PB
>>22229484 “How dare we speak Merry Christmas!” Thank God she (Harris) lost.
Steve Robinson
@BigSteve207
Please don’t ask me to use inaccurate pronouns, feel anxious over CO2, or do DEI.
It’s impolite and alienating to assume I follow your religion.
Image
12:08 AM · Dec 26, 2024
·
3,040
Views
>Mornin' Ralph… Please pass the Covfefe.
>Don't worry, I punched you in and there is fresh danish in the breakroom.
Phew…Thanks anon. Overslept again after all the festivities. Going to grab some Danish
>I have a feeling the next week will need to be fueled by the mixture of Covfefe and Jameson.
Definitely!
>>>22231300 MERRY
>>>22231307 CHRIST
>>>22231315 MAS
>>>22231323 TO
>>>22231328 ALL
TO177034
[Profile picture from source site (X Post/Truth Social)] Dan Scavino Jr. 🇺🇸🦅 / @DanScavino 12/25/2024 15:17:57
ID: Not Available
Truth Social: 113715306664560640
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!
O234188
[Profile picture from source site (X Post/Truth Social)] Dan Scavino Jr.🇺🇸🦅 / @DanScavino 12/25/2024 15:17:46
ID: Twitter for iPhone
Post : 1872013890508488835
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!
457
Q !UW.yye1fxo12/25/201714:40:34 ID: 8696f9
8chan/cbts: 172761
Anonymous 12/25/2017 14:34:01 ID:a3a6a3
8chan/cbts: 172726
Merry Christmas Q!
>>172726
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Celebrate this SPECIAL day in a BIG way.
God bless you all.
Q
>by Evan A. Davis and David M. Schulte, opinion contributors -
Evan A Davis, David M Schulte, and The Hill are athreat to democracy
>Evan A Davis, David M Schulte, and The Hill are athreat to democracy
>There is a subset of lefty, Ivy League lawyers who threaten democracy and are beneath contempt.
Liberals Still Argue That Trump Should Be Banned
December 26, 2024
[Photo Credit: by Gage Skidmore]
First, they said he should go to jail over it, then they said he shouldn’t be allowed on the ballot, and now, liberal “scholars” contend in The Hill that Congress can still stop him. Despite Donald Trump’s resounding victory in November, Evan Davis, former editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review, and David Schulte, former editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal, are still demanding that the president-elect be prevented from taking the White House.
Pointing to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Anderson, the pair argues that Trump was disqualified from holding the presidency because he supported an “insurrection.”
Their central argument rests on the clear language of Section 3, which prohibits anyone who has engaged in insurrection against the Constitution from holding office. The amendment explicitly states: “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Davis and Schulte highlight three authoritative sources supporting the claim that Trump engaged in insurrection. First, during Trump’s second impeachment trial in January 2021, he was charged with “incitement of insurrection.” Although the Senate fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict, a bipartisan majority still voted in favor of his guilt. Second, a Colorado court, after a thorough five-day hearing, found by “clear and convincing evidence” that Trump engaged in insurrection. While the Supreme Court later ruled that states lack the authority to enforce Section 3 for federal officeholders, it notably refrained from challenging the Colorado court’s factual conclusions. Third, the bipartisan House Select Committee investigating the January 6th attack presented extensive evidence, much of it from Republican witnesses, showing Trump actively worked to overturn the 2020 election and incited violence against Congress.
Addressing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Anderson, Davis and Schulte emphasize that the Court’s assertion about the need for congressional legislation to enforce Section 3 was dicta—non-binding commentary that lacks legal weight. They argue that Congress alone holds the constitutional authority to count Electoral College votes, making this a political question not subject to judicial review. Under the Electoral Count Act, objections can be raised against electoral votes not “regularly given,” and votes for a constitutionally disqualified candidate, they assert, meet this standard.
This isn’t the first time that liberals have tried to thwart the will of the people. Over the summer, former federal judge J. Michael Luttig and leftwing professor of constitutional law at Harvard, Laurence H. Tribe, laid out the framework for how Democrats may attempt to block Donald Trump from being on the ballot in 2024.
Congressional liberals in power aren’t the only ones Trump may need to worry about. Earlier in the year,New Conservative Post revealed that leftists in the Pentagon also have a plan to take away some of the president’s power, something that Pete Hegseth, Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Defense, may have to deal with personally.
https://americasnewsdesk.com/2024/12/26/liberals-still-argue-that-trump-should-be-banned/