by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics:
I have listened to the oral arguments and have considered this entire 14th Amendment nonsense. Some have tried to argue that it is self-executing, meaning that Congress does not need to write a statute. That is really absurd, for we are talking here about trying to overthrow the entire foundation of democracy when pretending to be defending it. That is like pushing the button to attack Russia because I knew they wanted to do so; therefore, I was acting in self-defense by pushing the button first.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
States have the right to control their local elections. However, they cannot interfere in federal elections. To do so would mean that they are depriving the rest of the country of their right to vote, for a federal election cannot take place if some states remove a candidate and others do not. This is a justified argument for separating the United States.
While nobody raised the Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers may have never anticipated a rouge action like Colorado and Maine in banning Trump from the ballot. Still, they did address this issue of one state interfering with the rest of the nation. The Commerce Clause PROHIBITS any state from trying to impose a ban on the exports of another state to boost its own production. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes.”
The Commerce Clause expressly forbids a state from interfering in national commerce. That jurisdiction is reserved strictly to Congress. I cannot imagine how any state can claim such a power to interfere in the federal election for the national office of the Federal Government that is not a local state office.
If the Supreme Court upholds Colorado’s decision, then it is time to break up the UNION, for it is no longer viable. I fear we will see violence regardless of how the court rules.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals rejected Trump’s Absolute Immunity claim, saying: “We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,” the judges wrote.”
The Constitution does not directly discuss presidential immunity from criminal or civil lawsuits. Instead, this privilege has evolved over time through the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article II, Section 2, Clause 3:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
It is generally accepted that the President is absolutely immune from civil liability for suits arising from actions relating to official duties. This includes all acts in the “outer perimeter” of those duties. However, the President is not immune from actions arising from unofficial conduct. In fact, nobody was actually given immunity by the Founding Fathers. It has been the course have have credited immunity – not the Constitution.
“Prosecutorial immunity” is also a judge-made doctrine that cloaks prosecutors in near-absolute immunity from suit. Under this doctrine, prosecutors cannot be sued for any actions related to their job as a prosecutor, no matter how egregious the behavior. For example, prosecutors cannot be sued for knowingly prosecuting an innocent person, withholding evidence of innocence, or even fabricating false evidence of guilt.
Read More @ ArmstrongEconomics.com
