Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

Question for Ponderer
Politics by Navy2711     October 4, 2024 5:16 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (7 comments) [53 views]

My MAGA neighbor...
Crime by Indy!     October 4, 2024 7:16 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (2 comments) [7 views]

New ad: "God made Trump"
Religion by Donna     October 4, 2024 10:22 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (7 comments) [46 views]

Melania Trump sides with Kamala Harris on women's individual freedom. Has not agreed to campaign for Harris.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     October 4, 2024 1:43 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (3 comments) [36 views]

pb's opinion: Kammy's, and Joe's weak, lackluster support for hurricane victims in Georgia and North Carolina just won Trump both states
Opinion by HatetheSwamp     October 4, 2024 5:12 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (6 comments) [64 views]

Fox Snooze APOPLECTIC over stunning new jobs report and economic news
News by Donna     October 4, 2024 11:16 am (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: Donna (5 comments) [64 views]

Anonymous comments regarding the Presidential Candidate Selector and the election
President by Curt_Anderson     March 19, 2024 10:10 am (Rating: 1.7) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (175 comments) [3920 views]

It's looking bad for Dems in PA
Government by HatetheSwamp     October 4, 2024 7:09 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [25 views]

Tim Walz loses another constituency: School Shooters Distance Themselves From Tim Walz
Crime by HatetheSwamp     October 3, 2024 12:44 pm (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: Indy! (9 comments) [66 views]

The Ruthless Podcast gang debrief JD after the debate
Politics by HatetheSwamp     October 4, 2024 8:39 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [18 views]

Law selectors, pages, etc.
So you think you understand due process of law!
By Curt_Anderson
December 28, 2023 10:24 pm
Category: Law

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states.

In the Colorado and Maine decisions to keep Donald Trump’s name off the primary ballots, in what way is Trump being denied life, liberty or property?

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "So you think you understand due process of law!":

  1. by HatetheSwamp on December 29, 2023 12:20 am

    Due Process in this sense includes the rights empowered by Amendments 4-7, particularly #6.

  2. by oldedude on December 29, 2023 3:47 am
    I can't believe we're doing this again. curt still want's to argue the SOS. His (and many others who don't understand the constitution) take this literally.

    “...any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Clause is understood to mean that the government could deprive a person of rights (meaning rights assigned by the Constitution, laws and Amendments of the federal government. The ONLY changes have been regarding the states are now required to also fulfill this legal obligation.

    Even Trump has due process rights, which Colorado Supreme Court put aside
    On what grounds was Trump barred in Colorado? Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment succinctly proffers, “(n)o person shall…hold any office…who…previously taken an oath…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”.

    There’s a lot going on in the Fourteenth Amendment that requires nuanced dissection. A myriad of legal questions arises in Trump’s case, some of which the Colorado Court grapples, some they unceremoniously shelve; a few such matters include First Amendment rights as well as state versus federal sovereignty. These are certainly important inquiries, however, most poignant is the failure of the Colorado Court to adequately determine due process.

    Here's how the Constitution defines 'due process'
    Due process is scribed in the Bill of Rights, under the Fifth Amendment, and ostensibly contends that no individual may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without proper legal proceedings, i.e.,. what we generally understand as the legal procedures to deprive someone of a right or privilege – things like a trial, the burden of proof required to convict someone, and limitations for carrying out such a process
    constitutioncenter.org
    usatoday.com

  3. by HatetheSwamp on December 29, 2023 4:51 am

    Curt's like a dog with a bone. Sometimes, I think, he's po with a working brain. For po, truth is that po wants it to be. No other authority is needed.

    Curt, driven by TrumpHate, knows what he yearns to be true then looks for a way to justify it. And, he can be prettyd@ng creative. You have to congratulate him for that.

  4. by Ponderer on December 29, 2023 6:09 am

    So since they can't answer your question, Curt, I'll give it a try...

    "In the Colorado and Maine decisions to keep Donald Trump’s name off the primary ballots, in what way is Trump being denied life, liberty or property?" -Curt



    He is not being denied his life. He is not being denied his liberty. And he is not being denied his property.

    So in short, the answer to your question is that he is not.



    And even though his supporters and defenders here can't come up with any rational examples of how he is, they will just continue to obfuscate, distract, complicate, and blather on about irrelevant non sequitur information in order to pretend that he has been.


  5. by HatetheSwamp on December 29, 2023 6:17 am

    And even though his supporters and defenders here...

    Baha. Who'd that be? Keehee hoo, ha, ah.

    So, po. Here's a history essay question:

    Post 1868, if a southerner was accused of participating in the insurrection, did the accusation have to be verified? What happened when a southerner was accused of being an insurrectionist but, in truth, wasn't?

    Without looking, what right/s are guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment? How have Trump's Sixth Amendment rights been protected in this recent brouhaha!!!!!?

  6. by oldedude on December 29, 2023 6:37 am
    po- What part of this don't you understand? That's pulled out of the "Constitutioncenter.org"
    I also cited the example of trumpster. So either you're not reading or you're too pig ignorant to understand it.

    The Clause is understood to mean that the government could deprive a person of rights (meaning rights assigned by the Constitution, laws and Amendments of the federal government. The ONLY changes have been regarding the states are now required to also fulfill this legal obligation.

    Here's how the Constitution defines 'due process'
    Due process is scribed in the Bill of Rights, under the Fifth Amendment, and ostensibly contends that no individual may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without proper legal proceedings, i.e.,. what we generally understand as the legal procedures to deprive someone of a right or privilege – things like a trial, the burden of proof required to convict someone, and limitations for carrying out such a process

  7. by oldedude on December 29, 2023 6:46 am
    Those three things are things that were reserved for the monarchy alone in Europe. A common person could not own property. There was no "right" to life. No "right" to any liberty. Only what the monarchy would "bestow" on the commoners.

    Lead- this has gotten just stupid. I guess I'm expecting "rational" people, which doesn't seem to exist here.

  8. by HatetheSwamp on December 29, 2023 6:50 am

    OD,

    The terms TDS and irrational TrumpHate exist for a reason.

    I refuse to vote for Trump in 024 but I'll be amused to all get out if he wins!

  9. by Ponderer on December 29, 2023 6:55 am

    See what I mean, Curt?


  10. by HatetheSwamp on December 29, 2023 7:07 am

    Oh,d@ng, po. If he wins it won't be because of me. But, can you even begin to imagine how uproariously I'll be entertained if Trump wins!!!!!?

  11. by Curt_Anderson on December 29, 2023 8:56 am
    Ponderer,
    Ain’t it the truth! It’s fun watching those two flail. OD in particular becomes more vociferous when he cannot/avoids answering the question.

    Due process does not applies to Donald Trump in these situations because he is not being denied life, liberty or property. if a job seeker does not get an interview for a government job they applied for they cannot scream “due process”. They might be disappointed, but they are not denied life, liberty or property.

    However, I can make an argument for due process on Donald Trump’s behalf. If he is not allowed to run for and be elected president he won’t be able to pardon himself thus avoid losing his liberty by spending time in prison






  12. by Ponderer on December 29, 2023 9:03 am

    "OD in particular becomes more vociferous when he cannot/avoids answering the question." -Curt

    Right? It's like he figures that if he just makes a bunch of non sequitur declarations and answers a bunch of other irrelevant questions that no one asked, that should satisfy us as an answer.

    He just doesn't want to admit that the Fifth Amendment is irrelevant to these ballot issues regarding Trump, since obviously no one is trying to deprive Trump of Life, Liberty, or Property by keeping his disqualified, insurrectionist orange ass off the ballot.

  13. by HatetheSwamp on December 29, 2023 9:44 am

    OD, po,

    According to the Bill of Rights, in your opinion, what can a citizen rightly be deprived of?

  14. by islander on December 29, 2023 11:37 am
    Trump is not being deprived of his rights or due process. The secretaries of state are doing their duty for which they were granted the authority and the power necessary for them to determine whether a candidate is qualified to be on the ballot in their state.

    No deprivation of due process there.

    Any candidate found not qualified by the secretary of state has the right to appeal. Trump has not been denied that right so there is no deprivation of due process there.

    The courts will determine whether the words used in sec 3, of the 14th Amendment “engaged in” mean convicted.

    “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.”

    So there is no deprivation of due process here either.







  15. by Curt_Anderson on December 29, 2023 11:44 am
    “ According to the Bill of Rights, in your opinion, what can a citizen rightly be deprived of?”. -HtS

    Cable TV, a driver’s license, an open can of beer in the car, a condo, a job with the government, a tavern in a residential neighborhood, etc.

  16. by HatetheSwamp on December 29, 2023 11:54 am

    isle,

    Trump hasn't even been indicted for insurrection let alone been convicted of it.

    The Bill of Rights guarantees that a citizen have a public trial for any crime they are charged with and be judged by an impartial jury, be confronted by the witnesses against them, be permitted to supply witnesses to speak on their behalf and to be represented by counsel in facing the charges.

    Apart from all of those happenings connected to the assertion that Trump led an insurrection, Trump can't be judged by anyone to be guilty of insurrection... according to the Bill of Rights.

    None of those happenings have, uh, happened.

  17. by islander on December 29, 2023 12:14 pm

    ”The Bill of Rights guarantees that a citizen have a public trial for any crime they are charged with and be judged by an impartial jury, be confronted by the witnesses against them, be permitted to supply witnesses to speak on their behalf and to be represented by counsel in facing the charges.” ~Hate

    This is not a trial and Trump is not being charged with a crime.

    ”Trump can't be judged by anyone to be guilty of insurrection... according to the Bill of Rights.”

    This is not a trial and Trump is not being charged with a crime.

    The secretary of state has witnessed Trumps public behavior before and during the insurrection and exercised her judgment as to his qualification to be on the ballot. That’s her job. Trump has NOT been denied due process in anyway whatsoever. See post #14



  18. by Ponderer on December 29, 2023 12:36 pm

    Exactly right on all points, Isle.

    Perhaps if you ask them how Trump is being "denied" "life", "liberty", or "property" they would give you an answer...


  19. by Curt_Anderson on December 29, 2023 12:49 pm
    Ponderer,
    That’s just what I asked in the opening post. They cannot answer because Trump is not being denied life, liberty or property.

    Being president is a government job. A person may not have the qualifications to apply for a particular government job. If I were to apply at the post office, police station, or the highway department and not get an interview because I don’t meet qualifications though I was never convicted of anything, I cannot demand due process and insist on a courtroom trial arguing why I should have the job interview.

    Let us not forget Donald Trump’s birther movement. The same people who are arguing against the third section of the 14th amendment as it applies to Donald Trump would’ve been more than happy to see Barack Obama ruled ineligible to run for president.


  20. by islander on December 29, 2023 1:00 pm

    Ponderer ~ I think they'll just continue to argue that the secretary of states charged Trump with a crime (they didn't), held a trial (they didn't), found him guilty and his punishment was removal from the ballot (that was not the case) !!!

    Since we are a nation of laws, the next step is for the courts to weigh the evidence and decide whether the secretary of state's decision was correct or not.

  21. by islander on December 29, 2023 1:19 pm

    Here is the actual ruling of Maine's Secretary of State:

    Click the link.
    maine.gov

  22. by HatetheSwamp on December 29, 2023 1:32 pm

    Since the three of you are piling on at themoment, answer the question you've ignored in the past.

    Since Trump is not being deprived of life, liberty and property, what's to prevent those uncouth MAGAs from removing "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" from the presidential ballot, considering the truth that he's led an insurrection and allowed multiple millions of illegals to cross our border with Mexico? Life, liberty and property and all.

  23. by Curt_Anderson on December 29, 2023 1:42 pm
    Gosh HtS. I hadn’t heard that Link please.

    As for your issue with immigrants where in the US Constitution does it say that allowing immigrants to cross the border disqualifies anybody for running for president?

    Other than being at least 35 years old, a native born American, who has lived here for at least 14 years, and not sworn oath to uphold the constitution, followed up by engaging in an insurrection, or giving aid and comfort to insurrectionist there are no limits on who can run for the office and be president. As long as a person meet those criteria, they could be a serial murderer or even a ConMan found liable in court for phony charity, rip off University schemes, and other scams.

  24. by HatetheSwamp on December 29, 2023 2:06 pm

    As for your issue with immigrants where in the US Constitution does it say that allowing immigrants to cross the border disqualifies anybody for running for president?

    You know those filthy MAGAs. The Doddering Old Fool'd not be being deprived of life, liberty nor property.

    And, getting the same filthy MAGA judges who support homophobia in Mississippi and Florida to say refusing to enforce immigration law is the leading of an insurrection? Piece of cake! Eh?

    Easier, probably, than getting four Ivy League judges in Colorado to do that to Trump.

    You have to see that.

    Life, liberty and property, BABY!

  25. by Curt_Anderson on December 29, 2023 2:16 pm
    HtS,
    Based on your convoluted reasoning, and non sequiturs, it’s apparent that you will never clerk for a Supreme Court Justice, or become a law professor.

    The average person or the filthy group they belong to cannot, in most circumstances, deny somebody of life, liberty or property. There is a definition of insurrection. No matter how xenophobic a person might be, Immigration does not equal insurrection.

  26. by HatetheSwamp on December 29, 2023 2:22 pm

    Curt,

    What Trump did doesn't meet the definition of insurrection.

  27. by Curt_Anderson on December 29, 2023 2:33 pm
    Sorry, HtS, I’m not taking your word for it. Conservative jurist J Michael Luttig says that Trump did meet the constitutional definition of an insurrectionist making him ineligible to run for president.

    If it helps to put your mind at ease, I am under no illusions that the conservative majority Supreme Court will deny Donald Trump’s ballot access. I think they will decide that even though Donald Trump is an insurrectionist and an all-around scumbag there is a sizable portion of the population who wants to vote for an insurrectionist and an all-around scumbag.
    politico.com

  28. by HatetheSwamp on December 30, 2023 3:51 am

    Curt,

    Right. He's been all over MSNBC. He's Joe Scarborough 2.0...a GOP good n!gg€r.

    pb's Legal Goober #1 has been all over Newsmax, and on Fox, too, [for free] breaking this down. You can no more make Trump guilty of insurrection than the people who sparked the George Floyd riots.... nor the Flatulent Fool over immigration.

    There was, undoubtedly, a riot at the Capitol on J6. But there was no attempted insurrection... as the Liz Cheney Committee figured out when they ended up trying to make sumpthin out what Trump did, as po'd say, EFFINnot do for 187 minutes. And when Congress couldn't impeach him... and when Jack Smith didn't indict him for that crime.

    Here's what pb thinks about what's really important: Independent and moderate voters vote significantly on what makes common sense to them. And, this rabid guerilla lawfare the Dems are waging against Trump is really p!$$!ng common sense people off.

    Trump's leading in the polls by a lot... and, he doesn't even have to win the popular vote.

    Trump's favored by Vegas.

    Wanna guess why?

  29. by Ponderer on December 30, 2023 6:23 am

    Curt, one of our big problems here is trying to get these Trump defenders to understand that there are a lot of complex aspects to this case of Trump's Insurrection, and there are a lot of simple aspects to the case. These people do not do complex. Complex confuses the crap outta them. We all know how they want things to be simple. They must reduce everything to either black or white. Even though the Universe rarely presents anything to us that way.

    The simple parts they should understand. Even though they have spent the last three years holding their hands over their eyes and ears as hard as they can, the entire country saw and heard Trump in his own words to state election officials attempting to overthrow the results of a free and fair and fully legitimate election with his lies and threats. And that is just one example. The blatant and inarguable examples of him and his Cadre of Collusionists trying to thwart the official and legal will of the American people are legion and keep surfacing to this day as the investigations continue.

    We all are essentially witnesses to his treasonous engagement in the insurrection. The willfully pig-ignorant notion that nothing he did qualifies as insurrection is exceptionally ludicrous. I think even these brainwashed Trump supporters here know it deep down in there heart-of-hearts where It Shall Never Be Admitted. The fact that he blatantly engaged in insurrection is an easy conclusion to come to for anyone who has seen a lot of the evidence.

    But that in no way means that a trial will be easy. The process is extremely lugubrious and complicated. Add in that this is the very first time that a president has ever committed such heinous crimes while in office or out, and the complexity is kicked up a logarithmic notch or two.

    So it's simple AND complex...??? It's no wonder we can actually watch as their heads explode.


  30. by Ponderer on December 30, 2023 6:38 am

    " I think they will decide that even though Donald Trump is an insurrectionist and an all-around scumbag there is a sizable portion of the population who wants to vote for an insurrectionist and an all-around scumbag." -Curt

    Yup. Doesn't even matter a damn to 'em if he's convicted on every one of those 90-something felonies. He's their Felonious Scumbag. He could "stand on Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and he wouldn't lose any votes". One of the rare true things he has ever spoken in public.

    They long for authoritarian control over them and those they abhor. They are fed up with this whole "American Experiment in Democracy" thing... this whole "Constitution" nonsense controlling their lives, where they can't get what they want just because the vast majority of the country doesn't want it. They could care less if we lose our democratic form of government. There's nothing in it for them apparently. So they welcome a scumbag who literally promises to be a dictator if reelected with open arms and open pocketbooks. Even though plunging the country into absolute chaos is a certainty if they can reelect him.

    Such people so willing to see America destroyed are as great a threat to this country's future as any foe we have ever met on the battlefield ever was.


  31. by HatetheSwamp on December 30, 2023 7:03 am

    Curt, one of our big problems here is trying to get these Trump defenders to understand that there are a lot of complex aspects to this case of Trump's Insurrection, and there are a lot of simple aspects to the case. These people do not do complex.

    I already nominated someone's post as SS Post 023 POST OF THE YEAR but, if there's an award for an award for part-of-a-post, Curt, I nominate these two sentences.

    SANCTIMONY and an outright lie! Good stuff, po.

    Right. The difference between us is that you UNDERSTAND, and we're dolts...

    ...AND...

    ...and, for OD and pb, it's about Trump, not the Bill of Rights and the integrity of the Republic.

    Good EFFINwork.

    Yup. Doesn't even matter a damn to 'em if he's convicted on every one of those 90-something felonies.

    Ahhhhhhhhhhh, baha.

    Classic!

    Woke, white electric limousine lovin progressive Swampcult lynch-mob-ism. C'mon man. Gimme a break, dude. Innocent until proven guilty! Keehee, ha.

    Youdabomb!

  32. by HatetheSwamp on December 30, 2023 7:04 am

    Yup. Doesn't even matter a damn to 'em if he's convicted on every one of those 90-something felonies.

    91...but still counting. Ain't!!!!!?

  33. by oldedude on December 30, 2023 7:24 am
    Curt, one of our big problems here is trying to get these Trump defenders to understand that there are a lot of complex aspects to this case of Trump's Insurrection, and there are a lot of simple aspects to the case. These people do not do complex.
    I would offer that it's really simple, but way too complex to get through to you. Unfortunately, he can run according to the constitution, bill of rights, and the nation's laws on the "insurrection" charges, which he hasn't even been brought up on charges about (other than in congress, and as we're tirelessly reminded of, "isn't a legal trial" and the threshold is very low. Again, if they had anything to set up a real legal trial in the courts, the dims should have been able to start the court trial a year ago. They couldn't, he can.

    The felonies are also an issue. "Legally" he can run, which I disagree with. So that law needs to be looked at.

  34. by islander on December 30, 2023 7:25 am

    "Such people so willing to see America destroyed are as great a threat to this country's future as any foe we have ever met on the battlefield ever was" ~ Ponderer

    "Spot on" Ponderer !!! 🍻

  35. by Ponderer on December 30, 2023 7:31 am

    I got this round, Isle...


  36. by oldedude on December 30, 2023 7:50 am
    yeah.... it's a bitch when you are presented with facts. You're wrong, and you have to play it off so others believe you. These are simple facts. As written in the laws of this country. You can pretend they don't exist and violate them. That's what dictators do. Every time you support Putin, you prove it.

    I'd say (personally and collectively) you are "Such people so willing to see America destroyed are as great a threat to this country's future as any foe we have ever met on the battlefield ever was"

  37. by HatetheSwamp on December 30, 2023 8:33 am

    Here's what I learned since 020:

    The liberal/progressive v. conservative divide that was in place when SS started is no longer relevant.

    People of the OD and pb ilk care more about preserving the Republic than about conserving traditional ways. That sort of conservatism is all but dead.

    Otoh...

    The po and isle gang, Donna especially, too, and Curt also, are, increasingly blatant Big Brother people.

    The COVID shutdowns and lockdowns and mandates EFFINproved that.

    The thrill of the Bill of Rights, designed to make the Republic thrive, is the risk embedded within it. The Bill of Rights protects speech, for instance, that few, perhaps none, want to hear. It protects the rights of the unsavory, even criminal, from government intrusion and oppression...

    ...even Donald Trump, whom no one here supports. In fact, especially, Donald Trump... and his MAGA gang.

    I believe that you people here who are trying to pretend that the Sixth Amendment can, somehow, not protect Trump from what four Colorado judges and one Maine bureaucrat are attempting are, well, misguided at best, and freakin-evil at worst.

    Freedom, BABY, freedom! Like it or not.

  38. by Ponderer on December 30, 2023 8:36 am

    "yeah.... it's a bitch when you are presented with facts. You're wrong, and you have to play it off so others believe you." -olde dude

    Well I will certainly take your voluminous and expert word for that, od. You are certainly the Master of it.

  39. by islander on December 30, 2023 10:14 am

    ”The po and isle gang, Donna especially, too, and Curt also, are, increasingly blatant Big Brother people. The COVID shutdowns and lockdowns and mandates EFFINproved that.” ~ Hate

    LOL !!! Still trying to use that tired old strawman !! 🤣

    I can drink all I want in my own home and on my own property…But “Big Brother” says I can’t endanger other people’s lives by driving drunk on public roads !!

    Even in the midst of a pandemic nobody had to wear a mask in their own home or anywhere on their property. But “Big Brother”, said that "under certain circumstances" such as gatherings of people in enclosed buildings open to the public people need to wear a mask and in many cases be vaccinated so that they don’t endanger the lives of others. These measures saved millions of lives.

    After the Movement Conservatives tried to weaponize these measures by trying to turn this into a political battle…The GOP paid for it with the unnecessary loss of thousands of lives by those they had convinced to ignore these measures.


  40. by HatetheSwamp on December 30, 2023 11:32 am

    After the Movement Conservatives...

    Keehee, hoo, ha, ahhhhhhhhhhh!


  41. by oldedude on December 30, 2023 11:44 am
    Well I will certainly take your voluminous and expert word for that, od. You are certainly the Master of it.

    The FACTS are; "Life, Liberty, and Property (Pursuit of Happiness) has legally been defined "due process" by SCOTUS (a long time ago) and is the standard in the US legal system. I cited it for you. So everything I said about you is correct. I tried to say it in 3rd grade language... but I guess I've got to do it simpler... Talk about pig ignorant!🤣

  42. by islander on December 30, 2023 3:54 pm

    Trump has not been deprived of due process . See post # 14.

  43. by Ponderer on December 31, 2023 11:06 am

    He certainly has not been, Isle. He hasn't been denied Life, Liberty, and/or Property either.

  44. by meagain on December 31, 2023 11:29 am
    Interesting one. He cannot even be barred on the grounds of mental incompetence and the risk to America that poses. It would be interesting to know whether he has ever had to see a psychiatrist or other mental health practitioner. That would be the kiss of death if it were so and known.

    Good to see od has retained his grip on his xenophobia. The protection of life, liberty, and property comes directly from English Law. The Constitutional provision in the US is meaningless and bafflegab since there is no way of defining property. Its protection comes from the criminal code where in the UK and in Europe and in America, fully half the offences covered are against property. When monarchs did have some control of that - never complete, either, od. they were your monarchs, too. They lost all of that long before the USA existed.
    od is a medievalist in the sense that he never got beyond that era in his studies.

  45. by oldedude on December 31, 2023 1:51 pm
    blahblahblahblahblahblah.
    Yeah, it originated with the magna carta, but holds zero standing in this conversation. Unless you're talking to curt, po, or isle. They are the one's that demand there is no due process for trumpster. That he can be denied without due process because they take the quote literally, and not the the legal term means.

    please catch up... I have repeated talked about this and how our makes this quote about the rights of citizens and that due process is the primary pillar of our legal system. So what's your point other than your lack of knowledge about the US system (some things never change)?🙄

  46. by HatetheSwamp on January 1, 2024 5:44 am

    Yo, meagain. Have you seen this?

     View Video

  47. by islander on January 1, 2024 6:10 am

    ” A presumption of innocence means that >i>any defendant IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty.

    We are not holding a criminal trial here. That’s the part that oldedude simply doesn’t seem able to grasp no matter how many times we try to explain it to him. After seeing the evidence leading up to Jan 6th and watching what took place on that day, in my opinion Donald Trump is guilty of engaging in the insurrection and trying to overturn an election that he lost.

    I would love to have oldedude show us where, in the Constitution, it says a private citizen cannot have an opinion on anything. Naturally, as we all know, the Constitution and all our laws require that IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL a defendant is presumed to be innocent until legally proven guilty…Our opinions are irrelevant as far as Trump’s legal status goes since this is not a criminal trial. …



  48. by Ponderer on January 1, 2024 8:53 am

    Isle, it goes even beyond us having mere opinions. It's not really just an opinion if there is voluminous evidence that hundreds of millions of people have witnessed that it's merely an observant and correct reading of reality.

    Donald Trump engaged in insurrectionist activities and he caused and persuaded others to engage in insurrectionist activities on his behalf specifically for his benefit. Some of his cronies have even pleaded guilty for their actions in criminal trials.

    His insurrectionist actions deem him disqualified for the office of president.

    We don't need a court trial to determine that he engaged in insurrectionist acts and plots. We've all watched and heard him do it on many occasions and instances.

    We don't need a court trial to determine if the moon in fact orbits the Earth or not. We've all watched it do so our entire lives.

  49. by Ponderer on January 1, 2024 8:55 am

    Excuse me... I meant to say that his insurrectionist engagements deem him disqualified for the office of president.

  50. by oldedude on January 1, 2024 10:48 am
    Isle, it goes even beyond us having mere opinions. It's not really just an opinion if there is voluminous evidence that hundreds of millions of people have witnessed that it's merely an observant and correct reading of reality.

    Donald Trump engaged in insurrectionist activities and he caused and persuaded others to engage in insurrectionist activities on his behalf specifically for his benefit. Some of his cronies have even pleaded guilty for their actions in criminal trials.

    Then make it a legal case. If not, STFU. I'm more hopeful that he'd be found guilty. I think lead thinks it's less than hopeful. Anyway. This would make it quick and easy just to follow the constitution. I know you (all) hate following the law, but sometimes you just have to. I would for pedojoe (or any pedophile for that matter). They deserve the legal process the US affords it's people.

    You believe that only people that agree with you deserve those protections. I think that's cowardly and morally disgusting.

  51. by Indy! on January 1, 2024 10:57 am

    I'm not even reading this nonsense (maybe I'll do another Kabuki Theater thing on it) - but I have to point out how comical it is that the two people who allegedly "can't stand Trump" are working so hard to defend his right to run for president again. Can it be only so they both get to vote for him a THIRD time? I think so. 😂

  52. by oldedude on January 1, 2024 11:03 am
    This is more about the stupidity of sentencing someone without due process princess. The libs want to wipe their asses with the constitution as usual. I'm just doing the same thing I would do for pedojoe. Or even obomber. Hell, I'd even do it for you (maybe).

  53. by Indy! on January 1, 2024 4:41 pm

    Does your wife believe these kind of statements from you? 🤔

  54. by Ponderer on January 1, 2024 4:56 pm

    "Then make it a legal case." -olde dude

    Why? There's no legal requirement for it to be. If he sues some state AG over it, then it's a legal case. Sure.

    But as it stands currently, his insurrectionist engagements already disqualify him for the position with no legal case having to have been made.

    👍

  55. by HatetheSwamp on January 1, 2024 5:09 pm

    So, po, there's such a thing as an ILLEGAL requirement!!!!!?

  56. by Curt_Anderson on January 1, 2024 5:13 pm
    "So, po, there's such a thing as an ILLEGAL requirement!!!!!?" ---HtS

    No, not in the American judicial world, but there's such a thing as a legal nonrequirement.


  57. by oldedude on January 1, 2024 8:25 pm
    Why? There's no legal requirement for it to be. If he sues some state AG over it, then it's a legal case. Sure.
    WRONG🤣. and he IS suing a state and SCOTUS will look at it in a couple of days.

    But as it stands currently, his insurrectionist engagements already disqualify him for the position with no legal case having to have been made.
    WRONG🤣 again. No one except your feeble mind has decided that. And nobody gives a fuck about what you think.

  58. by Ponderer on January 2, 2024 6:37 am

    "and he IS suing a state and SCOTUS will look at it in a couple of days." -olde dude

    As he is totally free to do. You can sue anyone for pretty much anything. And if the SC says they have to put him on the ballot, then fine.

    The real issue will come when the election is over if he wins. The SC will again have to take this issue up to determine if the 14th bars him from occupying the office.

    Being allowed on the ballot is one thing. Actually taking the office is quite another.


    "No one except your feeble mind has decided that.",/b> -olde dude

    Well that's not true. Plenty of far more qualified legal minds than mine hold the same opinion. I am certainly not of this opinion in a vacuum.


    "And nobody gives a fuck about what you think.' -olde dude

    Precisely as not a singlefuck is proffered for the non sequitur offerings of your irrelevant opinions, olde dude. So let's say that issue is a wash.

  59. by oldedude on January 2, 2024 8:08 am
    "and he IS suing a state and SCOTUS will look at it in a couple of days." -olde dude

    I did misspeak on that. It is the GOP of CO that filed the lawsuit saying the AG of CO illegally violated the 14th Amendment demanding due process. SCOTUS will not look to see if he's guilty of J6 charges, ONLY that his rights were violated. Their standing (which gives you the ability to take a case to SCOTUS) says there was no trial regarding J6 (which curt has agreed to).


    QUESTION: Does trumpster meet these requirements?
    Candidates for president of the United States must meet basic requirements.

    The U.S. Constitution states that the president must:

    Be a natural-born citizen of the United States
    Be at least 35 years old
    Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years
    Anyone who meets these requirements can declare their candidacy for president. Once a candidate raises or spends more than $5,000 for their campaign, they must register with the Federal Election Commission. That includes naming a principal campaign committee to raise and spend campaign funds.

    Trumpster has filed with the Federal Election Commission and they have accepted his petition. That is a right given to him by the constitution and laws of the US.

    In order to stop him from running, our constitution says he must have a trial (see above) to LEGALLY determine that he is in-fact, guilty of the crime before he is taken off the ballot. IF he is found guilty, this isn't just a ballot issue, it's an election issue. He cannot run at all (not just by state), and even if chosen, he cannot hold the office. CO/ME is missing the piece of the trial.


    *You feel he is guilty of section 3 of the 14th Amendment. No argument. I believe there are grounds for at least an investigation. I'm not arguing either about the veracity of your case (that he's guilty of that charge). My point always has been that he was denied "his day in court" so to speak, listen to the charges they said he did, and present his defense guaranteed in the constitution.

  60. by HatetheSwamp on January 2, 2024 8:19 am

    The real issue will come when the election is over if he wins. The SC will again have to take this issue up to determine if the 14th bars him from occupying the office.

    Being allowed on the ballot is one thing. Actually taking the office is quite another.

    po,

    That is the most sensical thing you've posted here to my knowledge.

    All this ballot brouhaha the Dem progressive Swampcult is doing is ridiculous.

    If the Supreme Court has a legitimate say in this, it'd be when Trump would attempt to assume office.

    Now, while I have you, who, according to your reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, has the authority to enforce Section 3? On what do you base your opinion?

  61. by Ponderer on January 2, 2024 9:18 am

    The U.S. Constitution states that the president must:

    • Be a natural-born citizen of the United States
    • Be at least 35 years old
    • Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years
    Anyone who meets these requirements can declare their candidacy for president. Once a candidate raises or spends more than $5,000 for their campaign, they must register with the Federal Election Commission. That includes naming a principal campaign committee to raise and spend campaign funds.


    And you of course can't forget Section Three of the Fourteenth 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."

    Which disqualifies Donald Trump from the presidency.

  62. by HatetheSwamp on January 2, 2024 9:58 am

    po,

    According to whom?

  63. by oldedude on January 2, 2024 12:31 pm
    So po. IF he is otherwise eligible to hold the office (in the first bolded statement). This must all be affirmative answers. We know he passes this test.

    and the second bolded statement is the reason you are eliminating him.

    THEN: You must, by law, convict him of that crime first to eliminate him from either running or if elected stepping into the office.
    OTHERWISE: you are denying him a right he is eligible to have. Once you do the process (court) and if he's found guilty, you're good. No trial, Constitutional violation.

    The 13 y/o trying to get a driver's license is not an equality. The 13 y/o was not eligible to have a drivers license. IF the 13 y/o already had 3 DUIs, and was convicted of them, they wouldn't get the license.

  64. by islander on January 2, 2024 1:24 pm

    "According to whom?" ~ Hate

    That's the problem. The law is unclear right now and this is why we have to leave it up to the courts.

    Like Maine's Secretary of State said;

    “I do not reach this conclusion lightly. Democracy is sacred… I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection. The oath I swore to uphold the Constitution comes first above all, and my duty under Maine’s election laws, when presented with a Section 336 challenge, is to ensure that candidates who appear on the primary ballot are qualified for the office they seek".

    “The events of January 6, 2021 were unprecedented and tragic. They were an attack not only upon the Capitol and government officials, but also an attack on the rule of law. The evidence here demonstrates that they occurred at the behest of, and with the knowledge and support of, the outgoing President. The U.S. Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government, and Section 336 requires me to act in response.”

    The challenger or candidate may appeal this decision by commencing an action in the Superior Court within five days of this date, pursuant to 21-A MRSA section 337, subsection 2, paragraph D.

    Given the compressed timeframe, the novel constitutional questions involved, the importance of this case, and impending ballot preparation deadlines, Secretary Bellows has suspended the effect of her decision until the Superior Court rules on any appeal, or the time to appeal has expired.




  65. by islander on January 2, 2024 1:42 pm

    "In order to stop him from running, our constitution says he must have a trial (see above) to LEGALLY determine that he is in-fact, guilty of the crime before he is taken off the ballot." ~ oldedude

    Where in the Constitution does it say that a candidate must be convicted of a crime in a court of law or the Secretary of State cannot disqualify a candidate from appearing on that state's ballot ?

  66. by Ponderer on January 2, 2024 2:29 pm

    "THEN: You must, by law, convict him of that crime first to eliminate him from either running or if elected stepping into the office." -olde dude

    Actually, no. No you don't. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment neither says nor implies anything about a conviction for anything. Just that the person shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. government or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Both of which Trump did.

    I'm sorry. I should have pointed that out a long time ago.

  67. by Ponderer on January 2, 2024 2:35 pm

    "The 13 y/o trying to get a driver's license is not an equality. The 13 y/o was not eligible to have a drivers license." -olde dude

    Right. Because a thirteen year old is ineligible to qualify for one.

    Exactly like how Trump is ineligible to qualify for occupying the office of president because he engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the government and gave aid and comfort to enemies thereof.

    I'm sorry I have not been clear about that. I hope that clears up your confusion, od.

  68. by HatetheSwamp on January 2, 2024 2:42 pm

    Exactly like how Trump is ineligible to qualify for occupying the office of president because he engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the government and gave aid and comfort to enemies thereof.


    According to whom, po?

  69. by oldedude on January 2, 2024 3:12 pm
    Where in the Constitution does it say that a candidate must be convicted of a crime in a court of law or the Secretary of State cannot disqualify a candidate from appearing on that state's ballot ?


    Since you can't grasp five words in the 14th Amendment (just because I'm going to assume that's what you're talking about). He has to have due process and be convicted of a crime before you ASS-sume he's guilty. Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. He is otherwise legally eligible to run in the states. So if you "say" he's "guilty of a crime" saying so isn't good enough. You have to have a trial and prove he's guilty. Then you're fine to do so.*

    That depends on the issue. trumpster missed one of the states to get in, so he's not on the ballot there. Perfectly legal. trumpster missed the state's deadlines. OOPS! his bad. He's not on the ticket in that state. I don't think it will sink him, but I can always hope.

    *Again. If a person fulfills the requirements for a right, you MUST prove they are disqualified. No Hearsay. According to the constitution, trumpster has fulfilled the requirements. If you deny him the constitutional right to run, you must have a guilty verdict of the 14th Amendment. You can't use issues like forgery, etc. Those (unbelievably) do not make you ineligible to run.

  70. by Ponderer on January 2, 2024 3:43 pm
    "Again. If a person fulfills the requirements for a right, you MUST prove they are disqualified. No Hearsay." -olde dude

    But Trump doesn't fulfill the requirements for the "right" to be president because he is in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, owing to his engagement in insurrection and/or rebellion and giving aid and comfort to enemies of the government and the Constitution.

    And there's gobs and gobs of proof. Mountains of proof. Much of which he willingly provided himself. Hundreds of millions of people have seen and heard the proof. It has nothing whatsoever at all to do with hearsay.

    No one needs any court verdict to "prove" that the moon orbits the Earth.

  71. by HatetheSwamp on January 2, 2024 4:08 pm

    ...Trump doesn't fulfill the requirements for the "right" to be president because he is in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, owing to his engagement in insurrection and/or rebellion and giving aid and comfort to enemies of the government and the Constitution.

    According to whom, po?

  72. by oldedude on January 2, 2024 5:41 pm
    But Trump doesn't fulfill the requirements for the "right" to be president because he is in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, owing to his engagement in insurrection and/or rebellion and giving aid and comfort to enemies of the government and the Constitution.

    You're really confused or you don't want to listen. The requirements to be president are:
    The U.S. Constitution states that the president must:

    Be a natural-born citizen of the United States
    Be at least 35 years old
    Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years

    THAT'S IT. NOTHING ELSE.
    FULL STOP.
    Then you go to the 14th amendment. First read the thread on section 1. You already know section 3.
    The answer to Section 3, is that trumpster can be booted from the race IF he has a trial and is found guilty. Otherwise it's a violation of due process and you are violating his rights as a citizen. That's what the law says, like it or not.
    usa.gov
    selectsmart.com

  73. by Ponderer on January 2, 2024 6:45 pm


    Section 1...?


    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


    What has Section 1 got to do with anything?

    I mean..... No State has made or enforced any law which has abridged the privileges or immunities of Citizen Trump; nor is any State depriving him of life, liberty, or property, with or without due process of law; nor denied him within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    So... I'm not sure how you think it's relevant.




  74. by Ponderer on January 2, 2024 6:53 pm

    I even read your thread on Section 1, od.

    None of it negates any of my points I made directly above.

    But thanks.

  75. by oldedude on January 2, 2024 6:54 pm
    You either didn't read the article, or you can't understand it. First, it affects ALL CITIZENS. Second, it says that no state shall deprive anyone of their rights without due process of law. And they must give all persons equal protection of the laws.

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  76. by Ponderer on January 3, 2024 6:59 am





    olde dude:

    A person who does not meet a legal standard for occupying a political office does not have any immunity or the privilege to occupy a political office.





    Donald Trump engaged in insurrection and rebellion and gave aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution trying to overthrow the government for him. Thusly disqualifying himself from holding public office. No one forced him to engage in insurrection. He willfully did something that disqualified him. It's not the government or anyone else's fault that he disqualified himself.

    He did all this to himself and now he's crying like a baby with a full diaper because there is fallout from his actions.

    And now the Grand Old MAGA Party and the rest of his supporters and defenders, like you and Hate, are doing your damnedest to shift the well deserved blame for his actions from him onto someone else.

    So pathetic. So unpatriotically immoral.

  77. by HatetheSwamp on January 3, 2024 7:13 am

    Donald Trump engaged in insurrection and rebellion and gave aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution trying to overthrow the government for him.

    You narcissist, you! Baha...

    ...according to whom?

    Keehee haha, ahhhhhhhhhhh!

  78. by islander on January 3, 2024 11:33 am

    "...according to whom?" ~ Hate

    According to the people who watched him disqualify himself.

  79. by oldedude on January 3, 2024 11:37 am
    Still a lack of due process.
    View Video

  80. by HatetheSwamp on January 3, 2024 11:40 am

    People who bring their deranged TrumpHate preferences and prejudices to every moment of their lives? That's fine... usually. But, in this case, nine Judges are going to bring reason to this difference... one way or t'other.

  81. by Ponderer on January 3, 2024 2:35 pm

    Islander, the very idea of ever under any circumstances whatsoever acknowledging proof and evidence of a reality that he doesn't want to see and acknowledge is shielded from his mind by the solid mass of bone that fills his entire skull.


  82. by HatetheSwamp on January 3, 2024 3:52 pm

    Exactly, OD. You nailed em! Baha.

Go To Top

Comment on: "So you think you understand due process of law!"


* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
 SelectSmart.com home page