Someone wants to use the 14th Amendment to fix the 2024 election for Dems.

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Marty has plenty of "what ifs" and a bunch of allegations, but of evidence, nothing.

 

[martybegan]

First. Those are qualifications. It doesn’t make it a right. Second. There is no condition in the 14th requiring conviction of insurrection. Only that the Congress can waive it with a 2/3 majority vote.

It originally required being part of the Confederate government, or a signatory to an article of secession, or being an officer in the Confederate Army.

Do you really want judges to be able to disqualify candidates for office because they feel like it? Because that's what you are asking for in this situation.

 

[martybegan]

No one is interfering. He made his choices with a free will, and now he has been charged and will be tried. Several time. All Trump's problem.

Trumped up charges.

The irony is probably lost on a twit like you.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah! It will linger for many years. Just like ... the Earth is flat ... we never landed on the moon ... 9/11 was an inside job ... etc., etc., etc.

But like with all of those, normal, rational people won't care and will just laugh at y'all.

No. Wrong. Nope.

Nice attempt to link valid concerns about election security with bullshit.

 

[SavannahMann]

It originally required being part of the Confederate government, or a signatory to an article of secession, or being an officer in the Confederate Army.

Do you really want judges to be able to disqualify candidates for office because they feel like it? Because that's what you are asking for in this situation.

First. The trial examined evidence for four days. Trumps attorneys were present and challenging the evidence. The trial judge determined as a matter of fact and law that it was an insurrection and Trump participated. Both the Appeals court and the State Supreme Court upheld that decision. That is due process in action.

Second. It is like many things something the Courts have to decide because there is nobody else.

Here is the real problem. You want outcome based fairness. But the Constitution doesn’t work that way. Yes. The 14th was originally intended to apply to Confederates. But only those who had violated their oath to the United States.

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.

If you had a job where you swore the oath. You know the one. I took it three times when enlisting and reenlisting as a Soldier in the Army. The slight variation to the oath the President and every elected and appointed official takes.

If you took that oath and then betrayed it you were ineligible to hold any office of honor.

Now this was written to punish the Southern States and men who led and participated in the Rebellion. However there is no end date listed. There was probably no belief that there would be a repeat of the Civil War. But the Amendment doesn’t end just because the reason for it is history.

Personally. I love this. Normally the Republicans swear that what is written is exactly what was intended. The Second totally means no restrictions on firearms. No direct mention of Abortion means no right to it. Now of course. The Republicans are arguing although it is written, it totally doesn’t mean that.

 

[Weatherman2020]

This guy is basically calling for a Court mandated coup.

The Disqualification Clause is clear — let’s use it



Does he really think 1/2 the country would accept this lying down and let the Dems get super majorities in both houses?

This is a call for civil war, plain and simple.

Democrats are out of the closet and have gone full fascist.

 

[martybegan]

First. The trial examined evidence for four days. Trumps attorneys were present and challenging the evidence. The trial judge determined as a matter of fact and law that it was an insurrection and Trump participated. Both the Appeals court and the State Supreme Court upheld that decision. That is due process in action.

Second. It is like many things something the Courts have to decide because there is nobody else.

Here is the real problem. You want outcome based fairness. But the Constitution doesn’t work that way. Yes. The 14th was originally intended to apply to Confederates. But only those who had violated their oath to the United States.

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.

If you had a job where you swore the oath. You know the one. I took it three times when enlisting and reenlisting as a Soldier in the Army. The slight variation to the oath the President and every elected and appointed official takes.

If you took that oath and then betrayed it you were ineligible to hold any office of honor.

Now this was written to punish the Southern States and men who led and participated in the Rebellion. However there is no end date listed. There was probably no belief that there would be a repeat of the Civil War. But the Amendment doesn’t end just because the reason for it is history.

Personally. I love this. Normally the Republicans swear that what is written is exactly what was intended. The Second totally means no restrictions on firearms. No direct mention of Abortion means no right to it. Now of course. The Republicans are arguing although it is written, it totally doesn’t mean that.

Insurrection is a crime. Crimes have to be decided in front of a jury of ones peers.

And that Trump betrayed anything is a matter of opinion, not fact.

Judges declared separate but equal being constitutional as "fact" a century ago.

 

[SavannahMann]

Insurrection is a crime. Crimes have to be decided in front of a jury of ones peers.

And that Trump betrayed anything is a matter of opinion, not fact.

Judges declared separate but equal being constitutional as "fact" a century ago.

We aren’t talking about depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property. We are talking about denying them the honor of service. There is no right to service.

That’s the problem. The real problem. We have gotten away from the idea that it is an honor and privilege to serve. Now we the unwashed masses are supposed to feel honored that someone has decided to serve by commanding us.

The restrictions are that those who have acted dishonorably will be denied the ability to serve a post of honor in the future.

 

[martybegan]

We aren’t talking about depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property. We are talking about denying them the honor of service. There is no right to service.

That’s the problem. The real problem. We have gotten away from the idea that it is an honor and privilege to serve. Now we the unwashed masses are supposed to feel honored that someone has decided to serve by commanding us.

The restrictions are that those who have acted dishonorably will be denied the ability to serve a post of honor in the future.

The amendment lists a crime. We prove crimes of this magnitude with a trial by jury.

And yet Marion Barry was allowed to re-run for Mayor, and WON.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trumped up charges.

The irony is probably lost on a twit like you.

91 solid indictments with another 15 to 20 to come.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The amendment lists a crime. We prove crimes of this magnitude with a trial by jury.

And yet Marion Barry was allowed to re-run for Mayor, and WON.

Yet the 14th is not constructed that way, marty. You are wrong.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Insurrection is a crime. Crimes have to be decided in front of a jury of ones peers.

And that Trump betrayed anything is a matter of opinion, not fact.

Judges declared separate but equal being constitutional as "fact" a century ago.

Nothing will change how wrong you are on this issue.

 

[martybegan]

91 solid indictments with another 15 to 20 to come.

"solid"

Most of them re-charging for the same supposed crime over and over.

 

[martybegan]

Yet the 14th is not constructed that way, marty. You are wrong.

It has never been challenged beyond use on Civil War Confederates. I doubt the SC will allow people to just disqualify their political opponents this way.

Eugene V Debs was allowed to run for President, and he advocated actual insurrection.

 

[Moonglow]

This guy is basically calling for a Court mandated coup.

The Disqualification Clause is clear — let’s use it



Does he really think 1/2 the country would accept this lying down and let the Dems get super majorities in both houses?

This is a call for civil war, plain and simple.

You evidently hate the Constitution and want a dictatorship or a monarchy.

 

[Faun]

It originally required being part of the Confederate government, or a signatory to an article of secession, or being an officer in the Confederate Army.

Do you really want judges to be able to disqualify candidates for office because they feel like it? Because that's what you are asking for in this situation.

See: Couy Griffin

 

[martybegan]

Nothing will change how wrong you are on this issue.

Nothing changes the empty space in your pow-wow Hiawatha head, Chief fucktard.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

"solid"

Most of them re-charging for the same supposed crime over and over.

If you keep committing the crime in similar ways over and over, well, sure, Marty.

 

[Faun]

No. Wrong. Nope.

Nice attempt to link valid concerns about election security with bullshit.

The right has no valid concerns about election security. All they care about is lying about election security to get their guy in office illegally.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It has never been challenged beyond use on Civil War Confederates. I doubt the SC will allow people to just disqualify their political opponents this way.

Eugene V Debs was allowed to run for President, and he advocated actual insurrection.

Not one of us have any idea what Gorsuch, Roberts, or Barrett are going to decide.