ADVERTISEMENT

Insurrection?

Hoopsdoc1978

All-American
Apr 13, 2016
7,197
11,880
113
46
Epsom Indiana




The Constitution provides that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, 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.” This disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote in each House.

Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel.

The first fully contested proceeding was Trump’s second impeachment trial. On Jan. 13, 2021, then-President Trump was impeached for “incitement of insurrection.” At the trial in the Senate, seven Republicans joined all Democrats to provide a majority for conviction but failed to reach the two-thirds vote required for removal from office. Inciting insurrection encompasses “engaging in insurrection” against the Constitution “or giving aid and comfort to the enemies thereof,” the grounds for disqualification specified in Section 3.

The second contested proceeding was the Colorado five-day judicial due process hearing where the court “found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three.” The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed. On further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court held that states lack power to disqualify candidates for federal office and that federal legislation was required to enforce Section 3. The court did not address the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection.

Finally, there is the bipartisan inquiry of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. More than half of the witnesses whose testimony was displayed at its nine public hearings were Republicans, including members of the Trump administration. The inescapable conclusion of this evidence is that Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution. In particular, Trump unlawfully demanded that his vice president, Mike Pence, throw out votes in the Electoral College for political opponent Joe Biden, a power he did not have. While the riot was in progress, Trump used Pence’s rejection of his demand to further enflame the crowd and cause them to chant “Hang Mike Pence!”

Some will argue that the Supreme Court decision in the Colorado case, Trump v. Anderson, precludes Congress from rejecting electoral votes when they convene on Jan. 6, on the basis of 14th Amendment disqualification. This view lacks merit for three reasons.

First the majority’s suggestion that there must be new implementing federal legislation passed pursuant to the enforcement power specified in the 14th Amendment is what lawyers call dicta. Dicta are the musings of an opinion that are not required to decide the case. The holding that Section 3 is not self-executing may be an alternate holding, but thoughts about the kind of implementing statute required are plain dicta. Dicta are not precedential. The four dissenters strenuously objected to this part of the opinion as overreach to decide a question not presented. This overreach is a power grab which Congress is not required to credit.

Second, counting the Electoral College votes is a matter uniquely assigned to Congress by the Constitution. Under well-settled law this fact deprives the Supreme Court of a voice in the matter, because the rejection of the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a nonreviewable political question.

Third, specific legislation designed for this situation already exists. The Electoral Count Act was first enacted in 1887 and later amended and restated in 2022. That statute provides a detailed mechanism for resolving disputes as to the validity of Electoral College votes.

The act specifies two grounds for objection to an electoral vote: If the electors from a state were not lawfully certified or if the vote of one or more electors was not “regularly given.” A vote for a candidate disqualified by the Constitution is plainly in accordance with the normal use of words “not regularly given.” Disqualification for engaging in insurrection is no different from disqualification based on other constitutional requirements such as age, citizenship from birth and 14 years’ residency in the United States.

To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House. If the objection is sustained by majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president.

The unlikelihood of congressional Republicans doing anything that might elect Harris as president is obvious. But Democrats need to take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Evan Davis was editor in chief of the Columbia Law Review and David Schulte was editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal. Both clerked for Justice Potter Stewart. Davis is a New York lawyer who served as president of the New York City Bar, and Schulte is a Chicago investment banker.
 
Kamala will plan a stop the steal rally. Tell her supporters to march to the Capitol and stop herself from certification of the election.

Seems even easier than last time

Will be wild!

And then Biden will pardon them all on January 19th.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: hookyIU1990
Even making this comparison deflects from and minimizes what Jan 6 actually was.
In mind but you don't speak for most americans. Again if most people thought it was the worst event in the world like you and bowlmania do Harris would have won. She lost. I thought the lefties were going to go all in on trump is a convicted felon but the J6 pardons brought you back to your baby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
By Liz Sawyer Star Tribune

MINNEAPOLIS — A Brainerd man has been sentenced to four years in prison and must pay $12 million in restitution for his role in the lighting the Minneapolis Third Precinct police headquarters on fire during civil unrest after the death of George Floyd.

Last May, Dylan Shakespeare Robinson, 23, trampled over a fence meant to keep protesters out and lit a Molotov cocktail, which another person threw toward the precinct — shortly after the crowd began shouting “Burn it down, burn it down,” according to federal charges.

Dude burns down a police precinct and gets only four years. The hypocrisy of the trump haters is just off the charts from the left when it come to J6.
 
Which weapons?





2 minute Google search.
 
In mind but you don't speak for most americans. Again if most people thought it was the worst event in the world like you and bowlmania do Harris would have won. She lost. I thought the lefties were going to go all in on trump is a convicted felon but the J6 pardons brought you back to your baby.
Before the election only 30 percent of Americans supported pardons for the J6 criminals, the rest thought they should finish their criminal sentences. Logically, this means J6 wasn’t the election issue which motivated voters either way. It was the economy and the border.
 
By Liz Sawyer Star Tribune

MINNEAPOLIS — A Brainerd man has been sentenced to four years in prison and must pay $12 million in restitution for his role in the lighting the Minneapolis Third Precinct police headquarters on fire during civil unrest after the death of George Floyd.

Last May, Dylan Shakespeare Robinson, 23, trampled over a fence meant to keep protesters out and lit a Molotov cocktail, which another person threw toward the precinct — shortly after the crowd began shouting “Burn it down, burn it down,” according to federal charges.

Dude burns down a police precinct and gets only four years. The hypocrisy of the trump haters is just off the charts from the left when it come to J6.
$12 million in restitution is a massive punishment. Neither of us were at the trial and don’t know all the circumstances. Can’t pay restitution like that from prison unless the criminal is very rich.

These references to the riots that resulted from the BLM protests and the (mostly city and state) prosecutions, convictions and sentences are irrelevant to the J6 prosecutions and convictions (or not - wasn’t 100 percent) and sentences.

Many of us heavily criticized the BLM protests and especially the riots and wanted every perpetrator properly prosecuted and convicted for damaging and destroying property and injuring police officers. It’s what people who believe in law and order always want. In every case. That’s consistency. Prosecute criminals!

Constantly looking for false equivalencies to defend criminals isn’t consistency. It’s hypocritical.
 
$12 million in restitution is a massive punishment. Neither of us were at the trial and don’t know all the circumstances. Can’t pay restitution like that from prison unless the criminal is very rich.

These references to the riots that resulted from the BLM protests and the (mostly city and state) prosecutions, convictions and sentences are irrelevant to the J6 prosecutions and convictions (or not - wasn’t 100 percent) and sentences.

Many of us heavily criticized the BLM protests and especially the riots and wanted every perpetrator properly prosecuted and convicted for damaging and destroying property and injuring police officers. It’s what people who believe in law and order always want. In every case. That’s consistency. Prosecute criminals!

Constantly looking for false equivalencies to defend criminals isn’t consistency. It’s hypocritical.
The Portland BLM mob barricaded the doors to the federal courthouse and then tried to burn the place and kill the few occupants. The highest legislative official in the United States Government labeled as STORMTROOPERS the federal police called in to quell the disturbance.

A few months later, that same U.S. official called the capital police heros for defending against the J6 riots, gave them medals and put up a plaque to honor them.

The rank hypocrisy came from the United States Government.
 
The Portland BLM mob barricaded the doors to the federal courthouse and then tried to burn the place and kill the few occupants. The highest legislative official in the United States Government labeled as STORMTROOPERS the federal police called in to quell the disturbance.

A few months later, that same U.S. official called the capital police heros for defending against the J6 riots, gave them medals and put up a plaque to honor them.

The rank hypocrisy came from the United States Government.
Must admit I don’t recall that at all and I watched and read about a lot about those rioting sh!theads.

Has nothing to do with wanting any rioters anywhere to be appropriately punished. I’d think most people would have that position.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT