Let's make something clear.

I'm waiting for a Trumpleton to make an informed argument against the assertion "Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment," but I'm not expecting one. Theirs is the way of invectives, not reason.
12 cases on the Act in History. If you are charging with Insurrection then the Bill of Rights demand a fair Trial and conviction.

Willy Nilly you are guilty just because is Where in the Constitution
 
From the OP link>>>

As the Supreme Court has observed in the context of the Insurrection Act, it is generally up to the President to determine whether a civil disturbance rises to the level of an insurrection or obstruction of the laws serious enough to overcome the ability of civil authorities to suppress it. Consequently, a presidential invocation of the Insurrection Act would likely suffice to establish the existence of an insurrection for Fourteenth Amendment disqualification purposes. However, presidential invocation of the act might not be necessary.

an interesting niggley , given Trump was still potus 1/6

~S~
 
I'm waiting for a Trumpleton to make an informed argument against the assertion "Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment," but I'm not expecting one. Theirs is the way of invectives, not reason.
Alex Jones and Tucker haven't laid that one out for them yet.
 
Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw out his espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groups and organizations have challenged the eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress, arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate. A New Mexico state court, however, has removed Otero County Commissioner County Griffin from office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for, the January 6 interruption of the election certification.

Absent evidence in contradiction of CREW's assertion I suspect Trumpleton's will ineffectually attack CREW and or the CRS. It is the Trumpian way. When facts and evidence fail them they rely on what amounts to character assassination. Which is why Trump attacks the media, anyone who opposes him, and most especially those like Jack Smith who are working to hold Don accountable for his illegal actions.

Furthermore, quite a bit has been made about the removal of a candidate's name from the ballot being anti-democratic. Yet the Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic. From the moment Trump began the anti-democratic act of conspiring to steal the election he violated his oath of office and forfeited his right to once again run to be the prez.

It’s hilarious your TDS is so severe you wasted all this time to scour the interwebs and type this drivel.
 
I’m actually referring to Republicans trying to take away the votes of millions of people who happened to vote for Biden by filing lawsuits and trying to persuade state officials to eliminate votes or appoint new electors.

Republicans showed they’re antidemocratic in 2020.
They don't see the irony.
 
12 cases on the Act in History. If you are charging with Insurrection then the Bill of Rights demand a fair Trial and conviction.

Willy Nilly you are guilty just because is Where in the Constitution
Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
 
I don't think this stuff is a good idea, but it's pretty clear the Trumpsters don't understand the rule or how it's being applied.

All they know is rage and revenge.

If Trump did this you would be unglued. The truth is: Biden and co do everything you IMAGINED Trump would do, but you have the disease you accuse us of--you don't care, because it's your side.

You're a whole joke, Gigi
 
If Trump did this you would be unglued. The truth is: Biden and co do everything you IMAGINED Trump would do, but you have the disease you accuse us of--you don't care, because it's your side.

You're a whole joke, Gigi

Thanks for the like, Mac1958 , you should like all of these posts--and continue liking them--where you're being absolutely demolished.

Because you are, and haven't the self-awareness to feel shame for it.
 
The willfully ignorant right.

In addition to not requiring a criminal conviction, disqualification pursuant to Section 3 doesn’t require the disqualified individual to be afforded due process.

Disqualification isn’t a criminal prosecution; one’s life, liberty, or property are not in jeopardy.

The disqualified individual doesn’t go to jail, isn’t executed, and doesn’t have his private property taken by government – he continues to live his private life absent seeking public office.
 

Forum List

Back
Top