x.com/MannC84373/s...
Grok: Donald Trump may be eligible for the death penalty.
@steverino76
JD/MS/CPA. Retired. I despise corruption. It is a poison which is inevitably corrosive to any society. I fight it where I can. I write extensively on constitutional theory from an originalist and textualist perspective. COTUS locuta est, causa finita est.
x.com/MannC84373/s...
Grok: Donald Trump may be eligible for the death penalty.
@joshuaerlich.bsky.social Originalism is a thing, and a thing to be discarded when inconvenient.
We live in a judocracy. The Constitution died long ago.
x.com/MannC84373/s...
@stevevladeck.bsky.social Watching you on Katie.
An oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President as a matter of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Β§ 3. Is Donald Trump our de jure head of state?
It's constitutional.
This is the current state of my resistance. x.com/MannC84373/s...
Have to post on X because it's over 300 characters.
@normeisen.bsky.social Private Criminal Prosecution: www.scribd.com/document/897...
I've been fighting them, but can't get arrested.
Private Criminal Prosecution: www.scribd.com/document/897...
Judge Grok weighed in on the Texas redistricting case.
Knock me over with a feather.... x.com/MannC84373/s...
He's not even Honey BooBoo.
@adamkinzinger.substack.com An oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Β§ 3. Every act a usurper purports to take in that capacity is void ab initio.Β Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 443 (1886).
Why won't you say this?
@meidastouch.com An oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Β§ 3. Every act a usurper purports to take in that capacity is void ab initio. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 443 (1886).
Why can't you just say this?
@judgeluttig.bsky.social An oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Β§ 3. Every act a usurper purports to take in that capacity is void ab initio. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 443 (1886).
Why can't you just say this?
@tribelaw.bsky.social An oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Β§ 3. Every act a usurper purports to take in that capacity is void ab initio. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 443 (1886).
Why are you so silent?
@lawyeroyer.com An oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Β§ 3. Every act a usurper purports to take in that capacity is void ab initio. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 443 (1886).
Why won't anyone say this out loud?
Doesn't GA allow for private criminal prosecution?
An oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Β§ 3. Every act a usurper purports to take in that capacity is void ab initio.Β Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 443 (1886).
Why can't you just say this?
An oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Β§ 3. Every act a usurper purports to take in that capacity is void ab initio.Β Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 443 (1886).
Why can't you say this?
An oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Β§ 3. Every act a usurper purports to take in that capacity is void ab initio.Β Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 443 (1886).
Why can't anyone say this?
Murder, Grok Wrote? A Fresh Look at the Epstein βSuicideβ x.com/MannC84373/s...
OINK!!!
@jbf1755.bsky.social America didn't make it to 250. But the cause of the failure is ... complicated.
Response to Judge Wolf: www.scribd.com/document/947...
That playbook was obvious to everyone with a law degree.
SCOTUS was technically right: Congress provided the remedy (quo warranto/mandamus). Read the DC statutes.
The correct answer is too nuanced for this forum.
X version: x.com/MannC84373/s...
I can't say what I need to with a 300-character limit.
This is MY legal analysis of the Dobbs decision, adapted from court filings. The citations are adequate. Run it through Grok or ChatGPT for soundness, if you like.
2/ Ironically, under the Living Constitution, the Justices can change the meaning of the word "person" to make the law fit their preferences.