Thanks for being around. I might still do some gaming in the future, but I feel that I must focus on this for the time being.

love the projection bud 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Trump and Elon are totally the friends of the American people and lovers of Truth and the Constitution 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 You should try comedy, you're really good at it

I love me someone who lacks even the bare minimum understanding of what their own Constitution says... In the United States-until MAGA destroys it-insurrection does NOT happen against the "government" or "current government". Insurrection happens against the CONSTITUTION itself. When Trump lied about FAKE voter fraud and convinced MAGA that the country was being stolen, and that led to the Jan 6th violence that SOUGHT TO DISRUPT A CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS, that was INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, and when he sat there while they broke into the halls of Congress and chanted that they wanted to HANG the vice president and sent tweets saying Pence failed to do the "right thing"-showing allegiance to the Constitution instead of him-that was him ENGAGING IN INSURRECITON AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, and providing AID AND COMFORT for the ENEMIES OF THE CONSTITUTION (the insurrectionists)... Go learn a thing or two before having verbal diarrhea... Also, DISQUALIFICATION is not a REMEDY that requires a CRIMINAL CONVICTION, because the CONSTITUTION provides it a REMEDY for a political process, IMPEACHMENT, which has a much lower standard... Whether or not someone OUGHT to be charged with a CRIME depends on the REMEDY being sought against that ACTION in question. For example, consider the ACTION where you defraud a bunch of people... If I seek as a REMEDY, to have you PAY people back for having DEFRAUED them, then I would go after you CIVILY, in which case I would have to meet a STANDARD which DOES NOT RISE to the CRIMINAL STANDARD, which would be, GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BY A JURY OF YOUR PEERS. On the other hand, if the REMEDY I seek is your IMPRISONMENT for the exact same ACTION, then I would HAVE TO charge you criminally and meet the CRIMINAL STANDARD. So, whether or not Trump OUGHT to be charged with insurrection DEPENDS on the REMEDY being sought. Now, let's examine DISQUALIFICATION FROM OFFICE as a REMEDY. There's this thing you may have heard of called the Constitution... you MAGAs claim to love it... so let's take a look what it says about the REMEDY of DISQUALIFICATION. It shows up CLEAR as day in the IMPEACHEMENT Clause as a potential added REMEDY to REMOVAL from office as part of the impeachment process, WHICH IN ITSELF is entirely POLITICAL, with a STANDARD EVEN LOWER than that of a CIVIL SUIT, since among many things, the IMPEACHMENT process is entirely political and open to partisan bias that can't be appealed in such grounds... Now, DO NOT MISTAKE what I'm saying for suggesting that Trump's DISQUALIFICATION has ANYTHING to do with his IMPEACHMENT proceedings. This is not what I'm saying at all, I'm ONLY bringing up how impeachment works to SHOW you without any ambiguity that the CONSTITUTION itself has set the STANDARD, NON-CRIMINAL, that is required to impose the REMEDY of DISQUALIFICATION upon someone. Therefore, because the CONSTITUTION itself prescribes DISQUALIFICATION as a REMEDY for which the CRIMINAL STANDARD is NOT REQUIRED, anyone who gives a DAMN about the CONSTITUTION would not make the DEMENTED argument that Trump can't be DISUALIFIED from office simply because he was not charged with the CRIME OF INSURRECTION. That'd be different if anyone had been trying to throw him in prison for it, THEN, and only THEN, would an intelligent person say that he MUST first be charged with a CRIME.

@@MrLukium Dismissive language of what you do not agree with does not validate your inane interpretation of the constitution. You wrote a long winded misinterpretation of the constitution. You are desperately grasping at straws. You are interpreting what you want out of the constitution and not what it was intended to be. Good luck with that. Congress is full of lawyers. Lawyers who consult constantly with constitutional experts for their proposals and bills. Apparently you think you know the constitution better than the officials whose every action in their congressional responsibilities have to be in accordance with the laws and the constitution. The legal facts are: 1- Trump was never indicted or convicted of insurrection, 2- It’s impossible to commit insurrection when he was the head of state of the government you are alleging insurrection against, 3- Even the feeble impeachment after he was no longer in office failed and was acquitted by congress. The facts are consisten with the constitution. Trump is eligible to become president again and has won the majority of both the electoral votes and the popular vote. It’s undisputed. The left threw everything they could including the kitchen sink, twisting, manipulating and weaponizing the legal system and colluding with the leftist media against their political rival. They could not disqualify their political rival despite their every effort in true Banana Republic tradition. They failed! Trump won! In fact no one at all was Indicted or convicted for insurrection. Every individual politically persecuted and convicted for the January 6th protest were convicted for trivial charges like trespassing, breaking and entering, property crimes, etc.., They did not have a case against anyone on the basis of “insurrection”. If they had they would have perused it. You are also misrepresenting the articles of the constitution you are quoting. They were intended specifically to disenfranchise secessionist from the civil war and prevent them from ever taking office again. All of which later were granted amnesty. The constitution is very clear on these amendments, the wording is very specific as to what does and does not apply to the President. You can not generalize the language and take it out of context to suit your political agenda to disenfranchise the will of the majority of the American voters and the electoral college. That may happen where you come from but we are not a Banana Republic, at least not yet.

lol... Insurrection isn't against the head of state, insurrection, in a Constitutional Republic-which we still are, for the time being-is against the Constitution itself... sorry to break it to you, but your very assertion that you can't engage in insurrection if you're the head of state is proof that you understand very little of what you're talking about... Next, are you suggesting that the 14th Amendment was meant to apply only to participants in the Civil War? Care to point to where it says that? Also, you're wrong about the Amnesty of 1872, not everyone who was in the Confederacy received Amnesty... so you don't even know the basic relevant History...

@@MrLukium LMAO How can you discuss the constitution and its amendments when you don’t even grasp the history and circumstances around when the amendments were written. How dense do you have to be to try and interpret the constitution in a vacuum without knowing the history and what, when and why each amendment was drafted. So sad for you… The constitution is a living document, written and intended to stay relevant to the changing times, that is what makes it unique. Rather than scraping it and writing a new constitution every few decades. It is the very reason no one seriously pursued what you are incoherently arguing. It doesn’t meet the legal definition of insurrection, it doesn’t rise to the legal level of insurrection and it doesn’t meet the criteria in their historical and legal context of the amendments you are distorting.

@jean-claudelol563 Let me know when you're ready to make a substantive argument against anything I have said instead of vomiting random words that are meaningless...

Simple question: If the "people" chose to elect a 15-year-old born, say, in Germany, to be President, should the Congress and Senate certify that vote, going directly against the Constitution?

@@MrLukium I will agree to disagree with you on this issue and time will tell what will happen. I certainly hope that time sides with Trump on this issue. Putting this political vividness to rest. I personally think the current administration hates this country!

I have no doubt that things will go Trump's way, because Democrats are spineless

@@MrLukium Democrats are far worse than spineless. Democrats have become communists. Communists do not believe in the Constitution of the US and the Bill of Rights. They are against both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and believe they should be done away with altogether!

I wrote a separate ~7000 word essay which is the basis of what I explained here. If you're like to read it, you can find it here: lukium.substack.com/p/loyalty-to-the-constitution-a-case It goes in a lot more detail, including the mechanisms of the Electoral Count Reform Act 2022 and how it modified the original Electoral Count Act, and how those modifications provide for Congress to do their job tomorrow (01/06/2025) in refusing to certify the votes not regularly given. I did not go into the disqualification of those doing the certification, but I might update it to include that.

Actually, by DEFINITION, there was an INSURRECTION, because that was DETERMINED by a LEGAL COURT... Unlike you, I don't take my orders from biased media outlets, legacy or independent... you think you did "research" because some idiot on facebook/telegram/youtube told you something... you didn't, that's why I clearly say not to even listen to me... go read the court cases, go read the sworn testimony, go look at evidence presented in court, not what Tucker, or Elon, or Shapiro, or Fox is spoon feeding you... The FBI DID have people in the CROWD, but not to STIR things up, they WERE THERE because they were ASSIGNED to keep an eye on CREDIBLE THREATS because SCUM like the proud boys, oath keepers, and other pretend "Americans" whose allegiance are NOT to the CONSTITUTION but to DJT had MADE IT KNOWN that they were a threat... If you think you have to be charged with insurrection to be disqualified by Section 3, you're just UTTERLY ignorant of how laws work, the historical record and legal precedent... copy and paste from my other comment to someone making the same claim: "You fundamentally misunderstand how laws work... I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt since it's still early in the day and I'm feeling patient (haven't read through enough dumb comments yet) Whether or not someone OUGHT to be charged with a CRIME depends on the REMEDY being sought against that ACTION in question. For example, consider the ACTION where you defraud a bunch of people... If I seek as a REMEDY, to have you PAY people back for having DEFRAUED them, then I would go after you CIVILY, in which case I would have to meet a STANDARD which DOES NOT RISE to the CRIMINAL STANDARD, which would be, GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BY A JURY OF YOUR PEERS. On the other hand, if the REMEDY I seek is your IMPRISONMENT for the exact same ACTION, then I would HAVE TO charge you criminally and meet the CRIMINAL STANDARD. So, whether or not Trump OUGHT to be charged with insurrection DEPENDS on the REMEDY being sought. Now, let's examine DISQUALIFICATION FROM OFFICE as a REMEDY. There's this thing you may have heard of called the Constitution... you MAGAs claim to love it... so let's take a look what it says about the REMEDY of DISQUALIFICATION. It shows up CLEAR as day in the IMPEACHEMENT Clause as a potential added REMEDY to REMOVAL from office as part of the impeachment process, WHICH IN ITSELF is entirely POLITICAL, with a STANDARD EVEN LOWER than that of a CIVIL SUIT, since among many things, the IMPEACHMENT process is entirely political and open to partisan bias that can't be appealed in such grounds... Now, DO NOT MISTAKE what I'm saying for suggesting that Trump's DISQUALIFICATION has ANYTHING to do with his IMPEACHMENT proceedings. This is not what I'm saying at all, I'm ONLY bringing up how impeachment works to SHOW you without any ambiguity that the CONSTITUTION itself has set the STANDARD, NON-CRIMINAL, that is required to impose the REMEDY of DISQUALIFICATION upon someone. Therefore, because the CONSTITUTION itself prescribes DISQUALIFICATION as a REMEDY for which the CRIMINAL STANDARD is NOT REQUIRED, anyone who gives a DAMN about the CONSTITUTION would not make the DEMENTED argument that Trump can't be DISUALIFIED from office simply because he was not charged with the CRIME OF INSURRECTION. That'd be different if anyone had been trying to throw him in prison for it, THEN, and only THEN, would an intelligent person say that he MUST first be charged with a CRIME."

Thank you... See, right here is perfect proof of my point and how being part of MAGA is a total and complete betrayal of America and the Constitution. No! Insurrection is NOT an ACT done against the president because no American owes allegiance to any man or office. Insurrection, in the US, can ONLY be an act against the Constitution itself. If your allegiance is to anything BUT the Constitution, as is the case for every MAGA Cultist, whose allegiance is to Donald Trump, not the Constitution, then you're an American In Name Only (Is this a thing already, if not, I'm making it, AINO), for you have forsaken your country. This was THE VERY POINT of my argument, which you so clearly missed due to your blind allegiance to your MAGA Jesus... I'm sorry for you...

@@MrLukium You have a disease called TDS get over it. Biden and the deep state is done destroying this Country. Americans in favor of Trump as President are not cultists We are America as in We the People. Insurrection is the act of over throwing an Elected President by force.

😂You and Trump are insurrectionists and traitors. Trump is not President, and WILL be removed from office.

He will technically be president, only illegitimately

You should consult a dictionary before using words you don't know. It makes claims of ignorance ironic. "insurrection, an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt." The standing president is NOT the government.

Specifically, the 1872 Act removed office-holding disqualifications against most of the secessionists who rebelled in the Civil War, except for "Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States." So the amnesty was not only not universally applied to everyone, it was limited to combatants in the war.

@bobgreenwald8715 thank you for providing a concise and perfect explanation of the facts. One important thing to add... Congress could not, even if it wanted, pass a single Act (as opposed to getting an amendment ratified), which would nullify an existing Amendment. The very idea that this person would suggest this to be possible is proof that they lack even the bare minimum understanding of what the Constitution is or how it works... It's no wonder we find ourselves in this mess...

@@bobgreenwald8715 "Are hereby removed". Where does it say to only combatants in the civil war? If they are "removed" then they are gone until reinstated. Where is the legislation that brought them back? Perhaps the stated exemption was not applied to future generations because they were not living yet?

@@MrLukium The amazing thing about law is that it does not exist without statute language. "Are hereby removed" exists in statute language we can read it. Where do I find the statute language says "Are hereby reinstated"? Removed is removed until some language brings it back. Remind me again where that bring it back is.

@@bobgreenwald8715 The President is not an officer. Officers are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate as a Constitutional requirement. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: No president has ever nominated another president much less been confirmed by the Senate.

Time to go through another wave of copying and pasting the same thing down for all the same people making the same bad argument... Trump had a trial sufficient to disqualify him, the one in Colorado... if you don't get that... You fundamentally misunderstand how laws work... I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt since it's still early in the day and I'm feeling patient (haven't read through enough dumb comments yet) Whether or not someone OUGHT to be charged with a CRIME depends on the REMEDY being sought against that ACTION in question. For example, consider the ACTION where you defraud a bunch of people... If I seek as a REMEDY, to have you PAY people back for having DEFRAUED them, then I would go after you CIVILY, in which case I would have to meet a STANDARD which DOES NOT RISE to the CRIMINAL STANDARD, which would be, GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BY A JURY OF YOUR PEERS. On the other hand, if the REMEDY I seek is your IMPRISONMENT for the exact same ACTION, then I would HAVE TO charge you criminally and meet the CRIMINAL STANDARD. So, whether or not Trump OUGHT to be charged with insurrection DEPENDS on the REMEDY being sought. Now, let's examine DISQUALIFICATION FROM OFFICE as a REMEDY. There's this thing you may have heard of called the Constitution... you MAGAs claim to love it... so let's take a look what it says about the REMEDY of DISQUALIFICATION. It shows up CLEAR as day in the IMPEACHEMENT Clause as a potential added REMEDY to REMOVAL from office as part of the impeachment process, WHICH IN ITSELF is entirely POLITICAL, with a STANDARD EVEN LOWER than that of a CIVIL SUIT, since among many things, the IMPEACHMENT process is entirely political and open to partisan bias that can't be appealed in such grounds... Now, DO NOT MISTAKE what I'm saying for suggesting that Trump's DISQUALIFICATION has ANYTHING to do with his IMPEACHMENT proceedings. This is not what I'm saying at all, I'm ONLY bringing up how impeachment works to SHOW you without any ambiguity that the CONSTITUTION itself has set the STANDARD, NON-CRIMINAL, that is required to impose the REMEDY of DISQUALIFICATION upon someone. Therefore, because the CONSTITUTION itself prescribes DISQUALIFICATION as a REMEDY for which the CRIMINAL STANDARD is NOT REQUIRED, anyone who gives a DAMN about the CONSTITUTION would not make the DEMENTED argument that Trump can't be DISUALIFIED from office simply because he was not charged with the CRIME OF INSURRECTION. That'd be different if anyone had been trying to throw him in prison for it, THEN, and only THEN, would an intelligent person say that he MUST first be charged with a CRIME.

Your opinion means nothing at all! Trump was not convicted it was thrown out for lack of evidence! This is nothing more than a political overreach by the states and the Supreme Court of the US ruled that the states can block his election!

Show me where the case was thrown out for lack of evidence... You must be mistaking this case for all the Trump cases that DID get thrown out for lack of standing/evidence...

and Elon is your mommy... oh wait, no... Elon is your daddy, and Trump is your mommy, that's right...

Time to go through another wave of copying and pasting the same thing down for all the same people making the same bad argument... Trump had a trial sufficient to disqualify him, the one in Colorado... if you don't get that... You fundamentally misunderstand how laws work... I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt since it's still early in the day and I'm feeling patient (haven't read through enough dumb comments yet) Whether or not someone OUGHT to be charged with a CRIME depends on the REMEDY being sought against that ACTION in question. For example, consider the ACTION where you defraud a bunch of people... If I seek as a REMEDY, to have you PAY people back for having DEFRAUED them, then I would go after you CIVILY, in which case I would have to meet a STANDARD which DOES NOT RISE to the CRIMINAL STANDARD, which would be, GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BY A JURY OF YOUR PEERS. On the other hand, if the REMEDY I seek is your IMPRISONMENT for the exact same ACTION, then I would HAVE TO charge you criminally and meet the CRIMINAL STANDARD. So, whether or not Trump OUGHT to be charged with insurrection DEPENDS on the REMEDY being sought. Now, let's examine DISQUALIFICATION FROM OFFICE as a REMEDY. There's this thing you may have heard of called the Constitution... you MAGAs claim to love it... so let's take a look what it says about the REMEDY of DISQUALIFICATION. It shows up CLEAR as day in the IMPEACHEMENT Clause as a potential added REMEDY to REMOVAL from office as part of the impeachment process, WHICH IN ITSELF is entirely POLITICAL, with a STANDARD EVEN LOWER than that of a CIVIL SUIT, since among many things, the IMPEACHMENT process is entirely political and open to partisan bias that can't be appealed in such grounds... Now, DO NOT MISTAKE what I'm saying for suggesting that Trump's DISQUALIFICATION has ANYTHING to do with his IMPEACHMENT proceedings. This is not what I'm saying at all, I'm ONLY bringing up how impeachment works to SHOW you without any ambiguity that the CONSTITUTION itself has set the STANDARD, NON-CRIMINAL, that is required to impose the REMEDY of DISQUALIFICATION upon someone. Therefore, because the CONSTITUTION itself prescribes DISQUALIFICATION as a REMEDY for which the CRIMINAL STANDARD is NOT REQUIRED, anyone who gives a DAMN about the CONSTITUTION would not make the DEMENTED argument that Trump can't be DISUALIFIED from office simply because he was not charged with the CRIME OF INSURRECTION. That'd be different if anyone had been trying to throw him in prison for it, THEN, and only THEN, would an intelligent person say that he MUST first be charged with a CRIME.

Time to go through another wave of copying and pasting the same thing down for all the same people making the same bad argument... Trump had a trial sufficient to disqualify him, the one in Colorado... if you don't get that... You fundamentally misunderstand how laws work... I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt since it's still early in the day and I'm feeling patient (haven't read through enough dumb comments yet) Whether or not someone OUGHT to be charged with a CRIME depends on the REMEDY being sought against that ACTION in question. For example, consider the ACTION where you defraud a bunch of people... If I seek as a REMEDY, to have you PAY people back for having DEFRAUED them, then I would go after you CIVILY, in which case I would have to meet a STANDARD which DOES NOT RISE to the CRIMINAL STANDARD, which would be, GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BY A JURY OF YOUR PEERS. On the other hand, if the REMEDY I seek is your IMPRISONMENT for the exact same ACTION, then I would HAVE TO charge you criminally and meet the CRIMINAL STANDARD. So, whether or not Trump OUGHT to be charged with insurrection DEPENDS on the REMEDY being sought. Now, let's examine DISQUALIFICATION FROM OFFICE as a REMEDY. There's this thing you may have heard of called the Constitution... you MAGAs claim to love it... so let's take a look what it says about the REMEDY of DISQUALIFICATION. It shows up CLEAR as day in the IMPEACHEMENT Clause as a potential added REMEDY to REMOVAL from office as part of the impeachment process, WHICH IN ITSELF is entirely POLITICAL, with a STANDARD EVEN LOWER than that of a CIVIL SUIT, since among many things, the IMPEACHMENT process is entirely political and open to partisan bias that can't be appealed in such grounds... Now, DO NOT MISTAKE what I'm saying for suggesting that Trump's DISQUALIFICATION has ANYTHING to do with his IMPEACHMENT proceedings. This is not what I'm saying at all, I'm ONLY bringing up how impeachment works to SHOW you without any ambiguity that the CONSTITUTION itself has set the STANDARD, NON-CRIMINAL, that is required to impose the REMEDY of DISQUALIFICATION upon someone. Therefore, because the CONSTITUTION itself prescribes DISQUALIFICATION as a REMEDY for which the CRIMINAL STANDARD is NOT REQUIRED, anyone who gives a DAMN about the CONSTITUTION would not make the DEMENTED argument that Trump can't be DISUALIFIED from office simply because he was not charged with the CRIME OF INSURRECTION. That'd be different if anyone had been trying to throw him in prison for it, THEN, and only THEN, would an intelligent person say that he MUST first be charged with a CRIME.

I actually hate communism, which is precisely what Trump and his band of billionaires are trying to turn America into, except that instead of EVERYONE being equally poor, it's Trump and his buddies owning everything while EVERYBODY else is equally poor... Meanwhile Elon is calling you a subtard and your're slurping it all up and following along to your own economic slaughter... good job being a good MAGA lemming...

@@MrLukium you are further from the truth than anyone I have heard yet. Your leftist friends have always called him a nazi …now he’s a communist??? ALL of those ideologies are left leaning . Not right leaning . Get your story straight….socialist.

Sorry bud, I have no love for socialism or communism, I'm a pure-bred Capitalist, just not the kind that sells out our working/middle class to the highest bidder like Elon/Trump Cultists like you...

@@MrLukium yep , but we always had a better choice like Kamala…right ?

Not a huge fan of Kamala myself, but I'd take an addled old Biden, Kamala, or the average rock over Trump, as none of them have betrayed the Constitution the way Trump has...

Thanks for the feedback :)

getting tired of having to copy & paste my same comment over and over again, but here it goes: You fundamentally misunderstand how laws work... I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt since it's still early in the day and I'm feeling patient (haven't read through enough dumb comments yet) Whether or not someone OUGHT to be charged with a CRIME depends on the REMEDY being sought against that ACTION in question. For example, consider the ACTION where you defraud a bunch of people... If I seek as a REMEDY, to have you PAY people back for having DEFRAUED them, then I would go after you CIVILY, in which case I would have to meet a STANDARD which DOES NOT RISE to the CRIMINAL STANDARD, which would be, GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BY A JURY OF YOUR PEERS. On the other hand, if the REMEDY I seek is your IMPRISONMENT for the exact same ACTION, then I would HAVE TO charge you criminally and meet the CRIMINAL STANDARD. So, whether or not Trump OUGHT to be charged with insurrection DEPENDS on the REMEDY being sought. Now, let's examine DISQUALIFICATION FROM OFFICE as a REMEDY. There's this thing you may have heard of called the Constitution... you MAGAs claim to love it... so let's take a look what it says about the REMEDY of DISQUALIFICATION. It shows up CLEAR as day in the IMPEACHEMENT Clause as a potential added REMEDY to REMOVAL from office as part of the impeachment process, WHICH IN ITSELF is entirely POLITICAL, with a STANDARD EVEN LOWER than that of a CIVIL SUIT, since among many things, the IMPEACHMENT process is entirely political and open to partisan bias that can't be appealed in such grounds... Now, DO NOT MISTAKE what I'm saying for suggesting that Trump's DISQUALIFICATION has ANYTHING to do with his IMPEACHMENT proceedings. This is not what I'm saying at all, I'm ONLY bringing up how impeachment works to SHOW you without any ambiguity that the CONSTITUTION itself has set the STANDARD, NON-CRIMINAL, that is required to impose the REMEDY of DISQUALIFICATION upon someone. Therefore, because the CONSTITUTION itself prescribes DISQUALIFICATION as a REMEDY for which the CRIMINAL STANDARD is NOT REQUIRED, anyone who gives a DAMN about the CONSTITUTION would not make the DEMENTED argument that Trump can't be DISUALIFIED from office simply because he was not charged with the CRIME OF INSURRECTION. That'd be different if anyone had been trying to throw him in prison for it, THEN, and only THEN, would an intelligent person say that he MUST first be charged with a CRIME.

@@MrLukium ARIZONA ALONG WITH OTHER STATES TRIED TO KICK TRUMP OFF THE BALLOT FOR INSURECTION. THE SUPREME COURT KCKED THEM IN THE ASS. THE BIDEN DOJ DIDN'T CHARGE HIM WITH INSURECTION BUT YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT THE CHARGE OF INSURACTION THAN THEY DO! " MANY OF YOU .....PEACFULLY AND PATRIOTICALLY ......PROTECT...." CLEARLY YOU ARE A LEAGAL GENIUS.

You can't even get your facts right bud... the TDS must be eating up your brains, or maybe it's RFK Jr.'s brain worms... who knows... let me try to help: The state whose case was reversed by SCOTUS was Colorado, not Arizona. And they reversed it on the grounds, which make no sense based on actual precedent and basic logic, that states can't enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment even though SCOTUS says that states can enforce Section 2, and nowhere in the Amendment does it say that there's a difference in enforcement between the Sections. Not only that, if Section 5 prevents Section 3's enforcement, then by the very same logic, Section 2 of the 13th Amendment would make the 13th Amendment unenforceable without additional laws from Congress, which would mean that Slavery never ended, which would be stupid as shit... which is basically what you sound like...

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Really, it'd take you a whole book to counter relatively simple logic/History... are you sure I'm the wrong-headed one who probably belongs in a 3rd world country?

First and foremost, thanks for saying something intelligent... most of the comments so far are misinformed at best, racist at worst... I never made an argument as to the fairness of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment... you're welcome to argue about that all you want... My point was simple. Section 2 has worked precisely as I described, since it the ratification of the 14th Amendment, and SCOTUS has reaffirmed it working that way, despite the potential for a "patchwork" as they described in their reversal of the Colorado Case. Point is that our legal system requires that laws be consistent, especially if there's nothing in the specific law that says it ought not to. So, it makes no sense for SCOTUS to say Patchwork is ok for Section 2 but not for Section 3.

So, let's pretend your argument is legitimate... your suggestion is that the electorate can just override the Constitution whenever they feel like? So, if the electorate decides to elect a 12-year-old from one of the countries you all like to call "shit-hole" countries, the electorate can just do that? Or does the Constitution only matter to you America-hating, insurrectionist loving, authoritarian idolizing, what is it that Elon calls you? or right, "subtards"?

Thanks for proving I'm right by offering nothing of value that can counter anything I said. I take your concession... 👍

Glad you're an America hating, monarchy loving dipshit...

It's sad, yea...

I don't think I would go as far as saying that SCOTUS disqualified itself via their Colorado Decision, because all they did was say that Colorado couldn't keep Trump off the ballot. There's nothing in Section 3 that says you can't vote for an Insurrectionist, only that they can't take office. It is ABSOLUTELY demented issue a decision which enables someone to vote for someone who can't take office, like for example, if SCOTUS were to say that actually, states can't stop someone who's younger than 35 at the time of taking the Oath from being on the ballot... but hey... the Constitution technically allows it, so I think SCOTUS can technically issue such a decision even if it would be idiotic to do so...

lmao... funny to suggest that someone has TDS while also claiming Trump won 2020... the projection is powerful with this one... what is it that I said to the other one, let me find it: "MAGA has serious TDS... there's no amount of scamming that the Orange King can do to you that will prevent you from asking for some more... It's like being a prostitute, except you pay to get f*ed"

@@MrLukium Your response is vile, therefore your judgment is equally vile and loses credibility. That's just me. Maybe others consider toilet talk as persuasive means of communication. It was fun talking anyway. May God save you from yourself. I'll pray for you. Good bye.

Oh, my bad I just thought you MAGA types like "lockeroom talk" and "telling it how it is"... guess what's good for the goose is not good for the gander?

Thanks for proving I'm right by offering nothing of value that can counter anything I said. I take your concession... 👍

Time to go through another wave of copying and pasting the same thing down for all the same people making the same bad argument... Trump had a trial sufficient to disqualify him, the one in Colorado... if you don't get that... You fundamentally misunderstand how laws work... I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt since it's still early in the day and I'm feeling patient (haven't read through enough dumb comments yet) Whether or not someone OUGHT to be charged with a CRIME depends on the REMEDY being sought against that ACTION in question. For example, consider the ACTION where you defraud a bunch of people... If I seek as a REMEDY, to have you PAY people back for having DEFRAUED them, then I would go after you CIVILY, in which case I would have to meet a STANDARD which DOES NOT RISE to the CRIMINAL STANDARD, which would be, GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BY A JURY OF YOUR PEERS. On the other hand, if the REMEDY I seek is your IMPRISONMENT for the exact same ACTION, then I would HAVE TO charge you criminally and meet the CRIMINAL STANDARD. So, whether or not Trump OUGHT to be charged with insurrection DEPENDS on the REMEDY being sought. Now, let's examine DISQUALIFICATION FROM OFFICE as a REMEDY. There's this thing you may have heard of called the Constitution... you MAGAs claim to love it... so let's take a look what it says about the REMEDY of DISQUALIFICATION. It shows up CLEAR as day in the IMPEACHEMENT Clause as a potential added REMEDY to REMOVAL from office as part of the impeachment process, WHICH IN ITSELF is entirely POLITICAL, with a STANDARD EVEN LOWER than that of a CIVIL SUIT, since among many things, the IMPEACHMENT process is entirely political and open to partisan bias that can't be appealed in such grounds... Now, DO NOT MISTAKE what I'm saying for suggesting that Trump's DISQUALIFICATION has ANYTHING to do with his IMPEACHMENT proceedings. This is not what I'm saying at all, I'm ONLY bringing up how impeachment works to SHOW you without any ambiguity that the CONSTITUTION itself has set the STANDARD, NON-CRIMINAL, that is required to impose the REMEDY of DISQUALIFICATION upon someone. Therefore, because the CONSTITUTION itself prescribes DISQUALIFICATION as a REMEDY for which the CRIMINAL STANDARD is NOT REQUIRED, anyone who gives a DAMN about the CONSTITUTION would not make the DEMENTED argument that Trump can't be DISUALIFIED from office simply because he was not charged with the CRIME OF INSURRECTION. That'd be different if anyone had been trying to throw him in prison for it, THEN, and only THEN, would an intelligent person say that he MUST first be charged with a CRIME.

Huh? What are you saying? Where's the appeal to authority? Last I checked, the counterargument against me is the Appeal to Authority "If SCOTUS said it, it must be a valid argument." I'm the one saying let's examine the logic and the History... Tell me where I'm wrong or I'll just take your comment as word vomit

Are you suggesting that Congress can pass an Act which nullifies an Amendment? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 That's your defense of Trump, that actually the Amnesty Act of 1872 invalidated Section 3 for all future generations? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@@phoenixshade3 That is a contrivance of the Roberts Court and not a requirement of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is self-executing.

Congress found him guilty

You fundamentally misunderstand how laws work... I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt since it's still early in the day and I'm feeling patient (haven't read through enough dumb comments yet) Whether or not someone OUGHT to be charged with a CRIME depends on the REMEDY being sought against that ACTION in question. For example, consider the ACTION where you defraud a bunch of people... If I seek as a REMEDY, to have you PAY people back for having DEFRAUED them, then I would go after you CIVILY, in which case I would have to meet a STANDARD which DOES NOT RISE to the CRIMINAL STANDARD, which would be, GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BY A JURY OF YOUR PEERS. On the other hand, if the REMEDY I seek is your IMPRISONMENT for the exact same ACTION, then I would HAVE TO charge you criminally and meet the CRIMINAL STANDARD. So, whether or not Trump OUGHT to be charged with insurrection DEPENDS on the REMEDY being sought. Now, let's examine DISQUALIFICATION FROM OFFICE as a REMEDY. There's this thing you may have heard of called the Constitution... you MAGAs claim to love it... so let's take a look what it says about the REMEDY of DISQUALIFICATION. It shows up CLEAR as day in the IMPEACHEMENT Clause as a potential added REMEDY to REMOVAL from office as part of the impeachment process, WHICH IN ITSELF is entirely POLITICAL, with a STANDARD EVEN LOWER than that of a CIVIL SUIT, since among many things, the IMPEACHMENT process is entirely political and open to partisan bias that can't be appealed in such grounds... Now, DO NOT MISTAKE what I'm saying for suggesting that Trump's DISQUALIFICATION has ANYTHING to do with his IMPEACHMENT proceedings. This is not what I'm saying at all, I'm ONLY bringing up how impeachment works to SHOW you without any ambiguity that the CONSTITUTION itself has set the STANDARD, NON-CRIMINAL, that is required to impose the REMEDY of DISQUALIFICATION upon someone. Therefore, because the CONSTITUTION itself prescribes DISQUALIFICATION as a REMEDY for which the CRIMINAL STANDARD is NOT REQUIRED, anyone who gives a DAMN about the CONSTITUTION would not make the DEMENTED argument that Trump can't be DISUALIFIED from office simply because he was not charged with the CRIME OF INSURRECTION. That'd be different if anyone had been trying to throw him in prison for it, THEN, and only THEN, would an intelligent person say that he MUST first be charged with a CRIME.

While both chambers of Congress did have a majority for his removal, this can only at best, be used as informative as to whether or not he may be an insurrectionist. I do not think that this in of itself is good enough to disqualify him.

@MrLukium if so, then at least a starting point or platform to proceed. I don't believe the democrats have the motivation or political will. Which speaks loudly to their failures and ambitions

If you remember South switched to Republican after JFK (Democrat) fought for Civil Rights. They killed Lincoln over Slavery and Kennedy over Civil Rights. That is what the parallel was for, to point out who killed Lincoln and Kennedy (domestic terrorism) and why. It's Republican in Name Only (RINO), the Republican Party is more accurately The Confederate Party. They don't care about the Federal (United States) government, because they are enemy of the Union (United States). They are literally out to destroy the United States. This is the government that the Founding Fathers built. Mrs. Silence Dogood, published by James Franklin (25) and Ben Franklin (16) apprentice to James Franklin. 1722, New-England Courant I prefer the following _*Abstract from the London Journal to any Thing of my own*_, and therefore shall present it to your Readers this week without any further Preface. “Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; *_and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man_* , as far as by it, he does not hurt or controul the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know." “This sacred Privilege is so essential to free Governments, that the _*Security of Property, and the Freedom of Speech always go together; and in those wretched Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scarce call any Thing else his own*_. Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publick Traytors." Ben Franklin would already be exposed to censorship under British colonial rule and watch James Franklin be imprisoned numerous times. This would set his life as a rebel for the rest of his life until 1790, when he passed away at the age of 84.

Feel free to point out in specific detail what part of the Constitution that has clear language and precedent like Section 3 has been ignored... Otherwise, your comment is just word vomit

Copy and paste of my reply to the other commenter who suggested the same thing: "So, let's pretend your argument is legitimate... your suggestion is that the electorate can just override the Constitution whenever they feel like? So, if the electorate decides to elect a 12-year-old from one of the countries you all like to call "shit-hole" countries, the electorate can just do that? Or does the Constitution only matter to you America-hating, insurrectionist loving, authoritarian idolizing, what is it that Elon calls you? or right, "subtards"?"

@MrLukium We The People have complete power over the Government. It is us who decides how the Government should be run and by whom. The US Constitution ONLY limits the government. In no shape or form does it limit We The People.

@MrLukium now tell me, are you against the will of the people? And do you want to start an insurrection against us?

My allegiance is to the Constitution Only... for example, if your "we the people" decided to make slavery legal again tomorrow without successfully ratifying the Constitution, you'd better believe I'd go down making sure it doesn't happen...

@MrLukium I am a Constitutionalist also. The government can't go against the will of the people. That will be an insurrection. So you will agree that all Democrats are insurrectionists and need to be charged as such.

Let me guess... you believe that hundreds of thousands of illegal votes are cast on every election?

No, when it comes to voting, I believe in Voter ID, one day voting, one day counting, only absentee ballets are from military, and purging dead people from voter rolls. That's how we use to vote, and it worked better than what we are doing today, removing a lot of questionable processes and procedures used today.

@@OldGuy625 And yet, despite all FAKE claims of voter fraud, Republicans never seem to have enough evidence to indict anyone for voter fraud... meanwhile the only times evidence shows voter fraud, it's almost every time a Republican... There's nothing wrong with the current process... it's just scumbag bigots trying to do Jim Crow all over again... disagree with me... show me the indictments for the hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes you all claim are a thing...

@@MrLukium I see where you come from. FYI, I am neither a Democrat or Republican. I am for whoever protects my freedom and rights as a free man. Both sides always claim election fraud. Here is one for you where its not the republicans claiming fraud. Wake up and Stop the HATE, its blinding. ;) kzbin.info/www/bejne/e6nFi36wfbSYbdUsi=A5xWsX21hkuDY8e1