XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics   
   XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama   
   XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,    
   lt.politics.trump   
   XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars   
   XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,   
   alt.politics.guns, alt.politics.elections   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa   
   From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov   
      
   On 8/9/22 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:   
   > According to reports, the FBI searched Mar-A-Lago as part of an   
   > investigation about the handling of classified documents. Will this be   
   > the action that finally stops Trump? Several progressive commentators   
   > gleefully pointed to 18 U.S.C. § 2071. It provides:   
   >   
   > 	Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding,   
   > 	map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and   
   > 	unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates,   
   > 	falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this   
   > 	title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and   
   > 	shall forfeit his office and be _disqualified from holding any   
   > 	office under the United States_. As used in this subsection,   
   > 	the term "office" does not include the office held by any   
   > 	person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United   
   > 	States.   
      
      
   The problem with the Democrats theory that they can ban TRUMP from   
   office using a law is that the Constitution is superior to the laws...   
   and the Constitution sets the "requirements" of the person running for   
   the Presidency.   
      
   There can be no added limitations without an Amendment to the   
   Constitution and Democrats can't do that before this election.   
      
   Which makes this the continuation of the attempted Coup D`etat that has   
   been underway for 6 years to stop TRUMP from winning the election which   
   he most certainly will.   
      
      
   >   
   > If Trump is convicted of violating this statute, can he be disqualified   
   > from the presidency? No. And my colleague Seth Barrett Tillman wrote   
   > about this precise issue in 2015. At the time, conservative   
   > commentators, including former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, argued   
   > that Hillary Clinton could be disqualified from the presidency due to   
   > the storage of classified materials on her private email server. Seth   
   > explained that Mukasey's argument does not work.   
      
   Another problem is that the President decides what is Classified and can   
   declassify it any time he decides, which pretty much means that a   
   President "EVEN AN INCOMPETENT IDIOT LIKE PUPPET JOE BIDEN" can   
   declassify or mishandle documents anytime he pleases...  The President   
   is the Executive of the Executive Office. His powers can't be limited by   
   laws.... they are in the Constitution and that makes them superior to   
   any laws passed that might attempt to change the Constitutionally   
   delegated powers of the office. Again it takes a Constitutional   
   amendment to change the Constitution and laws are unable to re-delegate   
   or remove the powers that are already delegated. And there are no   
   ex-post-facto laws that are constitutional according to the Constitution.   
      
   Which means the chance of TRUMP being forced out of the election is   
   still ZERO... and TRUMP will win and I will absolutely vote for TRUMP if   
   Democrats attempt to stop him from running for office.   
      
   If the Democrats let the 2022 and 2024 election play out I'll vote for   
   who I like, if they attempt to use force and continue their Democrat run   
   Coup D`etat then I will have no choice but to vote for the very person   
   that they are attempting to engage in their Coup D`etat against.   
   Because that is the person least likely to helping the people running a   
   Coup D'etat that's designed to steal my political power.   
      
      
   The days of having the facade of TWO choices... that are actually the   
   same choice since either candidate is still a PUPPET of the   
   establishment, and the Masters of the Planet Elite Overlords who think   
   that my having political power is a threat to them.   
      
   That is why they want to make my vote a HAKE process and they want to   
   steal my 2nd Amendment enumerated RIGHTS to keep and bear arms.  It's   
   all part of that same Coup D`etat form the Democrats and their Overlords.   
      
   >   
   > Under Powell v. McCormack and U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, Congress   
   > and the states cannot "add to the express textual qualifications for   
   > House and Senate seats in Article I." And that reasoning, Seth   
   > concluded, would seem to apply to the qualifications for the presidency   
   > in Article II. Several courts in the Seventh Circuit, and elsewhere,   
   > reached that same conclusion.   
   >   
   > On this blog, Mukasey later admitted that Tillman was correct, and he   
   > was wrong:   
   >   
   > 	[O]n reflection . . . Professor Tillman's [analysis] is spot   
   > 	on, and mine was mistaken. . . . The disqualification provision   
   > 	in Section 2071 may be a measure of how seriously Congress   
   > 	took the violation in question, and how seriously we should   
   > 	take it, but that's all it is.   
   >   
   > Tonight, Charlie Savage of the New York Times recounted this history in   
   > an article  on the Trump search.   
   >   
   > 	Some Republicans were briefly entranced with whether the law   
   > 	could keep Mrs. Clinton out of the White House, including   
   > 	Michael Mukasey, a former attorney general in the   
   > 	administration of George W. Bush. So was at least one   
   > 	conservative think tank.   
   >   
      
   The Constitution and the elections is all that keep someone out of the   
   White House and Democrats can't change the Constitution, we know because   
   the Abortion RIGHT in the Constitution that was never there (but   
   Democrats say is there) is now not there.   
      
   Which shows that if it's NOT delegated by the Constitution or it's NOT   
   an unalienable RIGHT then it's a civil liberty and civil liberties can't   
   over ride unalienable RIGHTS.   
      
   The civil liberties created in the Constitution declare the   
   qualifications to become President of the united States and nothing   
   short of an Article 5 Amendment to change that, can change that. A USSC   
   ruling won't change the Constitution any more than it did when they   
   declared LEGAL ABORTION to be the law of the land. USSC RULINGS are   
   fluid like Democrats ideas of LGBTQ sexual re-assignment...  and   
   abortion and slavery and alcohol consumption. Democrats want things that   
   they want, not things that are Constitutional. Democrats are   
   anti-Democratic and anti-American.   
      
      
   > 	But in considering that situation, several legal scholars —   
   > 	including Seth B. Tillman of Maynouth University in Ireland   
   > 	and Eugene Volokh of the University of California, Los Angeles   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)