Grammar school students are taught:
i before e, except after c, or sounding as a as in neighbor or weigh.
Should some rules be exempt from exception? The United States Constitution proscribes government establishment of religion. BUT !! United States government prints "In God We Trust" on our $cash.
In our system of laws we entertain something called "the presumption of innocence". This obliges prosecutors to persuade the jury the accused is guilty.
Except for Senator / President Elect Obama, the following Constitutional wording is the formal oath the president elect takes publicly on inauguration day.
Further along in the amended Constitution is the following specification.
In President Trump's case there has been no such conviction. BUT !!
The presumption of innocence is our standard in law as a safeguard. In a case where there is he said / she said doubt, the institutional bias is intended to favor the accused. BUT !!
When the accused is the president of the United States, and perjury is perpetrated several times, in a variety of ways, including directing on broadcast television an assembled crowd to march to the capitol, where bloody insurrection then occurred, is the presumption of innocence extraneous? Is there any doubt?
Has Colorado over-stepped by excluding former president Donald J. Trump from Colorado's primary election ballots? The 14th Amendment may be enforceable law, but Trump has not been convicted of insurrection. Is the public record, HD television broadcast images enough?
Compounding this dilemma, Trump critics provide dire predictions of a second Trump presidential administration. Some warn that Trump disregarded the Constitution in his first administration, and that in a second administration President Trump would dispense with the United States Constitution substantially, if not entirely.
Was Colorado right or wrong to deny Trump ballot access?
For some other States the time to change that decision has passed. But for others, with the Colorado precedent now set, should a formal judicial conviction be required in the Trump insurrection case? Or is the evidence abundant and persuasive enough, and the stakes high enough to apply spirit of the law rather than letter of the law reasoning for Trump's primary ballot access?
i before e, except after c, or sounding as a as in neighbor or weigh.
Should some rules be exempt from exception? The United States Constitution proscribes government establishment of religion. BUT !! United States government prints "In God We Trust" on our $cash.
In our system of laws we entertain something called "the presumption of innocence". This obliges prosecutors to persuade the jury the accused is guilty.
Except for Senator / President Elect Obama, the following Constitutional wording is the formal oath the president elect takes publicly on inauguration day.
President Trump took this oath, and is thus bound by it.
Further along in the amended Constitution is the following specification.
Ordinarily if a U.S. president were to perjure his oath as designated in Art2 Sect1, and was formally accused, placed on trial, and convicted, Art14 Sect3 might seem to apply.
In President Trump's case there has been no such conviction. BUT !!
The presumption of innocence is our standard in law as a safeguard. In a case where there is he said / she said doubt, the institutional bias is intended to favor the accused. BUT !!
When the accused is the president of the United States, and perjury is perpetrated several times, in a variety of ways, including directing on broadcast television an assembled crowd to march to the capitol, where bloody insurrection then occurred, is the presumption of innocence extraneous? Is there any doubt?
Has Colorado over-stepped by excluding former president Donald J. Trump from Colorado's primary election ballots? The 14th Amendment may be enforceable law, but Trump has not been convicted of insurrection. Is the public record, HD television broadcast images enough?
Compounding this dilemma, Trump critics provide dire predictions of a second Trump presidential administration. Some warn that Trump disregarded the Constitution in his first administration, and that in a second administration President Trump would dispense with the United States Constitution substantially, if not entirely.
Was Colorado right or wrong to deny Trump ballot access?
For some other States the time to change that decision has passed. But for others, with the Colorado precedent now set, should a formal judicial conviction be required in the Trump insurrection case? Or is the evidence abundant and persuasive enough, and the stakes high enough to apply spirit of the law rather than letter of the law reasoning for Trump's primary ballot access?
