Defending democracy update

[PurpleJ]

The Constitution is the law of the land, surprisingly even in Colorado.

So what jurisdiction does a state Supreme Court have over it? Why should I even need to ask a lawyer this question? Why haven’t you tried to perform a form tackle a moving train yet? Rhetorical questions. I’m sure you know what rhetorical means.

States administer elections. You seem confused by the Colorado Supreme Court's claim to have jurisdiction over Colorado.

Hey stupid. Try reading my post and responding to that. States don’t get to make determinations on violations of the US constitution.[/b] They can make up another reason to remove him if they like, but they don’t have any say on the federal constitution.

Don't give up your day job.

Great well-reasoned rebuttal as always ya fuckin hack

Other than being totally wrong about what state courts do routinely[/i], you really nailed the topic.

So school me Mr 2 degrees. Should be a slam dunk seeing as how I’m not a lawyer and I only read headlines. And don’t tell me your time is expensive because you’re in here all day. I’m all ears. Drop that knowledge fam.

State courts routinely rule whether the Federal Constitution has or has not been violated. There's really nothing more to be said about that.

Okay now explain how that precedent applies to this case using specifics.

 

[HHusky]

The Constitution is the law of the land, surprisingly even in Colorado.

So what jurisdiction does a state Supreme Court have over it? Why should I even need to ask a lawyer this question? Why haven’t you tried to perform a form tackle a moving train yet? Rhetorical questions. I’m sure you know what rhetorical means.

States administer elections. You seem confused by the Colorado Supreme Court's claim to have jurisdiction over Colorado.

Hey stupid. Try reading my post and responding to that. States don’t get to make determinations on violations of the US constitution.[/b] They can make up another reason to remove him if they like, but they don’t have any say on the federal constitution.

Don't give up your day job.

Great well-reasoned rebuttal as always ya fuckin hack

Other than being totally wrong about what state courts do routinely[/i], you really nailed the topic.

So school me Mr 2 degrees. Should be a slam dunk seeing as how I’m not a lawyer and I only read headlines. And don’t tell me your time is expensive because you’re in here all day. I’m all ears. Drop that knowledge fam.

State courts routinely rule whether the Federal Constitution has or has not been violated. There's really nothing more to be said about that.

Okay now explain how that precedent applies to this case using specifics.

As I've already said, there was a trial. The trial court said Daddy did it. However, the trial court concluded that the insurrection clause doesn't apply to the President. There was an appeal. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the trial court's finding of insurrection and reversed the trial court's legal conclusion that the insurrection clause does not apply to the President.

 

[Bob_C]

The Constitution is the law of the land, surprisingly even in Colorado.

So what jurisdiction does a state Supreme Court have over it? Why should I even need to ask a lawyer this question? Why haven’t you tried to perform a form tackle a moving train yet? Rhetorical questions. I’m sure you know what rhetorical means.

States administer elections. You seem confused by the Colorado Supreme Court's claim to have jurisdiction over Colorado.

Hey stupid. Try reading my post and responding to that. States don’t get to make determinations on violations of the US constitution.[/b] They can make up another reason to remove him if they like, but they don’t have any say on the federal constitution.

Don't give up your day job.

Great well-reasoned rebuttal as always ya fuckin hack

Other than being totally wrong about what state courts do routinely[/i], you really nailed the topic.

So school me Mr 2 degrees. Should be a slam dunk seeing as how I’m not a lawyer and I only read headlines. And don’t tell me your time is expensive because you’re in here all day. I’m all ears. Drop that knowledge fam.

State courts routinely rule whether the Federal Constitution has or has not been violated. There's really nothing more to be said about that.

Okay now explain how that precedent applies to this case using specifics.

As I've already said, there was a trial. The trial court said Daddy did it. However, the trial court concluded that the insurrection clause doesn't apply to the President. There was an appeal. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the trial court's finding of insurrection and reversed the trial court's legal conclusion that the insurrection clause does not apply to the President.

Now just imagine how bad the current president must be performing to be losing to an insurrectionist fascist in every poll.

 

[PurpleJ]

The Constitution is the law of the land, surprisingly even in Colorado.

So what jurisdiction does a state Supreme Court have over it? Why should I even need to ask a lawyer this question? Why haven’t you tried to perform a form tackle a moving train yet? Rhetorical questions. I’m sure you know what rhetorical means.

States administer elections. You seem confused by the Colorado Supreme Court's claim to have jurisdiction over Colorado.

Hey stupid. Try reading my post and responding to that. States don’t get to make determinations on violations of the US constitution.[/b] They can make up another reason to remove him if they like, but they don’t have any say on the federal constitution.

Don't give up your day job.

Great well-reasoned rebuttal as always ya fuckin hack

Other than being totally wrong about what state courts do routinely[/i], you really nailed the topic.

So school me Mr 2 degrees. Should be a slam dunk seeing as how I’m not a lawyer and I only read headlines. And don’t tell me your time is expensive because you’re in here all day. I’m all ears. Drop that knowledge fam.

State courts routinely rule whether the Federal Constitution has or has not been violated. There's really nothing more to be said about that.

Okay now explain how that precedent applies to this case using specifics.

As I've already said, there was a trial. The trial court said Daddy did it. However, the trial court concluded that the insurrection clause doesn't apply to the President. There was an appeal. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the trial court's finding of insurrection and reversed the trial court's legal conclusion that the insurrection clause does not apply to the President.

And then? Come on stupid. It can’t be that hard to figure out where I’m going with this.

 

[Sledog]

Fan Duel must have convicted Trump on a neutral field

HHusky fucking stupid

The 14th Amendment isn't that long. You should do the google machine.

Just list what Trump did to overthrow the government.

 

[Sources]

Ts&Ps for fascists with the incoming inevitable reversal

 

[Bob_C]

@hhusky, this is misinformation right?

 

[RaceBannon]

Fan Duel must have convicted Trump on a neutral field

HHusky fucking stupid

The 14th Amendment isn't that long. You should do the google machine.

If only we had a way to determine if someone was an insurrectionist, and a special counsel that could have charged him with that.

There was a five day trial, Madam.

The trial court concluded, based on the evidence presented, that Daddy engaged in insurrection.

What trial?

 

[Blueduck]

Fan Duel must have convicted Trump on a neutral field

HHusky fucking stupid

The 14th Amendment isn't that long. You should do the google machine.

If only we had a way to determine if someone was an insurrectionist, and a special counsel that could have charged him with that.

There was a five day trial, Madam.

The trial court concluded, based on the evidence presented, that Daddy engaged in insurrection.

What trial?

Im not sure what trial H is talking about but
There was a trial, it was called impeachment #2 on the charges of citing an insurrection.
he was acquitted in the senate.

Any other trial beyond that, I believe, subjects Trump to double jeopardy... But that's obviously not going to stop the left.

 

[Bendintheriver]

The Constitution is the law of the land, surprisingly even in Colorado.

So what jurisdiction does a state Supreme Court have over it? Why should I even need to ask a lawyer this question? Why haven’t you tried to perform a form tackle a moving train yet? Rhetorical questions. I’m sure you know what rhetorical means.

States administer elections. You seem confused by the Colorado Supreme Court's claim to have jurisdiction over Colorado.

Hey stupid. Try reading my post and responding to that. States don’t get to make determinations on violations of the US constitution.[/b] They can make up another reason to remove him if they like, but they don’t have any say on the federal constitution.

Don't give up your day job.

Great well-reasoned rebuttal as always ya fuckin hack

Other than being totally wrong about what state courts do routinely[/i], you really nailed the topic.

So school me Mr 2 degrees. Should be a slam dunk seeing as how I’m not a lawyer and I only read headlines. And don’t tell me your time is expensive because you’re in here all day. I’m all ears. Drop that knowledge fam.

State courts routinely rule whether the Federal Constitution has or has not been violated. There's really nothing more to be said about that.

Okay now explain how that precedent applies to this case using specifics.

As I've already said, there was a trial. The trial court said Daddy did it. However, the trial court concluded that the insurrection clause doesn't apply to the President. There was an appeal. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the trial court's finding of insurrection and reversed the trial court's legal conclusion that the insurrection clause does not apply to the President.

Now just imagine how bad the current president must be performing to be losing to an insurrectionist fascist in every poll.

Bingo. hh and his leaders can't tell the truth. This was clearly to stop Trump from being President. A serious overstep and clearly politically based. Trump did nothing to encourage an insurrection and rats know it. Rat leaders all across the country encouraged looting, rioting, burning and violence by doing nothing to stop it and telling police to stand down. Compare the rat leadership to Trump and you get a very clear view of just how evil the left is.

 

[Goduckies]

The Constitution is the law of the land, surprisingly even in Colorado.

So what jurisdiction does a state Supreme Court have over it? Why should I even need to ask a lawyer this question? Why haven’t you tried to perform a form tackle a moving train yet? Rhetorical questions. I’m sure you know what rhetorical means.

States administer elections. You seem confused by the Colorado Supreme Court's claim to have jurisdiction over Colorado.

Hey stupid. Try reading my post and responding to that. States don’t get to make determinations on violations of the US constitution.[/b] They can make up another reason to remove him if they like, but they don’t have any say on the federal constitution.

Don't give up your day job.

Great well-reasoned rebuttal as always ya fuckin hack

Other than being totally wrong about what state courts do routinely[/i], you really nailed the topic.

So school me Mr 2 degrees. Should be a slam dunk seeing as how I’m not a lawyer and I only read headlines. And don’t tell me your time is expensive because you’re in here all day. I’m all ears. Drop that knowledge fam.

State courts routinely rule whether the Federal Constitution has or has not been violated. There's really nothing more to be said about that.

Okay now explain how that precedent applies to this case using specifics.

As I've already said, there was a trial. The trial court said Daddy did it. However, the trial court concluded that the insurrection clause doesn't apply to the President. There was an appeal. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the trial court's finding of insurrection and reversed the trial court's legal conclusion that the insurrection clause does not apply to the President.

Now just imagine how bad the current president must be performing to be losing to an insurrectionist fascist in every poll.

Bingo. hh and his leaders can't tell the truth. This was clearly to stop Trump from being President. A serious overstep and clearly politically based. Trump did nothing to encourage an insurrection and rats know it. Rat leaders all across the country encouraged looting, rioting, burning and violence by doing nothing to stop it and telling police to stand down. Compare the rat leadership to Trump and you get a very clear view of just how evil the left is.

Oh he did he told them to march to congress.....

Peacefully....

Democrats forget that part.

 

[HHusky]

Fan Duel must have convicted Trump on a neutral field

HHusky fucking stupid

The 14th Amendment isn't that long. You should do the google machine.

If only we had a way to determine if someone was an insurrectionist, and a special counsel that could have charged him with that.

There was a five day trial, Madam.

The trial court concluded, based on the evidence presented, that Daddy engaged in insurrection.

What trial?

Does the news not travel to Washington anymore?

 

[RaceBannon]

Fan Duel must have convicted Trump on a neutral field

HHusky fucking stupid

The 14th Amendment isn't that long. You should do the google machine.

If only we had a way to determine if someone was an insurrectionist, and a special counsel that could have charged him with that.

There was a five day trial, Madam.

The trial court concluded, based on the evidence presented, that Daddy engaged in insurrection.

What trial?

Does the news not travel to Washington anymore?

What trial?

 

[HHusky]

Fan Duel must have convicted Trump on a neutral field

HHusky fucking stupid

The 14th Amendment isn't that long. You should do the google machine.

If only we had a way to determine if someone was an insurrectionist, and a special counsel that could have charged him with that.

There was a five day trial, Madam.

The trial court concluded, based on the evidence presented, that Daddy engaged in insurrection.

What trial?

Does the news not travel to Washington anymore?

What trial?

atta girl

 

[RaceBannon]

So no trial

Lying H strikes again

 

[Sledog]

Commies doing commie shit in commie states. Trump was never convicted of InSurReCtioN! Never been charged either. Bur this is what commies do.

 

[HHusky]

So no trial

Lying H strikes again

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/30/politics/takeaways-trump-14th-amendment-trial-colorado/index.html

The interwebs are your friend, old girl.

 

[Bob_C]

So no trial

Lying H strikes again

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/30/politics/takeaways-trump-14th-amendment-trial-colorado/index.html

The interwebs are your friend, old girl.

I think we skipped the step of charging and convicting him of that allegation, no?

 

[HHusky]

So no trial

Lying H strikes again

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/30/politics/takeaways-trump-14th-amendment-trial-colorado/index.html

The interwebs are your friend, old girl.

I think we skipped the step of charging and convicting him of that allegation, no?

You can read the 14th Amendment yourself. It's publicly available.

 

[Bob_C]

So no trial

Lying H strikes again

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/30/politics/takeaways-trump-14th-amendment-trial-colorado/index.html

The interwebs are your friend, old girl.

I think we skipped the step of charging and convicting him of that allegation, no?

You can read the 14th Amendment yourself. It's publicly available.

So no conviction is required, are you sticking with that?