It your sanity isn’t!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It your sanity isn’t!
Nobody has been charged or convicted of insurrection.The guy who led an insurrection against the United States Of America!
90+ felony charges say different. The judge and jury have to presume innocence. I don’t. He’s guilty and a life sentence would be too short.
Who cares what you want to call it, as long as the verdict is guilty?90+ felony charges, of which insurrection is not one of them.
It’s sort of like when women who get an abortion are called murderers, despite there being no such legal basis.Nobody has been charged or convicted of insurrection.
Why is it, with all of the indictments flying around, both with trump and all of those involved with J6, and not a single one has been charged with insurrection?
If it is as plain as day as you all claim it to be, there should have been several, including trump, to have been charged with it.
Well, to disqualify him, you need an insurrection charge.Who cares what you want to call it, as long as the verdict is guilty?
Well, in this case, there is a legal basis, one that needs to be met. So far, it hasn’t beenIt’s sort of like when women who get an abortion are called murderers, despite there being no such legal basis.
No, that isn’t true. A simple going back on one’s oath will do.Well, to disqualify him, you need an insurrection charge.
The legal basis is wuite broad. Narrowing it down to a word does not meet legal scrutiny. It’s kind of open-ended, which precludes such a limited interpretation.Well, in this case, there is a legal basis, one that needs to be met. So far, it hasn’t been
That’s not a part of the 14th ammendment, as far as DQ goesNo, that isn’t true. A simple going back on one’s oath will do.
It’s very open-ended in its wording, therefore open to interpretation and not as strictly constructed as you would have us believe.That’s not a part of the 14th ammendment, as far as DQ goes
No, not really. “Insurrection” isn’t just “whatever we say it is”. Even if it were, the 14th ammendment says that congress has the authority to enforce the ammendment by appropriate legislation, which they did by passing the insurrection act. So far, nobody has been charged under that act. Nobody has proven an insurrection took place, all you have is a riot that got out of hand, of which nobody is charged with insurrection.The legal basis is wuite broad. Narrowing it down to a word does not meet legal scrutiny. It’s kind of open-ended, which precludes such a limited interpretation.
Ahh really? Open to interpretation? Ok, then some will interpret it as not being an insurrection, and that the definition is more precise. so the case is closed. Their word is as good as yours, right?It’s very open-ended in its wording, therefore open to interpretation and not as strictly constructed as you would have us believe.
I know it’s not whatever I say it is. It’s whatever the SC says it is. Your analysis isn’t inherently superior to mine, but your “narrow construction” flies in the face of decades of precedent.No, not really. “Insurrection” isn’t just “whatever we say it is”. Even if it were, the 14th ammendment says that congress has the authority to enforce the ammendment by appropriate legislation, which they did by passing the insurrection act. So far, nobody has been charged under that act. Nobody has proven an insurrection took place, all you have is a riot that got out of hand, of which nobody is charged with insurrection.
I understand that the left wants to be able to say that they can just charge him with a “broad definition”, but the 14th ammendment is specific.
Of course it it. The 14th was written for a case like this.That’s not a part of the 14th ammendment, as far as DQ goes
Well, there’s no precedent because, as far as I’m aware, nobody has ever been charged under the insurrection actI know it’s not whatever I say it is. It’s whatever the SC says it is. Your analysis isn’t inherently superior to mine, but your “narrow construction” flies in the face of decades of precedent.
Where in the 14th ammendment does it mention the word oath?Of course it it. The 14th was written for a case like this.
So you say go to hell with justice!!!! I note that. I do not agree and it is up to the public and not you and me to decide that for the public.Trump is a criminal and does not deserve to be on the ballot in a single state.