Comments by "nuqwestr" (@nuqwestr) on "Karamo: Americans need to be concerned over this" video.

  1. Section 3 of 14th Amendment does not require a conviction.
    4
  2.  @thomashasty2936  Petition was brought to court by citizens, and three are Republicans, which is required for legal standing in Colorado.
    4
  3.  @deshawn18  Yes, there's even precedent for an officer being removed based on Section 3 without a conviction.
    4
  4.  @RobbinMcCrumb  No charge or conviction is required based on Section 3, and there is legal precedent. The Petition had legal standing because the petitioners were members of the Republican Party.
    4
  5. Write-in will not count.
    3
  6. Republicans brought the petition to court, not Democrats. ANDERSON vs GRISWOLD, and Anderson is a Republican.
    2
  7. Republicans brought the petition in Colorado, required for legal standing. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not require a conviction for insurrection, and there's legal precedent for disqualify an office holder on that basis. Section 3 does not explicitly mention "President", just "oath taker".
    2
  8. Just what they want you to do, this is a provocation, don't be provoked.
    2
  9. No, that's incorrect. the Republican Central Committee can hold a caucus and vote directly for Trump, then the issue becomes the general election.
    1
  10. it is legal under Colorado law, the petition was brought by Republicans.
    1
  11.  @thomashasty2936  Petition was found right by court. On what grounds would SCOTUS take the appeal case?
    1
  12.  @Tessymarie1  not required by Section 3 of 14th amendment
    1
  13.  @davidtipton7234  Colorado never too him off, there was a stay, read what actually is going on "“Donald Trump engaged in insurrection and was disqualified under the Constitution from the Colorado Ballot," Griswold said. "The Colorado Supreme Court got it right." "Secretary of State Jena Griswold will certify the primary ballots on the state's Jan. 5, 2024, deadline with Trump's name printed on them "unless the U.S. Supreme Court declines to take the case or otherwise affirms the Colorado Supreme Court ruling," according to a press release from her office". - Washington Examiner
    1
  14. The petitioners in Colorado were Republicans.
    1
  15. Fact is Section 3 does not require charge or conviction, fact is the petition is legal because it was brought to court by Republicans.
    1
  16. No, this was legal under Colorado law, and the petitioner has legal standing because she is a Republican.
    1
  17.  @silverbullet1620  That will be an issue for the General election. Someone in Colorado would have to file another petition. Then there may be a question of standing. I think we are not well served by the media on this.
    1
  18.  @silverbullet1620  Read Anderson vs Griswold, it's online as a PDF
    1
  19. Petition brought to court by Republicans.
    1
  20.  @daletalaplaya5086  no charge or conviction required under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The Colorado petition, ANDERSON vs GRISWOLD makes that clear. It's online, I've read it.
    1
  21.  @maryhaddock5277  Republicans brought the petition, a woman named ANDERSON.
    1
  22.  @daletalaplaya5086  2/3rd Both House and Senate, judges ruled on petition and now legal opinion, just as SCOTUS is legal opinion. It appears opinion all that is required.
    1
  23.  @daletalaplaya5086  "they"? who is that, State ruled. I read the petition, it is not frivolous. Not sure how this will be brought to a vote in both Houses. Democrats have majority in Senate. They can stop a vote.
    1
  24. No, they are not, the case was brought to court by Republicans who have legal standing based on Colorado law.
    1
  25. In this case, based on the 14th Amendment, Congress decides.
    1
  26. won't count
    1