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.
Where?
"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."
Do you have a link? Not doubting you, just curious about the details.Court. Just like in Colorado.
You guys will never understand simply because you don't want to. The Amendment is referring to an actual insurrection. States left the union. You keep trying to turn a protest into something it isn't. The US Supreme Court will soon set you straight.Expediting Jack Smith's damning case against the Trumpybear would do that, but a conviction is not required by the Amendment to be disqualified from office.
“I think it’s important that the American people know what happened in the days before January 6,” Pence said. “President Trump demanded that I use my authority as vice president presiding over the count of the Electoral College to essentially overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes. I had no authority to do that.”
The dumb fuck Trumpyberra did it to himself. “Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done.” Jan 6th tweet......
Prove your charges in court.The protest ended when they breached the police barricades. It became a riot when the trump rioters demanding access to the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and to hang Mike Pence for not performing the unconstitutional act Trump demanded of him, it became Trump's rebellion and an Trump's insurrection.
If the intent was to required a conviction for either they would have said "shall have engaged in and been convicted of insurrection or rebellion.." instead of "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion.."If it doesn't define insurrection of rebellion, you need some proof. With the Confederates being listed in an article of secession, or being in the Confederate Government, or being in the Confederate Armed Forces was proof enough.
Trump has never been convicted or even formally charged with insurrection or rebellion.
I have to agree with BS here (as much as that pains me). Trump is guilty of inciting a riot, a riot that destroyed federal property and cost some people their lives. And maybe that alone should disqualify him. But insurrection is reaching. I know he was pushing the limits with elector shenanigans etc, and pushing election officials to disqualify the results, but I don't believe that's not the kind of "insurrection" the authors of the 14th had in mind.You guys will never understand simply because you don't want to. The Amendment is referring to an actual insurrection. States left the union. You keep trying to turn a protest into something it isn't. The US Supreme Court will soon set you straight.
Once the police barricades were breached it became a riot and rebellion/insurrection against the Constitution.You guys will never understand simply because you don't want to. The Amendment is referring to an actual insurrection. States left the union. You keep trying to turn a protest into something it isn't. The US Supreme Court will soon set you straight.
If the intent was to required a conviction for either they would have said "shall have engaged in and been convicted of insurrection or rebellion.." instead of "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion.."
I have to agree with BS here (as much as that pains me). Trump is guilty of inciting a riot, a riot that destroyed federal property and cost some people their lives. And maybe that alone should disqualify him. But insurrection is reaching. I know he was pushing the limits with elector shenanigans etc, and pushing election officials to disqualify the results, but I don't believe that's not the kind of "insurrection" the authors of the 14th had in mind.
Well, I disagree there. If a BLM leader has been in his place, given a similar speech, and the crowd stormed the Capital building, you can bet they'd be charged and likely convicted.Incitement is a very specific charge. At no time did he say damage property or harm anyone, in fact the opposite is true.
Your opinion only. The Constitution is talking about states that rebelled.Once the police barricades were breached it became a riot and rebellion/insurrection against the Constitution.
Well, I disagree there. If a BLM leader has been in his place, given a similar speech, and the crowd stormed the Capital building, you can bet they'd be charged and likely convicted.
He sure as hell does, because he wasn't a Confederate, which was the qualifier used at the time.
If the Trump inspired riot at the Capitol, to halt Congress from performing it's duty while it was in a once every 4 year joint session counting the Presidential votes of the States was the only thing that was involved in the plot to overturn the election of Joe Biden, I might agree with you.I have to agree with BS here (as much as that pains me). Trump is guilty of inciting a riot, a riot that destroyed federal property and cost some people their lives. And maybe that alone should disqualify him. But insurrection is reaching. I know he was pushing the limits with elector shenanigans etc, and pushing election officials to disqualify the results, but I don't believe that's not the kind of "insurrection" the authors of the 14th had in mind.
All involving confederates.
Do you have a link? Not doubting you, just curious about the details.
abcnews.go.com
Prove your charges in court.
Federal law defines a riot as a public disturbance involving three or more persons engaging in acts of violence with a clear and present danger of damage to property or injury to people.Your opinion only. The Constitution is talking about states that rebelled.
If he is an insurrectionist, he has to be convicted of insurrection, barring some evidence of secession or serving in a secessionist government or military.
That was the standard used after the civil war.
The thing is what you are really trying to do is deprive the people who want to vote for him the right to vote for him.
Retard, it was used just last year for someone who is not a Confederate.
