The Plain Language of the Disqualification Clause

spilling-spits.gif
 
And how do you define insurection? If people breaking into the Capital building yelling and screaming "this is 1776 we are coming for you" and chanting that they want to murder the VP to stop him from declaring the winner of the election as President so the losing candidate can remain in power is not an insurection, what is? It doesn't get clearer than that. Literally their own words declared it an insurrection.
 
A few pissed off people who chanted bad **** after being illegally assaulted with flash grenades doesn't make it an insurrection. If we had an actual insurrection there would be guns and an attempted violent takeover. The majority of people were invited in and most just walked around the capital.
 
In all seriousness, the people who wrote the 14th amendment who had to deal with a real insurrection would have laughed their asses off at J6.
 
thethe said:
Sure the line is if trump is involved it’s insurrection otherwise not.

We get it.
Click to expand...


You are the last person in the world with a leg to stand on. Since 2016 you have called for the imprisoning of any and all of Trumps perceived political enemies on imaginary charges you made up in your head. You spent the whole Trump Presidency calling everything a coup. Trump steps on dog turd, thats a coup. Whistleblower comes forward, thats a coup. Impeach Trump, thats a coup. Now all of a sudden a literal angry mob riled up by lies from Trump tries to storm the Capital building to stop the certification of the election and thats not a coup. Give me a break. If Trump won and J6 was Antifa doing the exact same thing you would be calling for every single one of them to be charged with treason.
 
cajunrevenge said:
There's literally people apart of that mob sitting in prison for seditious conspiracy charges.
Click to expand...

There are also people who are in prison for walking around the capital after being invited in.

There are people who are in prison for the 'obstruction of an official proceeding" which was an insane charge because DC judges twisted an Enron law.

Keep believing in the lawfare, bud.
 
Garmel said:
There are also people who are in prison for walking around the capital after being invited in.

There are people who are in prison for the 'obstruction of an official proceeding" which was an insane charge because DC judges twisted an Enron law.

Keep believing in the lawfare, bud.
Click to expand...



Even if I agreed with you about the lawfare issue, Republicans started it. Republicans wanted Hillary charged with a crime in the middle of the campaign to help them win the election. Trump wanted all of his political enemies locked up. Trump tried to force Ukraine into publicly announcing an investigation of Joe Biden during the campaign. You reap what you sow.
 
2016 - Republicans demand the leading candidate in the 2016 election be charged with a crime.


2024 - Republicans cry that the leading Republican candidate in the 2024 election is charged with a crime.



Wheres the lie.
 
Warning our Ukrainian ally what Biden and company are doing is not even close to what Trump is experiencing. Nice try.
 
You cant even keep the times Republicans wanted the criminal justice system weaponized against Democrats straight. I didnt even mention what Trump tried to do with Ukraine and Biden. Can we not agree that a sitting President should have no role in any criminal justice matter involving their opponent? You cant be serious that you think Trump was simply warning Ukraine about Biden. Trump appoints the AG who has the authority to start any investigation regarding Biden/Ukraine and compel Ukraine to comply with the investigation. There were legitimate channels to take. Trump didnt wanted people to think Ukraine started the investigation all on their own without his involvement because everyone would have seen it for what it was. Trump was ranting and raving about it from the loudest megaphone platform in the world every chance he got but Ukraine needed it brought up on a personal phone call between world leaders to be warned. Give me a break dude.
 
nsacpi said:
I don't think the disqualification clause has any application to an individual who availed himself of legal avenues for challenging possible election irregularities.

It definitely applies to Confederate rebels.

Between those two situations is a yawning chasm. This is where new precedent is likely to be set in coming months.
Click to expand...

Can you think of any federal law that has been passed that may give someone the power to decide this? Maybe around, I don't know, 1807?
 
nsacpi said:
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, 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. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Click to expand...

"Plain language" can be easily ignored, circumvented or even used as a weapon against you. Trump showed the GOP how easy it was. Enough Americans are either gullible enough to believe the lies or see ways to personally profit from them. And you don't need anything near a majority.
 
Jaw said:
Can you think of any federal law that has been passed that may give someone the power to decide this? Maybe around, I don't know, 1807?
Click to expand...

I assume you reference the Insurrection Act. What is its relevance to jurisprudence with respect to the disqualification clause?
 
But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This is the last sentence of the disqualification clause. I think Congress should give very poorly chosen one clemency. This would be ironic, since Congress was itself attacked on January 6. But it would also be wise. It would entrust the American people to make a very important choice. I advocate for this course of action because I believe it best that the people make the choice. Let the chips fall where they may.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top