I don't think you quite understand. The Constitutional requirements to be President are most certainly relevant. Congress cannot pass a law adding anything to those those requirements or any other prohibition thereof without amending the Constitution So those particular laws are not applicable to prevent anyone from running for the office of the Presidency. They might be applicable for other public office but not the Presidency.I don't think you understand how this works. The Constitution is a framework. A foundation. It is not the entire body of law.
The requirements to be President are irrelevant. The question of the day is whether or not the laws cited above apply to the President, and if so, does violation of those laws prevent someone for running for President upon conviction.
If it comes to it, the Supreme Court will decide. THAT is certainly in the Constitution.
No. YOU don't understand. I am dealing with reality. You are dealing with ideals.I don't think you quite understand. The Constitutional requirements to be President are most certainly relevant. Congress cannot pass a law adding anything to those those requirements or any other prohibition thereof without amending the Constitution So those particular laws are not applicable to prevent anyone from running for the office of the Presidency. They might be applicable for other public office but not the Presidency.
Now that doesn't mean they can't try to prosecute Trump or convict him of something now to try and politically discredit him, which is exactly what they've been trying to do for a long time regardless, but they cannot disbar him from running for the Presidency. This is all political in nature and an extension of what's been going on for the past 6 years.
Trump has obviously met the relevant Constitutional requirements because he previously ran and was elected as POTUS and that's all that matters.
I'm not being an idealist. They can try anything they want to bar Trump from running It will never stand up in a SCOTUS challenge.No. YOU don't understand. I am dealing with reality. You are dealing with ideals.
Congress can't pass a law that violates "shall not be infringed" either, can they? How's that working out for us?
There's a reason why they say that a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.
"They can't do that" has never stopped any of these bastards.
Convicted felons have run for president and lost. Lyndon LaRouche was convicted in 1988 of tax and mail fraud conspiracy and ran for president multiple times between 1976 and 2004. Eugene Debs, convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for an anti-war speech, was in a federal prison when he ran for president as a socialist in 1920. Debs’ supporters handed out campaign buttons for “Prisoner 9653.”
There’s a difference between is and ought. In reality TPTB will do what the **** they want, even though they should be restrained by rule of law. They should not have been able to change election rules right before the election that favored democrats. But they did.No. YOU don't understand. I am dealing with reality. You are dealing with ideals.
Congress can't pass a law that violates "shall not be infringed" either, can they? How's that working out for us?
There's a reason why they say that a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.
"They can't do that" has never stopped any of these bastards.
Do you think Congress will be successful in barring Trump from running in 2024?There’s a difference between is and ought. In reality TPTB will do what the **** they want, even though they should be restrained by rule of law. They should not have been able to change election rules right before the election that favored democrats. But they did.
I would not be surprised if somehow TPTB prevent Trump from running. But I don't think it's going to be an act of congress. But I do think members of congress will be involved. For example, the jan 6 miniseries indoctrumentary was put on to try to sway public opinion against Trump and supporters. That didn't seem to move the needle as much as they wanted. But I think the play is all about public approval for taking some kind of executive action against Trump.Do you think Congress will be successful in barring Trump from running in 2024?
Not sure that getting into court is the end goal. Keeping documents that implicate fbi/dod/etc OUT of court more likely.On a positive note this raid violates the fourth thereby making any evidence obtained by it inadmissible in court…
I've agreed with this point in a previous post. They can certainly try to prosecute Trump and convict him in order to try to pull off yet another politically motivated **** move to discredit him in the court of public opinion like they've been trying to do for the better part of 6 years now and make it more difficult for him to campaign successfully, but my contention is they cannot outrightly try to bar him from running and expect it to get past a SCOTUS challenge which is what they think that they can do with a statute they passed that doesn't have a Constitutional founding for the requirement to run for POTUS.I would not be surprised if somehow TPTB prevent Trump from running. But I don't think it's going to be an act of congress. But I do think members of congress will be involved. For example, the jan 6 miniseries indoctrumentary was put on to try to sway public opinion against Trump and supporters. That didn't seem to move the needle as much as they wanted. But I think the play is all about public approval for taking some kind of executive action against Trump.
Um, wadr, all that needs to happen is the they "run out the clock" on the legal aspects untill it's too late (like the 2020 election). SC Justice Roberts is trying to avoid anything election-related. Perhaps of interestI'm not being an idealist. They can try anything they want to bar Trump from running It will never stand up in a SCOTUS challenge.
Um, wadr, all that needs to happen is the they "run out the clock" on the legal aspects untill it's too late (like the 2020 election). SC Justice Roberts is trying to avoid anything election-related. Perhaps of interest
I don't believe anyone was barred from running in that election. That is what we are talking about.Undoubtedly. I remember Bush v. Gore.
This was certainly a big deal and an example in uneven treatment. As much as I loathe HRC in the interest of constancy I will say if she were convicted of anything I don't believe it should've barred her from running for the presidency.
We are one Supreme Court justiceI'm not being an idealist. They can try anything they want to bar Trump from running It will never stand up in a SCOTUS challenge.
I would look to attempts to keep him off the ballot in as many states as possible via court challenges within that state, and I would look for them to start only a few months before Nov 2024 to allow as little time as possible to respond in order to achieve fait accompli like they did with election law changes in 2020I would not be surprised if somehow TPTB prevent Trump from running. But I don't think it's going to be an act of congress. But I do think members of congress will be involved. For example, the jan 6 miniseries indoctrumentary was put on to try to sway public opinion against Trump and supporters. That didn't seem to move the needle as much as they wanted. But I think the play is all about public approval for taking some kind of executive action against Trump.