It’s time to BUG out!
Movies by Indy!     January 17, 2025 1:25 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [4 views]

Is Vin Diesel related to Telly Savalas?
Movies by Indy!     January 15, 2025 8:09 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [107 views]

Meet John Larson, a paraplegic firefighter who is breaking barriers with the LAFD.
Politics by HatetheSwamp     January 16, 2025 3:51 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [70 views]

Fact: A person who has been pardoned can't claim 5th Amendment protection
Law by HatetheSwamp     January 15, 2025 10:53 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (25 comments) [257 views]

Oklahoma Supt. Walters files $474M lawsuit against 2 Biden admin officials
Education by HatetheSwamp     January 16, 2025 3:10 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (6 comments) [72 views]

Remembering The Golden Years: Here Are The 11 Best Moments Of Biden’s Presidency
Media by HatetheSwamp     January 16, 2025 12:25 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [11 views]

California jumped 10 points toward GOPs in 024... BEFORE the LA fires brouhaha
Politics by HatetheSwamp     January 15, 2025 4:19 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (4 comments) [84 views]

"I created the Leahy Law. It should be applied to Israel."
International by Donna     January 14, 2025 10:33 am (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: Indy! (28 comments) [309 views]

Israel and Hamas Agree to Gaza Cease-Fire Deal
International by Curt_Anderson     January 15, 2025 9:52 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (3 comments) [32 views]

Pete Hegseth
Government by HatetheSwamp     January 14, 2025 7:17 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [68 views]

Alan Dershowitz debunks Dem efforts to keep Trump off ballot through the 14th Amendment By HatetheSwamp September 2, 2023 3:08 am Category: Politics (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here

BTW, Curt, thanks for using the mug shot as a Trump image. For a left coast progressive, you da bomb.


Anyway,...

Member of pb's Legal Advisory Council, Legal Goober #1 and Harvard scholar, Dershowitz says what's obvious about this 14th Amendment Dem idiocy. It ain't constitutional.

So, until Teri, the real legal scholar, or po of course, weigh in, let's leave it there.

Comments Start Below

by Indy! on September 2, 2023 6:58 pm Dershowitz is a pedophile who also tried to justify having sex with underage children. He's one of the people who should be allowed to have a public stage for his crackpot ideas. by Indy! on September 2, 2023 6:58 pm *Not* be allowed to have a public stage. by oldedude on September 4, 2023 12:20 pm Dershowitz is a pedophile who also tried to justify having sex with underage children. He's one of the people who should be [not] allowed to have a public stage for his crackpot ideas. You keep bringing this up. Was this a professional or personal remark. If it was professional, he was paid to defend his client. by Ponderer on September 7, 2023 7:23 am So section 3 of the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional. I see. Yeah, the Founders just put a bunch of stuff in there that was essentially meaningless. Some of the stuff in the Constitution was intentionally put in there to be nonsense that doesn't mean what it says it means. Just to spice it up, you know? Yeah this guy is a hoot, Bill. I can see why you like him so much. by HatetheSwamp on September 7, 2023 7:35 am The Founders had nuthin to do with it. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. The point is that even Jack Smith ain't charging Trump with insurrection. pb agrees. If Trump is convicted of insurrection and all of his appeals are exhausted, he should be excluded from holding public office. But, there's no way that that'll happen by the 024 election. This is you and your lynch mob obsession, po. It's not real world. by Ponderer on September 7, 2023 9:05 am "The point is that even Jack Smith ain't charging Trump with insurrection." -Hate 14th Amendment, Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Hmmm. You know Bill, I've scoured over every word of this section of the fourteenth, and for the life of me I can't see where it stipulates that an insurrectionist rebel needs to be tried and convicted of insurrection to be excluded from qualification to be elected. It appears in all clarity that they simply need to have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." And there is simply no sane way to deny that that is exactly what Donald Trump did as president. In front of live TV cameras. On recorded telephone messages. And by his complete and total shirking of his duty to do everything in his means to stop the rebels that he organized, sicced on the Capitol, and gave aid and comfort to in order to interfere with the lawful counting of the votes that particular January sixth. Yep. I checked it again. Nothing about trial and conviction in there at all. And you know, Jack Smith might not have tried him for insurrection, but the majority of the House essentially found him guilty of it when he was impeached for it. But that doesn't matter for anything I suppose. by Ponderer on September 7, 2023 9:07 am Majority of the Senate too. by HatetheSwamp on September 7, 2023 9:24 am You know Bill, I've scoured over every word of this section of the fourteenth, and for the life of me I can't see where it stipulates that an insurrectionist rebel... Of course, po. That goes without saying. But, man, c'mon gimme a break. Who's going to decide to keep Trump off the ballot?...on what authority? You seem to be suggesting that, because YOU think Trump's an insurrectionist, his candidacy should be axed. I don't think that the Supreme Court is going to put its stamp of approval on states removing Trump's name from a state ballot on your whim. Or isle's, or Heather's, or Curt's. There has to be a legitimate authority to keep a party's nominee from appearing on a state's ballot. by Ponderer on September 7, 2023 9:52 am State secretaries of state have the authority to do it. If they believe that Trump engaged in insurrectionist behavior, they can deny his name from being on the ballot under the clear provision in the 14th Amendment. What part of this are you finding difficult to understand? by HatetheSwamp on September 7, 2023 10:29 am State secretaries of state have the authority to do it. If they believe that Trump engaged in insurrectionist behavior, they can deny his name from being on the ballot under the clear provision in the 14th Amendment. What part of this are you finding difficult to understand? I'm pretty sure that you're wrong. So, tell me. The Secretaries of State in, say, Vermont and Nevada and Georgia read the FD-1023 form Chuck Grassley released six weeks ago. And, suddenly, they BELIEVE that "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" committed Treason and accepted bribes, and that those acts are his own personal insurrection and they remove the Flatulent Fool's name from those state ballots. And, there's nuthin no one can do about it? Does that work for you? After all, they'd BELIEVE the Former Truck Driver engaged in insurrectionist behavior. Eh? by Indy! on September 7, 2023 10:40 am by oldedude on September 4, 2023 12:20 pm Dershowitz is a pedophile who also tried to justify having sex with underage children. He's one of the people who should be [not] allowed to have a public stage for his crackpot ideas. (Indy) You keep bringing this up. Was this a professional or personal remark. If it was professional, he was paid to defend his client. ================================================================== The only "client" he was defending appears to be himself... by oldedude on September 7, 2023 11:58 am I don't get that at all in the article. There is still the "age of consent issue, which he identifies. And he says that non-consensual sex between older men and younger women is still rape. His focus seems to be on age appropriate initial sex adventures and making the comparison between age of consent for abortions is inconsistent with age of consent for sex. It's the same argument about an 18-20 year old buying a gun, when they can enlist at 18, 17 with parental consent. If he were arguing about dropping the age of consent to 5, I'd agree. But there's a lot more to age of consent than just having sex. That's why there are laws about it. by Ponderer on September 7, 2023 3:12 pm "So, tell me. The Secretaries of State in, say, Vermont and Nevada and Georgia read the FD-1023 form Chuck Grassley released six weeks ago. And, suddenly, they BELIEVE that "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" committed Treason and accepted bribes, and that those acts are his own personal insurrection and they remove the Flatulent Fool's name from those state ballots. And, there's nuthin no one can do about it?" -Hate Look, Bill. I know how infantile you can get when you are in full blown tit-for-tat mode. But this instance of it is more infantile than usual. What a pathetic whining crybaby you can be. You are, as always, forgetting about and disregarding the entire subject of evidence. Everyone, even you, has seen the evidence of Trump's insurrection when he himself told what he absolutely knew to be an armed mob at his 1/6 rally, having brainwashed them to believe his flaming bald-faced lies, to actually march to the Capitol and "fight like hell", because if they didn't fight like hell, "they wouldn't have a country any more." We have all heard Trump in his own words on tape threaten Georgia's election official to "find 11,780 votes" which did not exist, or he might be open to some sort of legal threat. We all watched for weeks as the January 6th Committee presented busloads of sworn witnesses and libraries full of documented evidence of his attempts to subvert the fully official and totally legal results of the 2020 presidential election in any way he and his demented partners in crime could come up with, regardless of how illegal what they were doing was. And I might add that none of that evidence evaporates into nothingness just because you, just like your Lord and Messiah Trump, refuse to believe any of it is real. In your hypothetical example of some secretaries of state simply making up some bullshit to accuse Biden of because of something they read, there is no evidence suggested that anyone ever saw. In court or anywhere. If in reality such secretaries of state want to open themselves up to criminal prosecution for making up a bullshit accusation, I suppose they are free to do so. Just as they would be free to have theshit likely prosecuted out of them for doing so. Try an example that doesn't compare apples and the most conceivable absolute opposite of apples. Your example wallowed in lameness. Donald Trump was totally witnessed by the whole country engaging in insurrection and/or rebellion against the Constitution, and gave aid and comfort to his foot soldier enemies thereof. Deal with it already, Bill. by HatetheSwamp on September 7, 2023 3:44 pm You are, as always, forgetting about and disregarding the entire subject of evidence. Everyone, even you, has seen the evidence of Trump's insurrection when he himself told what he absolutely knew to be an armed mob at his 1/6 rally, having brainwashed them to believe his flaming bald-faced lies, to actually march to the Capitol and "fight like hell", because if they didn't fight like hell, "they wouldn't have a country any more." Evidence? C'mon man. Gimme a break! Here's what you posted that I responded to: "State secretaries of state have the authority to do it. If they believe that Trump engaged in insurrectionist behavior, they can deny his name from being on the ballot under the clear provision in the 14th Amendment." According to you, evidence is irrelevant. It comes down to what a state's Secretary of State BELIEVES. Trust me, bubba! Rachel and her ilk are keeping most of the "feckless dementia-ridden piece of Crap" Crime Family story from you. There's evidence...including the aforementioned FT-1023 Form you know nuthin about. There's lots of reasons a state official might BELIEVE that there's reason to remove the Flatulent Fool from the ballot. But, po. You're a fool if you think that state bureaucrats could keep either Trump or the Doddering Old Fool off the ballot and the rest of the citizens of the state could have no recourse. by Ponderer on September 7, 2023 4:17 pm Forgive me for my lack of detail. The state secretaries of state that I am talking about would come to their beliefs based on actual evidence. They would have that to point to when asked how they reached their beliefs. If a 27 year old person decided to run for president, a state secretary of state wouldn't have to hold a trial to prove that they are not eligible to run for president and keep them off the ballot because the minimum age is 35. They would just declare that that person isn't eligible to run based on the evidence that he isn't. Likewise, if they had watched Donald Trump on live TV and now know him to have engaged in insurrection and rebellion, they would know that he isn't eligible because of the 14th Amendment. The main problem with your comparison is that nothing these imaginary secs of state of yours are trying to throw at Biden constitute insurrection or rebellion, nor was he aiding and giving comfort to others who were insurrectionists or rebels. Trump's engagement in insurrection is obvious. To everyone. Your hypothetical Biden engagement in insurrection is not. At all. by HatetheSwamp on September 7, 2023 4:34 pm They would have that to point to when asked how they reached their beliefs. To whom? Suppose the Secretary of State was unconvincing? Then what? What you are not accounting for is that each state has unique election laws. Interesting in Pennsylvania, the "Secretary of the Commonwealth" is appointed. In many states, the office is elected... ...AND, currently, because Pennsylvania is purple, the Governor is a Dem but the Secretary of the Commonwealth is a GOP... ...who just may be reading Chuck Grassley's FT-1023 and may know all about those bribes Hunter passed on to "pop." Eh? by Ponderer on September 7, 2023 5:27 pm "What you are not accounting for is that each state has unique election laws. -Hate What you are ignoring is that all 50 states are subject to the same Constitution of the United States. by HatetheSwamp on September 7, 2023 5:38 pm po, What you seem to be ignernt of is that our Bill of Rights includes the 10th Amendment. Elections are state run matters. by oldedude on September 7, 2023 8:43 pm "What you are not accounting for is that each state has unique election laws. -Hate What you are ignoring is that all 50 states are subject to the same Constitution of the United States.- jjpo Unfortunately, both are equally true. Many states, (CA, NY, etc) issue the same State Issued DL to both legal citizens and Aliens, as they do Illegal aliens. This means that illegal aliens can vote. That violates federal voting statutes which says you have to be a citizen. How do they separate the two? The states (per se) haven't come up with a solution. That tells me they are willing to allow anyone to vote on any election they desire. That's illegal. AND they have no way at the precinct, to tell if the person is a legal voter or not. Therein lies the conundrum. You need to layout the cases for each. With the lack of voting ID confirmation, what do we do? I think THAT'S the question. curt would have everyone vote. That would clear the dim field for absolute winners. AND most of those are by today's standards "Illegal" voters in the national elections (including US Senate and House seats). Personally, I don't care about local elections. IF the "legal" voters at the time, vote to have anyone vote, I don't care. Federal elections. I believe they need to be a citizen in good standing. As it stands now. My dream is to actually have an electorate that actually understands the Constitution, and the bill of Rights. That'll never happen, but it's a dream of mine. The second constitutional congress argued that only land owners should be allowed to vote. The reason for this is that those not holding a stake in the decisions should not be allowed to vote. Keep in mind that a business owner that owned his shop was considered a "land owner" so it expands a tad. That's interesting. After spending 40 years in the military, I would have been able to vote in 2008. Of course, the dim state of CO ensured we couldn't vote when overseas by sending the ballots out three days before the election. We usually got them a few days after the election. by Ponderer on September 8, 2023 7:36 am "Elections are state run matters." -Hate Of course they are. They are free to do whatever they want to with their elections. If they want to make it illegal for black people to vote, they absolutely can, and the Constitution be damned, right? If they want to let 19-year olds run for Congress, they can do it with no compunctions whatsoever, right Bill? They don't have to abstain from doing something with their elections just because the Constitution says it's not allowed. Right? 🙄 by Ponderer on September 8, 2023 7:51 am "Many states, (CA, NY, etc) issue the same State Issued DL to both legal citizens and Aliens, as they do Illegal aliens. This means that illegal aliens can vote." -olde dude Sure they can, od. If they don't mind committing a felony that they will certainly be caught for committing. In order to register to vote, even when you are getting a drivers license, you have to check a box declaring that you are a United States citizen. You then have to sign your name swearing that everything you put in the application was true. It's not like having a drivers license in California is a free pass to voting. Any human being in any state in the country can vote if they are willing to commit the felony of voter fraud by putting false info on the registration application. This has always been the case. In every state. And in the extremely rare instance that someone does it, they are pretty much always caught. Look, I realize that conservatives and Republicans think that everyone is as comfortable lying as they are. But most people just aren't. Especially on legal forms where their lies can get them thrown in jail for years. by HatetheSwamp on September 8, 2023 8:03 am If you want to let 19-year olds run for Congress, they can do it with no compunctions whatsoever, right Bill? They don't have to abstain from doing something with their elections just because the Constitution says it's not allowed. Right? Apples and oranges, po. by Ponderer on September 8, 2023 8:23 am It absolutely isn't, Bill. The Constitution spells out exactly what the requirements are for someone running for president or any public office. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets only three qualifications for holding the presidency. To serve as president, one must: • be a natural-born U.S. citizen of the United States; • be at least 35 years old; • be a resident in the United States for at least 14 years.[1] And Section 3 of the 14th Amendment: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. To be president, you must be at least 35, born in the U.S., be a resident for at least 14 years, and have not engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States government, or helped those who have. It's all spelled out pretty clearly. And no state can just thumb its nose at these requirements, Bill. Sorry. by HatetheSwamp on September 8, 2023 9:03 am Indeed, po. But it doesn't write job descriptions for state officials and bureaucrats. And, that's what you're pushing for. by Ponderer on September 8, 2023 9:35 am "But it doesn't write job descriptions for state officials and bureaucrats. And, that's what you're pushing for." -Hate In a pig's eye I am. You are such a liar, Bill. by Indy! on September 8, 2023 8:04 pm He wrote an op-ed recommending we lower the age of consent. The way you're describing it is not true. He said lower the age - and then MAYBE have differing punishments based on circumstances. That was a side possibility - the main thrust of his article is to lower the age. The only client of his that would help would have been Epstein. And btw, a LOT of his peers were asking why he continued to represent Epstein after he was convicted of raping underaged girls the first time. We all but know Epstein was blackmailing the people he brought to the island (we would know for sure if there was any kind of actual investigation into that scumbag). So what does that tell us about Douchowitz? He's most likely a pedophile on one of Epstein's videos in the FBI's possession that they are hiding from America to protect the people on them. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page