Comments by "" (@JohnDoe-ew3xt) on "Supreme Court seemed to be on Trump’s side, say legal experts" video.

@ssmith3513 so you can pull someone off of a ballot for something they may possibly be charged with in the future?? think about that......
13
@hanshansen3885 "You do know that there are limitations to who can become President, right?" yes... calling someone an insurrectionist without charge, let alone conviction, is not one of them...
8
@shawnpreston1639 doesn't federal constitution have precedence over state constitutions? drrrrrrr..... drrrrrrr...........
7
@hanshansen3885 "I have probably read the US Constitution more times than you, so lets not go there." of course you have... and no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute clinton.. you liberals really have evolved into supreme beings!!! lol
4
@hanshansen3885 "You say that the justice system does not work like that but the justice system just did that." the justice system did not determine that the anyone committed insurrection... NO ONE has even been charged with insurrection!!!! do you NOT know that?????
4
@SolutionsNotPrayers "You'd probably let Charles Manson run for office." why would you stop him? you people rally don't like freedom and liberty, do you?
3
@hanshansen3885 not the way our justice system works hans..... not sure where you're from but, read our constitution.
3
@hanshansen3885 google.... good grief no one in america can determine guilt of a crime without first charging someone with the damned crime!! why am I not allowed to say that???
3
@SnekChrmr "Section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn’t require an insurrection charge or conviction lol Nice try tho " well I guess the SCOTUS will rule on colorado's behalf then..... lol
3
@SnekChrmr "Section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn’t require an insurrection charge or conviction lol Nice try tho" if this is the case, can't all conservatives ban candidates they do not like with this precedent? and all liberals can ban candidates they don't like with this precedent? leaving NO ONE ON THE BALLOTS????? lol good grief./....
3
@SnekChrmr what a clown show you people are turning our country into...
3
@youngmarl9351 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection this is a federal criminal statute. you're telling me that a "state" has the right to determine guilt, via some mysterious "due process", bill of rights be damned?? you said that "if those democrats review the facts, follow due process and come to that conclusion." if not our nation's constitution, what "due process" are you referring to???
2
@amyfrueh4808 "Sedition is basically insurrection. It's the same thing and a BUNCH of people have been jailed for sedition" it's also very telling how you say people have been "jailed" for sedition, but you don't say "convicted"....
2
@amyfrueh4808 "Sedition is basically insurrection. It's the same thing and a BUNCH of people have been jailed for sedition" then they shouldn't be allowed to run for office...
1
@youngmarl9351 "no, but each state has the right to determine if he engaged in insurrection. A charge or conviction isn't required to enforce an eligibility requirement." insurrection is a federal crime, states do not just get to determine guilt without a trial. what you are suggesting is that any democrat can "conclude" that any republican is an "insurrectionist" and remove them from the ballot, correct? therefore, any republican can "conclude" that any democrat is an "insurrectionist" and remove them from the ballot as well, correct? leaving.. NO ONE on the ballots!! correct? or does that only work for one side...?
1
@hanshansen3885 ok hans... you win. everything you say is true. everything I say is false. google has waived it's magic wand.
1
@amyfrueh4808 "exactly. And that certainly would include the person who spurred them into action" oh, so now it's not being "jailed" for sedition... now it's "spurring other on" who have been "jailed" for sedition... lol ok, how did trump "spur anything on? this is very serious, so I expect you to be very specific. thanks in advance.
1
@amyfrueh4808 how's it going amy..?
1
@youngmarl9351 "if those democrats review the facts, follow due process and come to that conclusion." what "due process" are you referring to?
1
@youngmarl9351 from 5th amendment: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; what due process are you referring to?
1
@youngmarl9351 6th amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed what due process are you referring to?
1
@youngmarl9351 also from 6th amendment: to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. what due process are you referring to?
1
@youngmarl9351 7th amendment: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved what due process are you referring to?
1
@youngmarl9351 oh youngmarl.... what "due process" are you referring to??
1
@hanshansen3885 you... msnbc.... special counsel.... state court..... none of these can simply wave a magic wand and determine someone is guilty of a crime that they haven't even been charged with!!! are you just messin with me??????
1
@youngmarl9351 and you're allowed to vote.... 🤦‍♂
1
@amyfrueh4808 how about you amy? where did you run off to?? where is your example of how trump "spurred on" sedition?
1