Comments by "Simon Harris" (@simonharris4873) on "‘Banana republic’: Rita Panahi reacts to Trump disqualification from Colorado ballot" video.

  1. He hasn't won anything since 2016.
    4
  2. 14.3 does not require a conviction.
    4
  3.  @nigelhickman2274  Oh, and as for due process, the court system is due process. Time to change your breakfast cereal. The law degree which came on the box of your current one isn't working too good.
    4
  4. Why is Rita interviewing the woman from the canteen?
    4
  5. Get yourself some Preparation H Rita, and the hurt will go away.
    3
  6. That's a bit of a stormy statement.
    3
  7.  @nigelhickman2274  14.5 does not contain the word "Only". But nice try anyway.
    2
  8.  @nigelhickman2274  So you're saying, the supreme court cannot make rulings on any amendments that they're not specifically mentioned in? Is that what you're saying?
    2
  9.  @nigelhickman2274  Gee, you'd think that if you were right, Trump's lawyers would have mentioned this whole due process thing in at least one of the 3 courts this case has been through. I wonder why they didn't.
    2
  10.  @terrykemble-yi2nc  I'm not sure they're hers. She seems more like the type to repeat the opinions she's told to.
    2
  11.  @nigelhickman2274  He doesn't need to be found guilty of a crime under 14.3. That's why it specifically says "shall have engaged in", and not "has been convicted of". If that's what the founders meant, that's what they would have said. They specifically chose not to make a conviction a requirement under 14.3. You keep saying there's no "due process". It's been through 3 courts, and is headed for a 4th. How much more "due process" do you want? 14.1 say "without due process", not "without a criminal conviction". Again, if that's what the founders wanted, that's what they would have written. Oh, I know how to settle this. You just point me to the article which defines "due process" as being a criminal conviction. I'll wait.
    2
  12.  @nigelhickman2274  I just read "Amdt14.S1.3 Due Process Generally". It makes no mention of "due process" requiring either a trial or a conviction. Looks like your assumption is flawed.
    2
  13.  @mkhud50n  You know each state determines their own election laws, right? It's perfectly legal for a state SC to determine who is legally allowed on the ballot in their state.
    1
  14.  @nigelhickman2274  They didn't. They determined he wasn't eligible for the ballot, according to 14.3. It would be no different to them determining him ineligible were he born overseas. Maybe it's you who has erred bigly. Maybe they know more about constiitutional law than you do. They had to hone their skills for years to get where they are. All you had to do was connect to the internet.
    1
  15.  @rickbart1  14.3 does not require a conviction.
    1
  16. Love how people on the right keep gabbing on about the 2A, then we get this.
    1
  17.  @leofortey7561  Sure there is. Cherry picking the constiitution, that's all I'm gonna say. I'm sure you can work the rest out for yourself.
    1
  18.  @leofortey7561  "Besides, what is wrong with defending yourself?" - It creates the need for others to defend themselves, which in the long run, causes more harm than it prevents. That's why the US has a murder rate almost 10 times higher than countries with adequate gun control laws, like Australia.
    1
  19.  @dfor50  Just as you'll be happy that justice gets done when they uphold it.
    1
  20.  @leofortey7561  Yes, a vastly different culture. We don't hand out guns with happy meals like that do in the US. We make it much more difficult for people to purchase firearms, and make them more responsible for them when they do. Know how many people in Australia, own a legal handgun, for the purpose of self defence, which lives on their bed side table? NONE. Know how many criminal obtain a handgun from stealing it from a person like this? Go on, have a guess. As go your "gun free zone" analogy. There's not really any such thing as a gun free zone in the US. Also, your cause an effect are reversed. Gun free zones do not cause shootings. The risk of shootings cause gun free zones. So pointing out that there are more shootings in (your) gun free zones is meaningless. I say (your), because we don't have these sort of shootings in out gun free zones. eg. This decade, there have been numerous school shootings in Texas, probably the most gun liberal state in the union. I can't remember the last time someone was shot in a school in Australia. In fact, it's possible it's never happened. That's the comparison you should be looking at. You should be asking yourself "What do they do differently?"
    1
  21.  @Uk.wildman  What law? 14.3 is quite clear. He's just as ineligible as he would be if he weren't a natural born citizen. And for he same reason; the constiittution says so. You think there's a law which trumps that?
    1
  22. Yep, considering how republicans are always gabbing on about the 2A, you'd think they'd be all for this.
    1
  23.  @nigelhickman2274  Three courts so far, one to come. There's you're due process. According to your interpretation of 14.5, no court can rule on constitutiional issues unless they specifically mentioned in the article they're ruling on. This is clearly not the case.
    1
  24. The CSC were calling Trump a dictator? Really? When did they do that?
    1