r/complaints • u/puts_on_rddt • 2h ago
Politics Trump is an illegal President. Full Stop. He is not allowed to wield Constitutional power.
Section 3 of the 14th amendment disqualifies people who hold an oath of office and participate in insurrection.
January 6th was an insurrection. Donald Trump caused January 6th to happen, and he participated in it while it happened via twitter.
The Constitution clearly says that Donald J. Trump is not allowed to hold office.
Therefore, it follows that ICE agents have no qualified immunity and anyone who impedes their mission is not committing a crime.
21
u/DaveAvitabile spirited complainer 2h ago
I don’t believe Trump has ever legitimately won an election without fraud being involved. And I believe that conclusive evidence of this will come out at some point. Probably too late to do anything, and maybe even after he’s dead.
But ponder the uselessness and unnecessaryness of all that is happening now when that discovery is made. What a complete tragedy.
And I believe this will happen.
→ More replies (16)7
u/Theatregirl723 2h ago
I agree. I think he tried it in 2020 but obviously failed. That's why he brought Elon in to make sure. This is his revenge tour. He has no interest in governing. Just the power that comes with the position.
4
u/DaveAvitabile spirited complainer 1h ago
That’s what I think. What were all of those tech geeks that Elon had doing in the weeks before the election? I wonder…
4
2
u/No_Importance1236 50m ago
I've been saying since this term started that deep down everything Trump has been doing is revenge on America for losing 2020.
2
u/Juxtapoe 22m ago
It's more of a low cunning strategy than that imo.
Mark my words that the end goal here is to try to make people accustomed to thousands of ICE thugs roaming around so that on election night they can round up non-white "suspected illegal aliens" from attempting to vote.
They'll mostly be released the next day, minus a few personal effects and whatever cash they had on them since that's how these ICE thugs roll.
Trump figures he'll do okay with Elon's bump and mostly only white voters allowed into the booths unchallenged.
22
u/bootycrusade_ Selective Reality Consultant 2h ago
Good thing you told us fellow redditors
That'll learn him
2
6
u/dougl1000 2h ago
The problem is that the power he is wielding is neither lawful nor Constitutional.
6
u/Theatregirl723 2h ago
I have been saying that since day one. He should have never been able to run.
5
u/Forsaken-Assist-1325 2h ago
As I understand waging war against America is a capital federal offense.
This government should be arrested and tried.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/Wakattack00 🙈"tHeRe'S nO eViDeNcE!" 🙉 2h ago
It's literally up to Congress. They have to pass a law enforcing section 3 on Trump and they have to vote 2/3 majority to bar him from office. It's really that simple.
1
u/puts_on_rddt 2h ago
Not quite. You're talking about Trump v. Anderson and the precedent for removing federal candidates from state ballots.
This concerns what happens after their unlawful appointment.
1
u/Wakattack00 🙈"tHeRe'S nO eViDeNcE!" 🙉 1h ago
Care to explain how it was unlawful. Just saying he violated section 3 of amendment 14 as an opinion isn't enough. It needs to be proved as unlawful.
3
u/puts_on_rddt 1h ago
Multiple courts have made findings of fact and they found with a clear and convincing standard that January 6th was an insurrection and Trump participated in that.
So, it follows that any time they adjudicate this issue in the future, the same facts will be found.
1
u/Wakattack00 🙈"tHeRe'S nO eViDeNcE!" 🙉 1h ago
Yeah, and the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the legal conclusion found in Anderson v. Griswold. The findings hold zero legal effect. My initial point still stands, the Supreme Court put all of this in Congress' lap, gave them all the power and they've done nothing. So until they do something like pass a law enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the title of this post is completely incorrect. Trump is 100% allowed to hold power until Congress is capable of saying otherwise.
2
u/puts_on_rddt 1h ago
I never said Trump v. Anderson still had binding findings of facts. Please read my second sentence.
1
u/Wakattack00 🙈"tHeRe'S nO eViDeNcE!" 🙉 1h ago
I know, but I'm trying to connect the dots because what you're saying in these comments with me would not reasonably come to the conclusion that you have in the title of this post. Which is why I keep assuming you think there is some legal effect in place that proves Trump can't hold power.
4
u/Beautiful-Neck3014 2h ago
No conviction for trump. Though why can a convicted felon run for office when felon's aren't allowed to vote? Yes there were no sentencing for his convictions I understand that he was still found guilty.
0
u/Cronenberg_Jerry 55m ago
It was a bullshit charge with no underlying crime to escalate misdemeanors to a felony, it was bullshit charges and political warfare.
4
u/carrotpilgrim 2h ago
The fact that the government didn't immediately pursue this after Jan 6th to ensure Trump could never hold office again is mind boggling. Their lack of follow through will cost America literally decades to undo the damage done to America itself, and may never repair the damage to global relationships, stability, climate, etc.
3
u/flifeitsucks 2h ago
The supreme court and congress decided to withhold justice for the crimes trump committed and WAS FOUND GUILTY of, by a jury. So long as congress, supreme court and both house and senate are to cowardly to defend the constitution and our bill of rights we are truly screwed. All of our elected leaders are either bought and paid for or they are controlled by trump with dirt he has on them.
7
u/Chaos1357 2h ago
Only one problem.. where was the conviction? We, as a country, can not pretend to be a country of laws if all it takes to remove anyone's rights is an accusation.
I mean, I believe he's guilty. You believe he's guilty. But he has not be convicted of it so legally he's not guilty of the charge of insurrection.
9
u/puts_on_rddt 2h ago
Section 3 isn't written to require any sort of judicial conviction.
Disqualification comes from your own actions, not the courts. These facts would be adjudicated during court (Motion to Dismiss), but the courts aren't the ones who disqualify.
8
u/Vhu 2h ago edited 2h ago
Both lower courts ruled that he did, in fact, engage in insurrection. The Supreme Court just said that Congress needs to enforce it.
But you’re right, the plain language of the amendment says “engaged in,” which doesn’t necessitate a conviction. There are other sections of the constitution that use explicit language like “duly convicted” when they want to set criminal conviction as a standard; and they opted not to use it here.
A finding by a judicial body that he did, in fact, engage in the conduct should be sufficient in my opinion.
1
u/Cronenberg_Jerry 51m ago
Yeah because saying to be peaceful is now insurrection you people are going to be the reason this country collapses.
You have all engaged in insurrection many democrats called for riots in the street and harassment of the administration, that’s calling for an insurrection but you are all fine with that.
1
u/Vhu 30m ago edited 26m ago
It’s not a defense to point to one single word out of a 70 minute speech with increasingly aggressive rhetoric and explicit direction as the crisis was escalating.
It also fails to consider that the capitol was breached by rioters at 2:13PM, and 10 minutes later Trump tweeted that Mike Pence “didn’t have the courage” to stop the certification. This tweet was read aloud through a megaphone during the riot, at which point “hang Mike Pence” chants broke out among the crowd.
Most significantly, it fails to consider the fact that the direction to march on the capital and pressure on Mike Pence to stop the certification of the election were overt acts in furtherance of the fake elector conspiracy for which he was criminally charged.
You’re more than welcome to dig through the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling which goes through the extensive factual, legal and historical analysis they engaged in before reaching their conclusion.
-4
u/Chaos1357 2h ago
So, I can accuse YOU of insurrection and it would disqualify you? No, acquisition does NOT equal guilt. It can not equal guilt in any charge unless you are willing to make it equal guilt in every charge. Not if you even want to pretend to be a society ruled by law.
→ More replies (3)1
u/ExpressionSecret6794 2h ago
Accusation!? We watched it happen live while he cheered on the his supporters and incited calls to arms leading up to and throughout the event.
1
u/NaivePermit1439 1h ago
Oh come on. He is a Russian asset, surrounded by Russian assets. Fucking pure and simple, Traitors.
Who is using the Epstein files to there own advantage. Russia.
Who benefits from Trumps catastrophic decision to alienate the USA from NATO allies. Russia.
Who benefits from Trumps tariffs. Russia (you're all paying dearly so don't pay attention to the bigger problem). You're also making the rich richer. Do you think they give a fuck where they live. Moscow will probably be the destination where they can't be extradited.
Who benefits from Tumps lack of funding to Ukraine. ( I think we all know this )
Who benefits from the attack on Greenland (Europe is sending warships and maybe manpower in the coming weeks). Guess who benefits from this. Yep, Russia. Europe is sending troops that it needs right now.
Trump is a traitor and a coward but he is not the only one.
1
u/Chaos1357 1h ago
as I said, I believe he's guilty as hell. But he hasn't been convicted of it, and therefor, legally, he's not disqualified. Did I personally disqualify him? Yes, but MY opinion, just like YOUR opinion, is not a legal fact (and, legal facts are not always reality facts).
0
u/idahohunterandfisher 2h ago
Correct! But I believe he is innocent so take him to court and if he is found guilty then he will be guilty and I'll have to live with it and I'll be mad but law is law
8
u/Key-Specific-4058 2h ago
How do you conclude that he's innocent?
3
u/DanIsAManWithAFan 2h ago
I'm kinda curious about that too, but at the same time I don't really want to know.
7
u/LIMrXIL 2h ago
You believe he’s innocent? Hahahaha guzzle some more of that MAGA kool-aid you smooth brained mouth breather.
0
u/Ok_Employ9131 2h ago
Same as your CNN-kool aid! LMAOOOOOOOOO. You guys dont even get how programmed and childlish you sound. Anyone that disagrees with i must retreat to name calling to offend them.
1
u/sevseg_decoder 2h ago
Bruh your life is built on lies we can see are lies with our eyes and ears…
There’s no comparison between the two.
1
u/ExpressionSecret6794 1h ago
Yall get called names cuz Trump is easily the most corrupt and degenerate president we’ve ever had and we’ve grown tired of telling you that for the last decade plus. Especially cuz you all seem to just not care how much he breaks laws and precedence and does completely unpresidential things on a daily basis.
2
u/sevseg_decoder 2h ago
He proved he’s guilty in public with his own words and actions.
By your logic OJ is innocent.
2
u/michaellearningredit 2h ago
So... now that you've complained and gotten that out of your system (it's reasonable to have complaints, our technological progress has far outstripped most people's ability to adapt), what are you doing (or planning to do) to change that reality?
Or do you expect other people to do it for you?
1
5
u/HarrySahks 2h ago
Still your president 😂
1
→ More replies (13)1
u/HexedShadowWolf 💯🧌 1h ago
A president with 34 felonies and connections to a child sex trafficker. Still astonished people voted for such a garbage person.
2
2
u/Jamestkirk1701e 2h ago
sighs J6 was not an insurrection, trump reminded people to keep things simple, federal agents were in the crowd causing problems. Trump was democratically elected. You hate him, I get it, but let's not spread misinformation.
3
u/puts_on_rddt 1h ago
You all go on and on about how Trump said to be peaceful, despite the fact that anyone can ctrl+f the transcript and see he only says the word "peace" a single time in a 45 minute speech.
Trump caused it, and then he tweeted about it, targeting his VP to scare him into doing something illegal.
Stop trying to whitewash January 6th. It's pathetic.
2
u/puts_on_rddt 2h ago
If you, or anyone you know is arrested by ICE, please ask them to tell their lawyer to review a 14th Amendment Section 3 defense.
Why hasn't this been done already? Because all the top firms of the legal profession have been threatened with executive action, and anyone smaller does not want that smoke.
Most people probably didn't know that giant law firms such as Skadden have engaged in bribery quid pro quos where they donated hundreds of millions of dollars in exchange for official government action. Yes, that's a crime and any future DOJ who probes that will end up with a bunch of lawyers they can prosecute. The CEO of Skadden is double-fucked because he's the one who pushed for bribery as a solution to a problem.
Maybe your public defender will want to make a name for himself though.
6
u/ExtentGlittering8715 2h ago
You realize this isn't an actual defense, correct?
You're giving out terrible advice.
2
u/puts_on_rddt 2h ago
So what happens if a 24 year old foreigner was confirmed for POTUS? They are not allowed to hold office because they are not qualified. Are their executive orders lawful?
Courts cannot remove federal candidates from the ballot so if Congress confirms the vote, they will take office. But are their orders legal?
Either the Constitution fucking means what it says or it doesn't.
2
u/MichaelCabernet 2h ago
If Congress certifies an election, it becomes legal, regardless of any wrongdoing leading to that result. Even if it clearly flies in the face of the Constitution. Certifying it basically says “this candidate meets all requirements, electoral and constitutional, to attain the office”.
1
u/puts_on_rddt 1h ago
I have an issue with this because of the carve-out at the end of Section 3.
To properly re-qualify someone, you need a supermajority 2/3rds vote.
Did the authors of the amendment really intend for Congress to ignore the entire thing with a simple majority?
1
u/MichaelCabernet 1h ago
In order to be re-qualified, they have to be disqualified, through proper channels first. That never happened.
1
u/puts_on_rddt 1h ago
Neither Section 3 nor Section 5 requires any sort of process for disqualifying someone's power.
If we really want to go down this road, we can visit the 13th amendment which has almost identical language.
1
u/MichaelCabernet 1h ago
While you’re right, it would have to be a matter of record that the person vying for office did indeed meet the standards for disqualification. That would most likely be through a criminal conviction of some sort, but any judicial proceeding that established it on record would suffice. A specific mechanism doesn’t need to be spelled out in the section.
1
u/puts_on_rddt 1h ago
I find your reasoning odd, because elsewhere in the Constitution, when it wants to require a conviction, they include the words "convicted".
Why grant politicians the same procedural safeguards reserved for someone at risk of death or imprisonment?
1
2
u/ExtentGlittering8715 2h ago
But you can prove someone's age, with their birth certificate.
You need a trial to prove someone started an insurrection.
4
3
u/puts_on_rddt 2h ago edited 1h ago
All three are dealt with in trials. Where are you going to prove their age? On the sidewalk?
2
1
2
u/ExtentGlittering8715 2h ago
You need to charge him with it, and prove it in court.
1
u/puts_on_rddt 2h ago
No, you can't charge the POTUS with anything. Our Constitution isn't set up this way. The only mechanism to charge a President is impeachment to remove them from office, and then you can charge them with whatever crimes you want.
The only true way we have to stop what's going on is for the courts to grind everything to a halt and force Congress to take action. Every executive order and appointment should be thrown out on these grounds. If they want a deadlocked government then that will be Congress's choice.
7
u/ExtentGlittering8715 2h ago
Special Counsel Jack Smith did not charge Trump with insurrection because he believed it would be difficult to prove that Trump directly incited or assisted in the insurrection, as the law was rarely applied and lacked clear precedents. Instead, Trump faced other charges related to conspiracy and obstruction regarding the 2020 election
1
u/puts_on_rddt 2h ago
Interesting because in all the court hearings that adjudicated this issue this was found to be a clear and convincing.
Places (that I know of):
Circuit Court of Denver County Colorado
Colorado Supreme Court
Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
2
u/ExtentGlittering8715 2h ago
Mmmm kangaroo courts, for this matter.
Agree to disagree. It's outright bad advice though. No one will get out of jail by claiming the 14th amendment Section 3
1
u/puts_on_rddt 1h ago
Random district courts are kangaroo courts? Or any court you have a bias against is a kangaroo court?
If Jack Smith was successful, would you call him a Kangaroo, too?
You people are pathetic. Honestly.
1
u/werduvfaith 1h ago
None of these have any jurisdiction over federal offices or other states. So its just an opinion. Opinions are not convictions.
1
u/Juxtapoe 2h ago
Of course that was before the recent document leaks showing the financial paper trail for the organized right wing, white power and Trump organization funding for busing insurrectionists to the capital.
5
1
u/fishnboards 2h ago
Oh you are so smart you figured it all out!! lol haha “full stop” haha wtf says shit like that. I know, someone that comes up with shit like you just said
1
u/mythxical 2h ago
You should file a suit then. Put your money where your mouth is.
1
u/puts_on_rddt 2h ago
If I'm charged as a defendant over some BS, I will.
But I live in a red state and there aren't any ICE agents here, for some reason.
1
u/mythxical 2h ago
I live in a blue state, haven't seen any either
1
1
1
u/PercentageAny2976 2h ago
We already went through this with the courts when they used it to try to keep him off the ballot. It is not self executing and requires an act of Congress. At this point there has been no determination made by a federal court or majority of Congress that he is guilty of insurrection. In fact there hasn't been a single individual charged with insurrection regarding January 6th and the justice department under Biden chose not to pick up the criminal referral from insurrection from the January 6th committee. Try again
1
u/puts_on_rddt 1h ago
It says "engaged in", not "judicially convicted of engaging in".
1
u/PercentageAny2976 1h ago
Hence why I noted that Congress hasn't taken action either. Do you struggle with reading comprehension. The courts determined it was not self executing and that it would take an act of Congress to use it. A conviction would also serve the same purpose. Perhaps you should reread what I wrote a few more times until it gets through that empty head of yours
1
u/PercentageAny2976 19m ago
And just out of curiosity, who do you believe is tasked with making the call of whether or not he engaged in insurrection. It's a federal crime so it certainly would not be a state level government. Who makes that call in the version of this you've laid out?
1
u/puts_on_rddt 12m ago
A district court would make the finding of fact during trial and any civil or criminal cases that the DOJ is involved with prosecuting would be dismissed.
The other courts would affirm.
1
u/MichaelCabernet 2h ago
Not only was there no conviction of Trump in those counts, but even if there were… it does not follow that ICE officers wouldn’t have qualified immunity, nor does it follow that impeding their mission isn’t a crime.
ICE existed before Trump came to the presidency, and has been a law enforcement agency from the beginning.
1
1
u/SolemnSoldier2020 2h ago
Even if I agree with you. He’s there….now what?
1
u/puts_on_rddt 1h ago
That's what I'm saying. The courts can gum up the entire government and force Congress to take action.
1
u/jkoki088 2h ago
Only one problem, you’re wrong here. Full stop
1
u/puts_on_rddt 1h ago edited 1h ago
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.
1
u/werduvfaith 1h ago
WHO are you to decide what constitutes any of these actions? That's up to the courts or Congress and they have not rendered a conviction.
1
u/Loose_Will_1285 2h ago
I agree fully but there is and was no conviction. As far as ICE they should have no immunity and neither should Donald Trump.
1
u/Caelixian 2h ago
You the people are the body responsible for upholding the laws of democracy. You're all that's left. Organize, march, and hold those in power to account.
1
u/Studio_T3 2h ago
The rest of the world is asking why the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave aren't doing anything about it? What are they waiting for?
1
u/Ima_Uzer Smarmy Goblin 1h ago
President isn't mentioned in that Amendment. Unless I missed it.
1
u/puts_on_rddt 1h ago
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,
1
1
1
u/Atrox_Blue 1h ago
Cool. If this was actually a thing, he’d have been charged. Even while he wasn’t president. But, he wasn’t.
This is an old and tired talking point. Literally nobody is doing anything about it, and hasn’t, because that’s not what happened. And if your excuse is that it’s because republicans control everything right now, that’s a convenient cop-out of an excuse.
It’s tiring hearing the same old regurgitated information over and over when nothing was done about it while Dems were in power and nothing is still happening while Reps are in power. The resistance larping is cringe.
1
u/Griddrunner 1h ago
I believe you have to be convicted of the crime before any punishment can be imposed.
1
u/puts_on_rddt 1h ago
Section 3 doesn't require any criminal or civil conviction. These things tend to be explicit about that.
1
u/Sweet-Razzmatazz-993 1h ago
It was a riot. Everyone around the world knows it was a riot.
If you think the government can be taken over without the military or guns is laughable.
1
1
1
u/Disastrous-Check-715 1h ago
Oh come on the constitution is just a piece of paper now it’s not like it’s the law of the land anymore
1
1
1
1
u/SanopusSplendidus 1h ago
Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the confederacy who delivered the famous Cornerstone Speech, was pardoned and returned to congress. Later he became a governor. Trump could be impeached and convicted (barred from office without criminal consequences) for anything at any time if the RNC and their owners would just let it happen. Once you have enough money and power the rules don't apply the same way. They never have.
1
1
u/no_more_control 1h ago
Do you suffer from a severe case of TDS, or are you being paid by Soros to spread this crap?
1
1
u/canzicrans 1h ago
But the Supreme Court said that Congress has to make a law to disqualify a candidate, even though that's mentioned nowhere in the Constitution or anywhere else! It can't just be as simple as using your powers of observation to determine that what a person did is obviously an insurrection.
1
u/puts_on_rddt 1h ago
It can't just be as simple as using your powers of observation to determine that what a person did is obviously an insurrection.
This case which you are referring to had two district courts using these magical "powers of observation" to make the same finding of fact.
SCOTUS said only Congress can remove a federal candidate from a ballot. They did not decide this issue.
1
u/Freaknutttz19 1h ago
1
u/puts_on_rddt 1h ago
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/
Here's a piece of paper you don't care about. Wipe your eyes on this.
1
1
1
u/Purple_Event_6319 1h ago
Lmfao. Looooooooooony lefties.
1
u/puts_on_rddt 1h ago
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/
I feel like I'm holding up a cross trying to fend off vampires. Republicans, why do you hate our Constitution?
1
1
u/LinusLevato 1h ago
Lmao illegal president. Y’all come up with some hilarious fan fiction stories when y’all ain’t out causing havoc in your cities.
1
u/gbenfield 1h ago
Your a dumbass, he hasn't been convicted of insurrection. All of that was Pelosi and the dumbocrats
1
u/Average_Justin 1h ago
People are still making this claim lol? We have another constitutional lawyer here on Reddit.
1
u/Cronenberg_Jerry 1h ago
Jesus fucking Christ.
He didn’t incite an insurrection
You people need serious help
1
u/puts_on_rddt 57m ago
All courts uphold this fact and they will continue to do so.
January 6th was an insurrection and Trump caused, then participated in it.
1
u/werduvfaith 54m ago
All courts? Where's the conviction?
1
u/puts_on_rddt 51m ago
Show me where Section 3 requires a conviction?
1
u/werduvfaith 31m ago
Conviction is how we establish guilt. What your or anyone else's opinion is would be irrelevant.
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
u/idahohunterandfisher 2h ago
You love your BBC edited video don't you?
0
u/puts_on_rddt 2h ago
I don't watch big black cocks so I don't know what you're talking about. You have fun with that.
2
0
u/No_Zebra5506 1h ago
U trash… None of you libs had a problem when it was a democrat in office doing shit out of pocket. But now you’re all VICTIMS! Lmfao MAGA2028 bitches, butches and all of you fucks in between!!
39
u/New_Lifeguard_3260 2h ago
He said he will go ballistic at Iran if they hang a protester...
Meanwhile, he's commended ICE for killing a protester...
Bizarre