurrection or rebellion against the same … . But Congress may, by
>> a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
>>
>> Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the
>> challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3.
>>
>> There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
>>
>> First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were
>> previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,”
>> or a state official. Trump has never been any of those. He has never
>> held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the
>> U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are
>> only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the
>> federal government.
>>
>> Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice
>> president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3. The
>> Supreme Court reiterated that view in 2010 in Free Enterprise Fund v.
>> Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, in which Chief Justice John
>> Roberts concluded “the people do not vote for ‘Officers of the United
>> States.’” They are appointed under Article II of the Constitution.
>>
>> It must also be noted that while Section 3 applies to an “elector for
>> President or Vice President,” it does not specify that it applies to
>> the president or vice president. This supports the argument that the
>> drafters did not mean for Section 3 to apply to the president and vice
>> president, which, again, is not surprising, since they are not
>> “Officers of the United States.”
>>
>> Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in
>> “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2383, which
>> makes it a crime to engage in “any rebellion or insurrection against
>> the authority of the United States.”
>>
>> More importantly, in the second impeachment resolution of Trump on
>> Jan. 11, 2021, he was charged by the House of Representatives in
>> Article I with “Incitement of Insurrection.” Yet, he was acquitted by
>> the Senate.
>>
>> Given our federal constitutional system, state and federal courts
>> should not gainsay the findings of Congress on this issue. The risk of
>> inconsistent rulings from state and county election officials, as well
>> as from the many different courts hearing these challenges, could
>> cause electoral chaos.
>>
>> Further, Congress has never passed a federal statute providing any
>> type of enforcement mechanism in the courts for Section 3. While some
>> argue that this provision is self-executing and no legislation is
>> required, legal scholars such as Josh Blackman and Sett Tillman point
>> to an 1869 decision of a federal circuit court presided over by U.S.
>> Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, which held that
>> “legislation by Congress is necessary to give effect to” Section 3.
>>
>> Under that holding, in the absence of such legislation, states do not
>> have the ability to throw accused insurrectionists off a federal
>> ballot, whether they are running for Congress or the presidency.
>>
>> Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already
>> adopted by one federal court—that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore
>> as a constitutional matter.
>>
>> Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the
>> end of the Civil War. It was aimed at the former members of the
>> Confederate government and military who had previously been in
>> Congress or held executive posts.
>>
>> All of the challengers filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from
>> their state ballots are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3,
>> which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the
>> Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause
>> “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
>>
>> Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act
>> of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3
>> “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of
>> the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign
>> officials.
>>
>> Note that there is no time limit in this language.
>>
>> Congress even got rid of these remaining exceptions in the Amnesty Act
>> of 1898, which stated that “the disability imposed by section 3 of the
>> Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
>> heretofore incurred is hereby removed.” There was no language
>> preserving any of the disqualifications for future cases.
>>
>> In short, these anti-Trump ballot challenges are lawfare at its worst,
>> trying to use the law and the courts as a political weapon. All of
>> these lawsuits should be dismissed.
>>
>> But if any of these state courts rule against Trump, they should
>> immediately stay their decisions and allow Trump to remain on the
>> ballot. If they don’t, and their decisions are later overturned by an
>> appellate court after the election when votes have already been cast,
>> there will be no viable remedy.
>>
>> On the other hand, if their rulings are upheld, then even if Trump won
>> the election, he could still be barred from actually serving, although
>> I seriously doubt that the ultimate decider on this issue, the U.S.
>> Supreme Court, would uphold any such ruling, given the weakness of the
>> challengers’ claims.
>
>
> This is why I can no longer take "Josh" seriously. I research and
> post facts in detail. His answer is silence.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 07:31:54 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On 11/8/2023 4:02 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 07:11:47 -0500, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 07:28:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/6/2023 3:51 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 07:51:09 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/5/2023 6:56 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 08:14:37 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can repeat over and over again (and I'm sure you will) that a trial
>>>>>>>> is necessary and you still could be wrong (or right). Patience
>>>>>>>> grasshopper (and no, Trump will not be kept off the ballot without first
>>>>>>>> exhausting the appeals process).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can repeat over and over again (and I'm sure you will) that a
>>>>>>> trial is not necessary and you would still be wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You insist you are correct, "end of story." I gave my opinion but
>>>>>> recognize the law is not settled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well the Constitution is the Constitution so there's that...
>>>>
>>>> And how to interpret the Constitution is whatever you say it is, end of
>>>> story. Sorry, no.
>>>
>>> All you have to do is look into the due process clause. It says all
>>> you need to know. And yes, that is the end of the story.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Associate Justice Barry Anderson said he saw a “very serious problem”
>>>>>>>>> with the challengers’ argument that courts are the appropriate venue
>>>>>>>>> to resolve this “political question.” (Just last week, a federal court
>>>>>>>>> in New Hampshire rejected a similar lawsuit, citing those grounds.)
>>>>>>>>> Hudson also said the Constitution as a whole suggests “this is a
>>>>>>>>> national matter for Congress to decide.” "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's an interesting, but scary take. Let's say Trump is on the ballot
>>>>>>>> and wins, but the Democrats take back the House and hold on to the
>>>>>>>> Senate. Would you be OK (from a process perspective) with Congress
>>>>>>>> refusing to certify Trump's victory because he isn't eligible under 14.3?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/02/politics/minnesota-supreme-court-14th-amendment-trump/index.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you seriously think they won't do this anyway????
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I seriously think they won't do it if the courts determine Trump is
>>>>>> not disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll look forward to your apology when they actually it. Will you
>>>>> commit to do so?
>>>>
>>>> Yep.
>>>
>>> Honestly I doubt you will do it. But in the meanwhile here's
>>> something for you to think about:
>>>
>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judges-have-no-legal-authority-to-bar-trump-from-2024-ballots/ar-AA1jtt9J
>>>
>>> "As state court proceedings get under way in Colorado, Michigan and
>>> Minnesota in lawsuits aimed at barring Donald Trump from appearing as
>>> a presidential candidate on the ballot in next year’s presidential
>>> election, the judges in those cases should understand that the text,
>>> history, and application of the 14th Amendment make it clear that they
>>> have no legal authority to take any such action.
>>>
>>> Due to Trump’s supposed actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the challengers are
>>> trying to argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the
>>> disqualification clause, prevents him from being president even if he
>>> is elected, so he should be removed from the ballot by state election
>>> officials.
>>>
>>> Section 3 provides that:
>>>
>>> No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
>>> elector for President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or
>>> military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an
>>> oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States …
>>> to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged
>>> in insurrection or rebellion against the same … . But Congress may, by
>>> a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
>>>
>>> Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the
>>> challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3.
>>>
>>> There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
>>>
>>> First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were
>>> previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,”
>>> or a state official. Trump has never been any of those. He has never
>>> held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the
>>> U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are
>>> only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the
>>> federal government.
>>>
>>> Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice
>>> president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3. The
>>> Supreme Court reiterated that view in 2010 in Free Enterprise Fund v.
>>> Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, in which Chief Justice John
>>> Roberts concluded “the people do not vote for ‘Officers of the United
>>> States.’” They are appointed under Article II of the Constitution.
>>>
>>> It must also be noted that while Section 3 applies to an “elector for
>>> President or Vice President,” it does not specify that it applies to
>>> the president or vice president. This supports the argument that the
>>> drafters did not mean for Section 3 to apply to the president and vice
>>> president, which, again, is not surprising, since they are not
>>> “Officers of the United States.”
>>>
>>> Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in
>>> “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2383, which
>>> makes it a crime to engage in “any rebellion or insurrection against
>>> the authority of the United States.”
>>>
>>> More importantly, in the second impeachment resolution of Trump on
>>> Jan. 11, 2021, he was charged by the House of Representatives in
>>> Article I with “Incitement of Insurrection.” Yet, he was acquitted by
>>> the Senate.
>>>
>>> Given our federal constitutional system, state and federal courts
>>> should not gainsay the findings of Congress on this issue. The risk of
>>> inconsistent rulings from state and county election officials, as well
>>> as from the many different courts hearing these challenges, could
>>> cause electoral chaos.
>>>
>>> Further, Congress has never passed a federal statute providing any
>>> type of enforcement mechanism in the courts for Section 3. While some
>>> argue that this provision is self-executing and no legislation is
>>> required, legal scholars such as Josh Blackman and Sett Tillman point
>>> to an 1869 decision of a federal circuit court presided over by U.S.
>>> Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, which held that
>>> “legislation by Congress is necessary to give effect to” Section 3.
>>>
>>> Under that holding, in the absence of such legislation, states do not
>>> have the ability to throw accused insurrectionists off a federal
>>> ballot, whether they are running for Congress or the presidency.
>>>
>>> Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already
>>> adopted by one federal court—that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore
>>> as a constitutional matter.
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the
>>> end of the Civil War. It was aimed at the former members of the
>>> Confederate government and military who had previously been in
>>> Congress or held executive posts.
>>>
>>> All of the challengers filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from
>>> their state ballots are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3,
>>> which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the
>>> Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause
>>> “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
>>>
>>> Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act
>>> of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3
>>> “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of
>>> the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign
>>> officials.
>>>
>>> Note that there is no time limit in this language.
>>>
>>> Congress even got rid of these remaining exceptions in the Amnesty Act
>>> of 1898, which stated that “the disability imposed by section 3 of the
>>> Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
>>> heretofore incurred is hereby removed.” There was no language
>>> preserving any of the disqualifications for future cases.
>>>
>>> In short, these anti-Trump ballot challenges are lawfare at its worst,
>>> trying to use the law and the courts as a political weapon. All of
>>> these lawsuits should be dismissed.
>>>
>>> But if any of these state courts rule against Trump, they should
>>> immediately stay their decisions and allow Trump to remain on the
>>> ballot. If they don’t, and their decisions are later overturned by an
>>> appellate court after the election when votes have already been cast,
>>> there will be no viable remedy.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if their rulings are upheld, then even if Trump won
>>> the election, he could still be barred from actually serving, although
>>> I seriously doubt that the ultimate decider on this issue, the U.S.
>>> Supreme Court, would uphold any such ruling, given the weakness of the
>>> challengers’ claims.
>>
>>
>> This is why I can no longer take "Josh" seriously. I research and
>> post facts in detail. His answer is silence.
>
>The abstract to the counter argument is here (the full article requires
>an account at SSRN):
>
>https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/11/new-article-on-insurrection-rebellion-and-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 00:33:22 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

> |
> | The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that former
> | president Donald Trump can appear on the primary ballot
> | next year but left open the possibility he could be struck
> | from the general election ballot because of the Jan. 6,
> | 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
> | ...
><https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/08/minnesota-supreme-court-2024-ballot-trump/>
>
> --bks

Paywalled..of course.

On 11/9/2023 3:59 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 07:31:54 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
> wrote:

{snip}

>>> This is why I can no longer take "Josh" seriously. I research and
>>> post facts in detail. His answer is silence.
>>
>> The abstract to the counter argument is here (the full article requires
>> an account at SSRN):
>>
>> https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/11/new-article-on-insurrection-rebellion-and-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/
>
> Well there's typical "Josh" I provide a complete argument and he
> responds, not with a thoughful analysis of his own but a link to an
> abstract which is incomplete.

The abstract is sufficient. You are a troll who doesn't give a shit.

On 11/9/2023 4:00 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 00:33:22 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
> Sherman) wrote:
>
>> |
>> | The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that former
>> | president Donald Trump can appear on the primary ballot
>> | next year but left open the possibility he could be struck
>> | from the general election ballot because of the Jan. 6,
>> | 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
>> | ...
>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/08/minnesota-supreme-court-2024-ballot-trump/>
>>
>> --bks
>
> Paywalled..of course.

There are ways around that for people who aren't brain damaged, but why don't
you just buy a fucking subscription instead of relying on the fake news sources
you use?

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 08:05:36 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On 11/9/2023 3:59 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 07:31:54 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>
>{snip}
>
>>>> This is why I can no longer take "Josh" seriously. I research and
>>>> post facts in detail. His answer is silence.
>>>
>>> The abstract to the counter argument is here (the full article requires
>>> an account at SSRN):
>>>
>>> https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/11/new-article-on-insurrection-rebellion-and-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/
>>
>> Well there's typical "Josh" I provide a complete argument and he
>> responds, not with a thoughful analysis of his own but a link to an
>> abstract which is incomplete.
>
>The abstract is sufficient. You are a troll who doesn't give a shit.

Actually no it's not since it's an abstract which means a portion
(duh). Because YOU prefer not tell us what was wrong with what I
provided, this does not make me a troll. It *does* say quite a bit
about you however. This is now the second issue where you've done
this.

On 11/8/2023 7:31 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 11/8/2023 4:02 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 07:11:47 -0500, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 07:28:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/6/2023 3:51 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 07:51:09 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/5/2023 6:56 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 08:14:37 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can repeat over and over again (and I'm sure you will) that a trial
>>>>>>>> is necessary and you still could be wrong (or right). Patience
>>>>>>>> grasshopper (and no, Trump will not be kept off the ballot without first
>>>>>>>> exhausting the appeals process).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can repeat over and over again (and I'm sure you will) that a
>>>>>>> trial is not necessary and you would still be wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You insist you are correct, "end of story." I gave my opinion but
>>>>>> recognize the law is not settled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well the Constitution is the Constitution so there's that...
>>>>
>>>> And how to interpret the Constitution is whatever you say it is, end of
>>>> story. Sorry, no.
>>>
>>> All you have to do is look into the due process clause.  It says all
>>> you need to know.  And yes, that is the end of the story.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Associate Justice Barry Anderson said he saw a “very serious problem”
>>>>>>>>> with the challengers’ argument that courts are the appropriate venue
>>>>>>>>> to resolve this “political question.” (Just last week, a federal court
>>>>>>>>> in New Hampshire rejected a similar lawsuit, citing those grounds.)
>>>>>>>>> Hudson also said the Constitution as a whole suggests “this is a
>>>>>>>>> national matter for Congress to decide.” "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's an interesting, but scary take. Let's say Trump is on the ballot
>>>>>>>> and wins, but the Democrats take back the House and hold on to the
>>>>>>>> Senate. Would you be OK (from a process perspective) with Congress
>>>>>>>> refusing to certify Trump's victory because he isn't eligible under 14.3?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/02/politics/minnesota-supreme-court-14th-amendment-trump/index.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you seriously think they won't do this anyway????
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I seriously think they won't do it if the courts determine Trump is
>>>>>> not disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll look forward to your apology when they actually it.  Will you
>>>>> commit to do so?
>>>>
>>>> Yep.
>>>
>>> Honestly I doubt you will do it.  But in the meanwhile here's
>>> something for you to think about:
>>>
>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judges-have-no-legal-authority-to-bar-trump-from-2024-ballots/ar-AA1jtt9J
>>>
>>> "As state court proceedings get under way in Colorado, Michigan and
>>> Minnesota in lawsuits aimed at barring Donald Trump from appearing as
>>> a presidential candidate on the ballot in next year’s presidential
>>> election, the judges in those cases should understand that the text,
>>> history, and application of the 14th Amendment make it clear that they
>>> have no legal authority to take any such action.
>>>
>>> Due to Trump’s supposed actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the challengers are
>>> trying to argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the
>>> disqualification clause, prevents him from being president even if he
>>> is elected, so he should be removed from the ballot by state election
>>> officials.
>>>
>>> Section 3 provides that:
>>>
>>>     No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
>>> elector for President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or
>>> military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an
>>> oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States …
>>> to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged
>>> in insurrection or rebellion against the same … . But Congress may, by
>>> a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
>>>
>>> Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the
>>> challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3.
>>>
>>> There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
>>>
>>> First of all, Section 3 only applies to individuals who were
>>> previously a “member of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,”
>>> or a state official. Trump has never been any of those. He has never
>>> held state office or been a U.S. senator or representative, and the
>>> U.S. Supreme Court held in 1888 in U.S. v. Mouat that “officers” are
>>> only those individuals who are appointed to positions within the
>>> federal government.
>>>
>>> Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice
>>> president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3. The
>>> Supreme Court reiterated that view in 2010 in Free Enterprise Fund v.
>>> Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, in which Chief Justice John
>>> Roberts concluded “the people do not vote for ‘Officers of the United
>>> States.’” They are appointed under Article II of the Constitution.
>>>
>>> It must also be noted that while Section 3 applies to an “elector for
>>> President or Vice President,” it does not specify that it applies to
>>> the president or vice president. This supports the argument that the
>>> drafters did not mean for Section 3 to apply to the president and vice
>>> president, which, again, is not surprising, since they are not
>>> “Officers of the United States.”
>>>
>>> Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in
>>> “insurrection or rebellion” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2383, which
>>> makes it a crime to engage in “any rebellion or insurrection against
>>> the authority of the United States.”
>>>
>>> More importantly, in the second impeachment resolution of Trump on
>>> Jan. 11, 2021, he was charged by the House of Representatives in
>>> Article I with “Incitement of Insurrection.” Yet, he was acquitted by
>>> the Senate.
>>>
>>> Given our federal constitutional system, state and federal courts
>>> should not gainsay the findings of Congress on this issue. The risk of
>>> inconsistent rulings from state and county election officials, as well
>>> as from the many different courts hearing these challenges, could
>>> cause electoral chaos.
>>>
>>> Further, Congress has never passed a federal statute providing any
>>> type of enforcement mechanism in the courts for Section 3. While some
>>> argue that this provision is self-executing and no legislation is
>>> required, legal scholars such as Josh Blackman and Sett Tillman point
>>> to an 1869 decision of a federal circuit court presided over by U.S.
>>> Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, which held that
>>> “legislation by Congress is necessary to give effect to” Section 3.
>>>
>>> Under that holding, in the absence of such legislation, states do not
>>> have the ability to throw accused insurrectionists off a federal
>>> ballot, whether they are running for Congress or the presidency.
>>>
>>> Third, there is an argument that can be made—and which was already
>>> adopted by one federal court—that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore
>>> as a constitutional matter.
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the
>>> end of the Civil War. It was aimed at the former members of the
>>> Confederate government and military who had previously been in
>>> Congress or held executive posts.
>>>
>>> All of the challengers filing lawsuits to try to remove Trump from
>>> their state ballots are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3,
>>> which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the
>>> Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause
>>> “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
>>>
>>> Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act
>>> of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3
>>> “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of
>>> the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign
>>> officials.
>>>
>>> Note that there is no time limit in this language.
>>>
>>> Congress even got rid of these remaining exceptions in the Amnesty Act
>>> of 1898, which stated that “the disability imposed by section 3 of the
>>> Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
>>> heretofore incurred is hereby removed.” There was no language
>>> preserving any of the disqualifications for future cases.
>>>
>>> In short, these anti-Trump ballot challenges are lawfare at its worst,
>>> trying to use the law and the courts as a political weapon. All of
>>> these lawsuits should be dismissed.
>>>
>>> But if any of these state courts rule against Trump, they should
>>> immediately stay their decisions and allow Trump to remain on the
>>> ballot. If they don’t, and their decisions are later overturned by an
>>> appellate court after the election when votes have already been cast,
>>> there will be no viable remedy.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if their rulings are upheld, then even if Trump won
>>> the election, he could still be barred from actually serving, although
>>> I seriously doubt that the ultimate decider on this issue, the U.S.
>>> Supreme Court, would uphold any such ruling, given the weakness of the
>>> challengers’ claims.
>>
>>
>> This is why I can no longer take "Josh" seriously.  I research and
>> post facts in detail.  His answer is silence.
>
> The abstract to the counter argument is here (the full article requires an
> account at SSRN):

On 11/10/2023 4:05 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 08:05:36 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/9/2023 3:59 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 07:31:54 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>> {snip}
>>
>>>>> This is why I can no longer take "Josh" seriously. I research and
>>>>> post facts in detail. His answer is silence.
>>>>
>>>> The abstract to the counter argument is here (the full article requires
>>>> an account at SSRN):
>>>>
>>>> https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/11/new-article-on-insurrection-rebellion-and-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/
>>>
>>> Well there's typical "Josh" I provide a complete argument and he
>>> responds, not with a thoughful analysis of his own but a link to an
>>> abstract which is incomplete.
>>
>> The abstract is sufficient. You are a troll who doesn't give a shit.
>
> Actually no it's not since it's an abstract which means a portion
> (duh). Because YOU prefer not tell us what was wrong with what I
> provided, this does not make me a troll. It *does* say quite a bit
> about you however. This is now the second issue where you've done
> this.

I strongly suspect this is a waste of my time, but I will summarize the
arguments made by your source and the counter arguments by mine:

1) "Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member
of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official.
Trump has never been any of those."

Counter1) 14.3 says you can't hold office "under the United States" if
you were an "officer of the United States" and then engaged in
insurrection. The above argument claims the presidency is an office
"under the United States" but the president is not an "officer of the
United States". That is, the presidency is a disqualified-from office
but not a disqualifying-triggering office. This makes little sense and
requires linguistic somersaults.

2) "no federal court has convicted Trump [...]"

Counter2) We've been over this one, but to repeat: 14.3 is
self-executing, requiring no conviction. The plain language states, "No
person shall be" in the same manner that Article II says "No person
except a natural born citizen, ..." can be president. In contrast, the
treason clause says, "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on
the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession
in open court." If the framers wanted a trial for 14.3, they would have
specified it like they did in the treason clause.

3) "he was acquitted by the Senate [of Incitement of Insurrection]."

Counter3) He was acquitted only because the two-thirds requirement. The
final vote was 57-43 to convict. 14.3 does not require a super majority
of the Senate to reach the conclusion Trump is disqualified.

4) "Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act
of 1872 [and ...] 1898."

Counter4) The 1872 statute says "all political disabilities imposed [by
1.43 ...] are hereby removed." Imposed and removed are in the past
tense. The law only applies retroactively, not to future cases. The 4th
Circuit concurred. The 1898 act similarly uses both "imposed" and "removed."

On 11/10/2023 8:34 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 11/10/2023 4:05 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 08:05:36 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/9/2023 3:59 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 07:31:54 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> {snip}
>>>
>>>>>> This is why I can no longer take "Josh" seriously.  I research and
>>>>>> post facts in detail.  His answer is silence.
>>>>>
>>>>> The abstract to the counter argument is here (the full article requires
>>>>> an account at SSRN):
>>>>>
>>>>> https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/11/new-article-on-insurrection-rebellion-and-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/
>>>>
>>>> Well there's typical "Josh"  I provide a complete argument and he
>>>> responds, not with a thoughful analysis of his own but a link to an
>>>> abstract which is incomplete.
>>>
>>> The abstract is sufficient. You are a troll who doesn't give a shit.
>>
>> Actually no it's not since it's an abstract which means a portion
>> (duh).  Because YOU prefer not tell us what was wrong with what I
>> provided, this does not make me a troll.  It *does* say quite a bit
>> about you however.  This is now the second issue where you've done
>> this.
>
> I strongly suspect this is a waste of my time, but I will summarize the
> arguments made by your source and the counter arguments by mine:
>
> 1) "Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member of
> Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official. Trump has
> never been any of those."
>
> Counter1) 14.3 says you can't hold office "under the United States" if you were
> an "officer of the United States" and then engaged in insurrection. The above
> argument claims the presidency is an office "under the United States" but the
> president is not an "officer of the United States". That is, the presidency is a
> disqualified-from office but not a disqualifying-triggering office. This makes
> little sense and requires linguistic somersaults.
>
> 2) "no federal court has convicted Trump [...]"
>
> Counter2) We've been over this one, but to repeat: 14.3 is self-executing,
> requiring no conviction. The plain language states, "No person shall be" in the
> same manner that Article II says "No person except a natural born citizen, ..."
> can be president. In contrast, the treason clause says, "No person shall be
> convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt
> act, or on confession in open court." If the framers wanted a trial for 14.3,
> they would have specified it like they did in the treason clause.
>
> 3) "he was acquitted by the Senate [of Incitement of Insurrection]."
>
> Counter3) He was acquitted only because the two-thirds requirement. The final
> vote was 57-43 to convict. 14.3 does not require a super majority of the Senate
> to reach the conclusion Trump is disqualified.
>
> 4) "Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act
> of 1872 [and ...] 1898."
>
> Counter4) The 1872 statute says "all political disabilities imposed [by 14.3
> ...] are hereby removed." Imposed and removed are in the past tense. The law
> only applies retroactively, not to future cases. The 4th Circuit concurred. The
> 1898 act similarly uses both "imposed" and "removed."

All correct, and yes, it was a waste of time, because you're dealing with
someone who is a) an arch-partisan, and b) a congenital liar. Kremlin Girl /
Bit of Nothingness *never* admits to being wrong, *never* honestly considers
evidence, *only* cites phony "experts" like Spakovsky, *always* eventually gets
to "nyah-nyah-nyah."

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 08:34:29 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 11/10/2023 4:05 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 08:05:36 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/9/2023 3:59 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 07:31:54 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> {snip}
>>>
>>>>>> This is why I can no longer take "Josh" seriously. I research and
>>>>>> post facts in detail. His answer is silence.
>>>>>
>>>>> The abstract to the counter argument is here (the full article requires
>>>>> an account at SSRN):
>>>>>
>>>>> https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/11/new-article-on-insurrection-rebellion-and-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/
>>>>
>>>> Well there's typical "Josh" I provide a complete argument and he
>>>> responds, not with a thoughful analysis of his own but a link to an
>>>> abstract which is incomplete.
>>>
>>> The abstract is sufficient. You are a troll who doesn't give a shit.
>>
>> Actually no it's not since it's an abstract which means a portion
>> (duh). Because YOU prefer not tell us what was wrong with what I
>> provided, this does not make me a troll. It *does* say quite a bit
>> about you however. This is now the second issue where you've done
>> this.
>
>I strongly suspect this is a waste of my time, but I will summarize the
>arguments made by your source and the counter arguments by mine:

All I've ever asked for was for yoiu to respond with a reasonable
analysis and I appreciate you taking the time to do so. You don't
know me and clearly misjudge me but I can't help that.

>
>1) "Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member
>of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official.
>Trump has never been any of those."
>
>Counter1) 14.3 says you can't hold office "under the United States" if
>you were an "officer of the United States" and then engaged in
>insurrection. The above argument claims the presidency is an office
>"under the United States" but the president is not an "officer of the
>United States". That is, the presidency is a disqualified-from office
>but not a disqualifying-triggering office. This makes little sense and
>requires linguistic somersaults.

Actually the word is "officer" not "office" which is a fine
dictinction but one nevertheless. As the author stated, Trump simply
doesn't meet the definition of the section. I know those who don't
like him want to make it fit but it seems everyone skipped the
shoehorn and went straight for the hammer.

>
>2) "no federal court has convicted Trump [...]"
>
>Counter2) We've been over this one, but to repeat: 14.3 is
>self-executing, requiring no conviction. The plain language states, "No
>person shall be" in the same manner that Article II says "No person
>except a natural born citizen, ..." can be president. In contrast, the

And to repeat, due process covers this. If you are being judged based
on if a crime was comitted, one must actually have had a trial. I
fail to understand why you seem to argue against the idea that
decisions can not be made based on accusations. That is against
everything eshrined in law.

>treason clause says, "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on
>the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession
>in open court." If the framers wanted a trial for 14.3, they would have
>specified it like they did in the treason clause.
>

Did they need to? Due process is defined elsewhere. The founders are
rolling in their graves as this is virtually identical to mobs and
torches calling for execution of witches.

>3) "he was acquitted by the Senate [of Incitement of Insurrection]."
>
>Counter3) He was acquitted only because the two-thirds requirement. The
>final vote was 57-43 to convict. 14.3 does not require a super majority
>of the Senate to reach the conclusion Trump is disqualified.

Irrelevent. He was acquitted by the laws and rules. Unreal that you
would dismiss this.

>
>4) "Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act
>of 1872 [and ...] 1898."
>
>Counter4) The 1872 statute says "all political disabilities imposed [by
>1.43 ...] are hereby removed." Imposed and removed are in the past
>tense. The law only applies retroactively, not to future cases. The 4th
>Circuit concurred. The 1898 act similarly uses both "imposed" and "removed."

I'm unclear as to why you chose to stop reading there:

"Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act
of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3
“are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of
the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign
officials.

Note that there is no time limit in this language.

Congress even got rid of these remaining exceptions in the Amnesty Act
of 1898, which stated that “the disability imposed by section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
heretofore incurred is hereby removed.” There was no language
preserving any of the disqualifications for future cases. "

They essentially nullified the clause unless Congress makes changes to
it.

Not addressed but extremely relevant:

1. "Further, Congress has never passed a federal statute providing any
type of enforcement mechanism in the courts for Section 3. While some
argue that this provision is self-executing and no legislation is
required, legal scholars such as Josh Blackman and Sett Tillman point
to an 1869 decision of a federal circuit court presided over by U.S.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, which held that
“legislation by Congress is necessary to give effect to” Section 3. "

2."Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice
president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3. The
Supreme Court reiterated that view in 2010 in Free Enterprise Fund v.
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, in which Chief Justice John
Roberts concluded “the people do not vote for ‘Officers of the United
States.’” They are appointed under Article II of the Constitution. "

This directly relates too argument but you kind of skipped over the
precedeent in your eagerness to see Trump prosecuted.

On 11/11/2023 6:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 08:34:29 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

{snip}

>> 1) "Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member
>> of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official.
>> Trump has never been any of those."
>>
>> Counter1) 14.3 says you can't hold office "under the United States" if
>> you were an "officer of the United States" and then engaged in
>> insurrection. The above argument claims the presidency is an office
>> "under the United States" but the president is not an "officer of the
>> United States". That is, the presidency is a disqualified-from office
>> but not a disqualifying-triggering office. This makes little sense and
>> requires linguistic somersaults.
>
> Actually the word is "officer" not "office" which is a fine
> dictinction but one nevertheless. As the author stated, Trump simply
> doesn't meet the definition of the section. I know those who don't
> like him want to make it fit but it seems everyone skipped the
> shoehorn and went straight for the hammer.

Your article argues the distinction between "office" and "officer" is
not a linguistic somersault because of Roberts' dicta from Free
Enterprise: "The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United
States.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2"

However, Roberts refers to Article II (Officers are appointed by the
President), not the 14th Amendment. Is "Officers of the United States"
in Article II the same as "officers of the United States" in the 14th?
If they are, then an insurrectionist member of the Securities and
Exchange Commission is disqualified but an insurrectionist president is not.

The burden ought to be on those who argue they are the same given the
surprising (I say, absurd) result. And since that argument relies on
hyper-technical linguistics, note that "Officers" are capitalized in
Article II, but not in the 14th suggesting (from a hyper-technical
viewpoint) they aren't the same.

>> 2) "no federal court has convicted Trump [...]"
>>
>> Counter2) We've been over this one, but to repeat: 14.3 is
>> self-executing, requiring no conviction. The plain language states, "No
>> person shall be" in the same manner that Article II says "No person
>> except a natural born citizen, ..." can be president. In contrast, the
>
> And to repeat, due process covers this. If you are being judged based
> on if a crime was comitted, one must actually have had a trial. I
> fail to understand why you seem to argue against the idea that
> decisions can not be made based on accusations. That is against
> everything eshrined in law.

No need to repeat what we have both already said.

>> 3) "he was acquitted by the Senate [of Incitement of Insurrection]."
>>
>> Counter3) He was acquitted only because the two-thirds requirement. The
>> final vote was 57-43 to convict. 14.3 does not require a super majority
>> of the Senate to reach the conclusion Trump is disqualified.
>
> Irrelevent. He was acquitted by the laws and rules. Unreal that you
> would dismiss this.

I dismissed the acquittal as being dispositive to whether Trump is
disqualified under 14.3.

>> 4) "Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act
>> of 1872 [and ...] 1898."
>>
>> Counter4) The 1872 statute says "all political disabilities imposed [by
>> 1.43 ...] are hereby removed." Imposed and removed are in the past
>> tense. The law only applies retroactively, not to future cases. The 4th
>> Circuit concurred. The 1898 act similarly uses both "imposed" and "removed."
>
> I'm unclear as to why you chose to stop reading there:
>
> "Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act
> of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3
> “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of
> the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign
> officials.
>
> Note that there is no time limit in this language.
>
> Congress even got rid of these remaining exceptions in the Amnesty Act
> of 1898, which stated that “the disability imposed by section 3 of the
> Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
> heretofore incurred is hereby removed.” There was no language
> preserving any of the disqualifications for future cases. "
>
> They essentially nullified the clause unless Congress makes changes to
> it.

The counterargument ("imposed" and "hereby removed" are in the past
tense and thus do not apply to future cases) addressed all of the above.

> Not addressed but extremely relevant:
>
> 1. "Further, Congress has never passed a federal statute providing any
> type of enforcement mechanism in the courts for Section 3. While some
> argue that this provision is self-executing and no legislation is
> required, legal scholars such as Josh Blackman and Sett Tillman point
> to an 1869 decision of a federal circuit court presided over by U.S.
> Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, which held that
> “legislation by Congress is necessary to give effect to” Section 3. "

Lower courts are likely to adhere to this precedent, but Baude takes 10
pages explaining why it is wrong. If it gets that far, SCOTUS is free to
overrule or narrow it.

On 11/11/2023 6:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 08:34:29 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/2023 4:05 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 08:05:36 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/9/2023 3:59 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 07:31:54 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> {snip}
>>>>
>>>>>>> This is why I can no longer take "Josh" seriously. I research and
>>>>>>> post facts in detail. His answer is silence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The abstract to the counter argument is here (the full article requires
>>>>>> an account at SSRN):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/11/new-article-on-insurrection-rebellion-and-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/
>>>>>
>>>>> Well there's typical "Josh" I provide a complete argument and he
>>>>> responds, not with a thoughful analysis of his own but a link to an
>>>>> abstract which is incomplete.
>>>>
>>>> The abstract is sufficient. You are a troll who doesn't give a shit.
>>>
>>> Actually no it's not since it's an abstract which means a portion
>>> (duh). Because YOU prefer not tell us what was wrong with what I
>>> provided, this does not make me a troll. It *does* say quite a bit
>>> about you however. This is now the second issue where you've done
>>> this.
>>
>> I strongly suspect this is a waste of my time, but I will summarize the
>> arguments made by your source and the counter arguments by mine:
>
> All I've ever asked for was for yoiu to respond with a reasonable
> analysis and I appreciate you taking the time to do so. You don't
> know me and clearly misjudge me but I can't help that.

He knows you very well — we all do — and he has not misjudged you.

>
>>
>> 1) "Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member
>> of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official.
>> Trump has never been any of those."
>>
>> Counter1) 14.3 says you can't hold office "under the United States" if
>> you were an "officer of the United States" and then engaged in
>> insurrection. The above argument claims the presidency is an office
>> "under the United States" but the president is not an "officer of the
>> United States". That is, the presidency is a disqualified-from office
>> but not a disqualifying-triggering office. This makes little sense and
>> requires linguistic somersaults.
>
> Actually the word is "officer" not "office"

*Both* words are in 14.3.

>
>>
>> 2) "no federal court has convicted Trump [...]"
>>
>> Counter2) We've been over this one, but to repeat: 14.3 is
>> self-executing, requiring no conviction. The plain language states, "No
>> person shall be" in the same manner that Article II says "No person
>> except a natural born citizen, ..." can be president. In contrast, the
>
>
> And to repeat, due process covers this.

Due process is being followed.

>
>> treason clause says, "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on
>> the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession
>> in open court." If the framers wanted a trial for 14.3, they would have
>> specified it like they did in the treason clause.
>>
>
> Did they need to? Due process is defined elsewhere.

Not in the Constitution, as you claimed.

>
>> 3) "he was acquitted by the Senate [of Incitement of Insurrection]."
>>
>> Counter3) He was acquitted only because the two-thirds requirement. The
>> final vote was 57-43 to convict. 14.3 does not require a super majority
>> of the Senate to reach the conclusion Trump is disqualified.
>
> Irrelevent. He was acquitted by the laws and rules. Unreal that you
> would dismiss this.
>
>>
>> 4) "Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act
>> of 1872 [and ...] 1898."
>>
>> Counter4) The 1872 statute says "all political disabilities imposed [by
>> 1.43 ...] are hereby removed." Imposed and removed are in the past
>> tense. The law only applies retroactively, not to future cases. The 4th
>> Circuit concurred. The 1898 act similarly uses both "imposed" and "removed."
>
> I'm unclear as to why you chose to stop reading there:
>
> "Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice.

*Only* the disqualifications that had been imposed under the amendment.

>
> Note that there is no time limit in this language.

There is. It is retrospective, not prospective. The laws did not remove *future*
disqualifications that might be imposed under the amendment. They *couldn't* do
that. That would be repealing the amendment, and Congress has no power to do that.

>
> Congress even got rid of these remaining exceptions in the Amnesty Act
> of 1898

No, it did not. It could not.

Get your *free* SSRN subscription and read the Baude and Stokes paper. They
address that point at length.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 09:18:15 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 11/11/2023 6:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 08:34:29 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>{snip}
>
>>> 1) "Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member
>>> of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official.
>>> Trump has never been any of those."
>>>
>>> Counter1) 14.3 says you can't hold office "under the United States" if
>>> you were an "officer of the United States" and then engaged in
>>> insurrection. The above argument claims the presidency is an office
>>> "under the United States" but the president is not an "officer of the
>>> United States". That is, the presidency is a disqualified-from office
>>> but not a disqualifying-triggering office. This makes little sense and
>>> requires linguistic somersaults.
>>
>> Actually the word is "officer" not "office" which is a fine
>> dictinction but one nevertheless. As the author stated, Trump simply
>> doesn't meet the definition of the section. I know those who don't
>> like him want to make it fit but it seems everyone skipped the
>> shoehorn and went straight for the hammer.
>
>Your article argues the distinction between "office" and "officer" is
>not a linguistic somersault because of Roberts' dicta from Free
>Enterprise: "The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United
>States.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2"
>
>However, Roberts refers to Article II (Officers are appointed by the
>President), not the 14th Amendment. Is "Officers of the United States"
>in Article II the same as "officers of the United States" in the 14th?
>If they are, then an insurrectionist member of the Securities and
>Exchange Commission is disqualified but an insurrectionist president is not.
>
>The burden ought to be on those who argue they are the same given the
>surprising (I say, absurd) result. And since that argument relies on
>hyper-technical linguistics, note that "Officers" are capitalized in
>Article II, but not in the 14th suggesting (from a hyper-technical
>viewpoint) they aren't the same.

Wow that's quite the word salad. Your interpretation about what
Roberts meant is exactly that, an interpretation and not a refutation.
He stated what he stated (and it had nothing to do with spelling or
capitalization).

>
>>> 2) "no federal court has convicted Trump [...]"
>>>
>>> Counter2) We've been over this one, but to repeat: 14.3 is
>>> self-executing, requiring no conviction. The plain language states, "No
>>> person shall be" in the same manner that Article II says "No person
>>> except a natural born citizen, ..." can be president. In contrast, the
>>
>> And to repeat, due process covers this. If you are being judged based
>> on if a crime was comitted, one must actually have had a trial. I
>> fail to understand why you seem to argue against the idea that
>> decisions can not be made based on accusations. That is against
>> everything eshrined in law.
>
>No need to repeat what we have both already said.
>

Your inability to defend that an attempt to disqualify a candidate
based on an accusation of a criminal offense without an actual trial
is noted. This makes the whole action a complete show stopper. Any
judge that allowed this to proceed should be required to explain how
they allow this to proceed. It merely confirms what I've said about
this being purely political. When courts are used to influence
elections, the country is quite done.

>>> 3) "he was acquitted by the Senate [of Incitement of Insurrection]."
>>>
>>> Counter3) He was acquitted only because the two-thirds requirement. The
>>> final vote was 57-43 to convict. 14.3 does not require a super majority
>>> of the Senate to reach the conclusion Trump is disqualified.
>>
>> Irrelevent. He was acquitted by the laws and rules. Unreal that you
>> would dismiss this.
>
>I dismissed the acquittal as being dispositive to whether Trump is
>disqualified under 14.3.
>

Your dismissal is not logical based on the arguement.

>>> 4) "Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act
>>> of 1872 [and ...] 1898."
>>>
>>> Counter4) The 1872 statute says "all political disabilities imposed [by
>>> 1.43 ...] are hereby removed." Imposed and removed are in the past
>>> tense. The law only applies retroactively, not to future cases. The 4th
>>> Circuit concurred. The 1898 act similarly uses both "imposed" and "removed."
>>
>> I'm unclear as to why you chose to stop reading there:
>>
>> "Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act
>> of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3
>> “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of
>> the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign
>> officials.
>>
>> Note that there is no time limit in this language.
>>
>> Congress even got rid of these remaining exceptions in the Amnesty Act
>> of 1898, which stated that “the disability imposed by section 3 of the
>> Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
>> heretofore incurred is hereby removed.” There was no language
>> preserving any of the disqualifications for future cases. "
>>
>> They essentially nullified the clause unless Congress makes changes to
>> it.
>
>The counterargument ("imposed" and "hereby removed" are in the past
>tense and thus do not apply to future cases) addressed all of the above.

Once again, take the argument in total. To apply this clause given
the actions REQUIRES Congress not some anti-Trump group.

>
>> Not addressed but extremely relevant:
>>
>> 1. "Further, Congress has never passed a federal statute providing any
>> type of enforcement mechanism in the courts for Section 3. While some
>> argue that this provision is self-executing and no legislation is
>> required, legal scholars such as Josh Blackman and Sett Tillman point
>> to an 1869 decision of a federal circuit court presided over by U.S.
>> Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, which held that
>> “legislation by Congress is necessary to give effect to” Section 3. "
>
>Lower courts are likely to adhere to this precedent, but Baude takes 10
>pages explaining why it is wrong. If it gets that far, SCOTUS is free to
>overrule or narrow it.

But hey, as long as the damage is done to Trump, you're good with
that.

On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 09:39:03 -0500, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 09:18:15 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
><noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On 11/11/2023 6:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 08:34:29 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>{snip}
>>
>>>> 1) "Section 3 only applies to individuals who were previously a “member
>>>> of Congress,” an “officer of the United States,” or a state official.
>>>> Trump has never been any of those."
>>>>
>>>> Counter1) 14.3 says you can't hold office "under the United States" if
>>>> you were an "officer of the United States" and then engaged in
>>>> insurrection. The above argument claims the presidency is an office
>>>> "under the United States" but the president is not an "officer of the
>>>> United States". That is, the presidency is a disqualified-from office
>>>> but not a disqualifying-triggering office. This makes little sense and
>>>> requires linguistic somersaults.
>>>
>>> Actually the word is "officer" not "office" which is a fine
>>> dictinction but one nevertheless. As the author stated, Trump simply
>>> doesn't meet the definition of the section. I know those who don't
>>> like him want to make it fit but it seems everyone skipped the
>>> shoehorn and went straight for the hammer.
>>
>>Your article argues the distinction between "office" and "officer" is
>>not a linguistic somersault because of Roberts' dicta from Free
>>Enterprise: "The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United
>>States.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2"
>>
>>However, Roberts refers to Article II (Officers are appointed by the
>>President), not the 14th Amendment. Is "Officers of the United States"
>>in Article II the same as "officers of the United States" in the 14th?
>>If they are, then an insurrectionist member of the Securities and
>>Exchange Commission is disqualified but an insurrectionist president is not.
>>
>>The burden ought to be on those who argue they are the same given the
>>surprising (I say, absurd) result. And since that argument relies on
>>hyper-technical linguistics, note that "Officers" are capitalized in
>>Article II, but not in the 14th suggesting (from a hyper-technical
>>viewpoint) they aren't the same.
>
>Wow that's quite the word salad. Your interpretation about what
>Roberts meant is exactly that, an interpretation and not a refutation.
>He stated what he stated (and it had nothing to do with spelling or
>capitalization).
>
>
>>
>>>> 2) "no federal court has convicted Trump [...]"
>>>>
>>>> Counter2) We've been over this one, but to repeat: 14.3 is
>>>> self-executing, requiring no conviction. The plain language states, "No
>>>> person shall be" in the same manner that Article II says "No person
>>>> except a natural born citizen, ..." can be president. In contrast, the
>>>
>>> And to repeat, due process covers this. If you are being judged based
>>> on if a crime was comitted, one must actually have had a trial. I
>>> fail to understand why you seem to argue against the idea that
>>> decisions can not be made based on accusations. That is against
>>> everything eshrined in law.
>>
>>No need to repeat what we have both already said.
>>
>
>Your inability to defend that an attempt to disqualify a candidate
>based on an accusation of a criminal offense without an actual trial
>is noted. This makes the whole action a complete show stopper. Any
>judge that allowed this to proceed should be required to explain how
>they allow this to proceed. It merely confirms what I've said about
>this being purely political. When courts are used to influence
>elections, the country is quite done.
>
>
>>>> 3) "he was acquitted by the Senate [of Incitement of Insurrection]."
>>>>
>>>> Counter3) He was acquitted only because the two-thirds requirement. The
>>>> final vote was 57-43 to convict. 14.3 does not require a super majority
>>>> of the Senate to reach the conclusion Trump is disqualified.
>>>
>>> Irrelevent. He was acquitted by the laws and rules. Unreal that you
>>> would dismiss this.
>>
>>I dismissed the acquittal as being dispositive to whether Trump is
>>disqualified under 14.3.
>>
>
>Your dismissal is not logical based on the arguement.
>
>>>> 4) "Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act
>>>> of 1872 [and ...] 1898."
>>>>
>>>> Counter4) The 1872 statute says "all political disabilities imposed [by
>>>> 1.43 ...] are hereby removed." Imposed and removed are in the past
>>>> tense. The law only applies retroactively, not to future cases. The 4th
>>>> Circuit concurred. The 1898 act similarly uses both "imposed" and "removed."
>>>
>>> I'm unclear as to why you chose to stop reading there:
>>>
>>> "Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act
>>> of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3
>>> “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of
>>> the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign
>>> officials.
>>>
>>> Note that there is no time limit in this language.
>>>
>>> Congress even got rid of these remaining exceptions in the Amnesty Act
>>> of 1898, which stated that “the disability imposed by section 3 of the
>>> Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
>>> heretofore incurred is hereby removed.” There was no language
>>> preserving any of the disqualifications for future cases. "
>>>
>>> They essentially nullified the clause unless Congress makes changes to
>>> it.
>>
>>The counterargument ("imposed" and "hereby removed" are in the past
>>tense and thus do not apply to future cases) addressed all of the above.
>
>Once again, take the argument in total. To apply this clause given
>the actions REQUIRES Congress not some anti-Trump group.
>
>>
>>> Not addressed but extremely relevant:
>>>
>>> 1. "Further, Congress has never passed a federal statute providing any
>>> type of enforcement mechanism in the courts for Section 3. While some
>>> argue that this provision is self-executing and no legislation is
>>> required, legal scholars such as Josh Blackman and Sett Tillman point
>>> to an 1869 decision of a federal circuit court presided over by U.S.
>>> Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, which held that
>>> “legislation by Congress is necessary to give effect to” Section 3. "
>>
>>Lower courts are likely to adhere to this precedent, but Baude takes 10
>>pages explaining why it is wrong. If it gets that far, SCOTUS is free to
>>overrule or narrow it.
>
>But hey, as long as the damage is done to Trump, you're good with
>that.

Nothing from Josh. Why am I not surprised?