Matter to youThat's nice, but it doesn't
Matter to youthe point I and others have been making. O.J. was found liable for the deaths of Nichole Brown and Ron Goldman in a court case with his lawyers present. The fact that it was civil case doesn't
I do grasp the conceptchange the fact that he was found liable for the deaths of two people. I don't know why this is so hard a concept to grasp.
Neither than do the legal scholars I have heard from. But you, a guy on the internet knows it all.You really don't understand what the phrase due process means, do you?
It doesn;t matter to you. It's all ok cuz you say so. See I understand the concept.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.This decision is not depriving Donald of life, liberty or property. That said, due process is still relevant to civil cases. From the linked article:
>> The core requirements of procedural due process are notice12 and a hearing13 before an impartial tribunal,14 though specific requirements in each case vary based on the particular interests at stake.15 Due process may also require other procedural protections such as an opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination, discovery, a decision based on the record, or the opportunity to be represented by counsel.16 <<
Donald received notice.
A hearing was held before an impartial panel (you will disagree, but your disagreement is tribalism, not the law).
Donald was represented by counsel.
There's nothing in the 14th Amendment or 170 yeas of civil case law requiting a criminal conviction before a civil case can be litigated.
Exactly what "penalty" are the voters being subjected to?Exactly, but he and the voters are being subject to the penalty.
Applying the clause 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution? A would hope every American would want that.Does anyone here really want this kind of justice in our country?
Yeah, those who think Donald should be above the law and want him to be their instrument of retribution. That and gutting the bureaucracy of civil servants and replacing them with yes men who will facilitate Donald being an instrument of retribution.Actually some do, because they want to change this country.
I'm old enough to remember when Donald's ardently faithful believers chanted "lock her up" during his Two Minutes Hate rallies. I'm also old enough to remember when he wanted to use to government to go after his enemies.Some want it just in this case, but not for themselves of course. Rules for thee not for me. I mean after all convincing people that someone is Hitler, they need to be stopped no matter the way it is done right?
It doesn't matter to you. Therefore what you say matters nothing to me. You know it all....Exactly what "penalty" are the voters being subjected to?
Applying the clause 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution? A would hope every American would want that.
Yeah, those who think Donald should be above the law and want him to be their instrument of retribution. That and gutting the bureaucracy of civil servants and replacing them with yes men who will facilitate Donald being an instrument of retribution.
I'm old enough to remember when Donald's ardently faithful believers chanted "lock her up" during his Two Minutes Hate rallies. I'm also old enough to remember when he wanted to use to government to go after his enemies.
‘Where are all of the arrests?’: Trump demands Barr lock up his foes
The day-long run of tweets and retweets marked the most frantic stretch of Trump’s public activity since he left Walter Reed.www.politico.com
I need to you go back and edit your post so you don't make it seem like I'm saying things I'm not.Matter to you
Your comments suggest otherwise.I do grasp the concept
Cite one. I'll wait.Neither than do the legal scholars I have heard from. But you, a guy on the internet knows it all.
Please stop goading. It's against forum rules.It doesn;t matter to you.
Try reading more and being smart-alecky less. I literally cited the due process clause and some exposition from the Library of Congress. This isn't "me saying so".It's all ok cuz you say so. See I understand the concept.
Oh, but he would have done so lawfully. But he did not did he? He did not even attempt to.Exactly what "penalty" are the voters being subjected to?
Applying the clause 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution? A would hope every American would want that.
Yeah, those who think Donald should be above the law and want him to be their instrument of retribution. That and gutting the bureaucracy of civil servants and replacing them with yes men who will facilitate Donald being an instrument of retribution.
I'm old enough to remember when Donald's ardently faithful believers chanted "lock her up" during his Two Minutes Hate rallies. I'm also old enough to remember when he wanted to use to government to go after his enemies.
‘Where are all of the arrests?’: Trump demands Barr lock up his foes
The day-long run of tweets and retweets marked the most frantic stretch of Trump’s public activity since he left Walter Reed.www.politico.com
How about if you quit goading me, lying about me and putting words in my mouth? Goading is against forum rules.It doesn't matter to you. Therefore what you say matters nothing to me. You know it all....
Goading now? Please see how my post appears on my end. How did you end up with that?I need to you go back and edit your post so you don't make it seem like I'm saying things I'm not.
Your comments suggest otherwise.
Cite one. I'll wait.
Please stop goading. It's against forum rules.
Try reading more and being smart-alecky less. I literally cited the due process clause and some exposition from the Library of Congress. This isn't "me saying so".
Understand?
Here is how it appears on my endI need to you go back and edit your post so you don't make it seem like I'm saying things I'm not.
Your comments suggest otherwise.
Cite one. I'll wait.
Please stop goading. It's against forum rules.
Try reading more and being smart-alecky less. I literally cited the due process clause and some exposition from the Library of Congress. This isn't "me saying so".
Understand?
Matter to youThat's nice, but it doesn't
Matter to youthe point I and others have been making. O.J. was found liable for the deaths of Nichole Brown and Ron Goldman in a court case with his lawyers present. The fact that it was civil case doesn't
I do grasp the conceptchange the fact that he was found liable for the deaths of two people. I don't know why this is so hard a concept to grasp.
Neither than do the legal scholars I have heard from. But you, a guy on the internet knows it all.You really don't understand what the phrase due process means, do you?
It doesn;t matter to you. It's all ok cuz you say so. See I understand the concept.https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-5-4-1/ALDE_00013750/
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.
This decision is not depriving Donald of life, liberty or property. That said, due process is still relevant to civil cases. From the linked article:
>> The core requirements of procedural due process are notice12 and a hearing13 before an impartial tribunal,14 though specific requirements in each case vary based on the particular interests at stake.15 Due process may also require other procedural protections such as an opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination, discovery, a decision based on the record, or the opportunity to be represented by counsel.16 <<
Donald received notice.
A hearing was held before an impartial panel (you will disagree, but your disagreement is tribalism, not the law).
Donald was represented by counsel.
There's nothing in the 14th Amendment or 170 yeas of civil case law requiting a criminal conviction before a civil case can be litigated.
Click to expand...
If the USSC takes this on, it will certainly open a can of worms either way.
What crime was Trump found guilty of?And i will go with the idea of due process before someone is found guilty of a crime.
For what criminal statute is he suffering the punishment?He wasn't. But got the penalty anyway
Removal from a ballot is not a criminal penalty.What was he taken off the ballot for? Why are you playing games?
For being ineligible. Just like if he was 30 years old or born in Kenya.What was he taken off the ballot for? Why are you playing games?
Just pointing out how unsubstantiated your claims are. I find the Socratic method the best way to achieve that.What was he taken off the ballot for? Why are you playing games?
I'm reminded of the 1988 campaign "Bush -- He's taller". (SNL ad)You must be this tall to become President of the United States.
The Supreme Court of CO has determined that Donald is ineligible to be on the ballot.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?