Posted on 12/20/2023 6:52:58 PM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
“To execute a man we don’t need proof of his guilt. We only need proof that it’s necessary to execute him. It’s that simple.” — Ernesto Che Guevara.
Well, he didn’t mince any words.
Democrats are the enemy of all that is good, decent and righteous. The father of lies smiles when he sees how faithfully his disciples are carrying out his evil agenda.
Like Matalin and Carville.
If Chris Christie and Michael Cohen could create an @ss-baby, it would look exact like that loser.
He needs to stop catcalling Donald! Donald Trump doesn’t want to date him because Donald is already married to Melania.
Mr. Kellyanne Fitzpatrick weighs in again.
LOL Headline...
“George Conway Revenge Body: Kellyanne Conway’s Trump Bashing Ex-husband Has Lost 40 Pounds Since Divorce”
Then have the legislature hold a hearing and vote that neither Joe Biden or Kamala Harris may be on the ballot because their administration opened the border in violation of federal law and Biden took bribes. Under the reasoning of the Colorado decision, the lack of an actual impeachment is no bar to such a decision.
Sorry, I quit reading when I saw the author’s name.
63 former Confederate soldiers served in the Senate alone, according to Senate web site.
The law cited was never used to unseat them.
And Trump never took a oath to fight against the Republic.
Let the Colorado supreme court put that in their pipe and smoke it.
No, the argument is that anyone who took an oath to defend the Constitution, which Trump did upon being sworn in, and then participatied in an ‘insurrection’ against the U.S. is disqualified from holding any state, local or national office.
Congress later did pass laws that pretty much allowed ex-Confederate office holders and officers to serve in public office.
The whole 14th Amendment idea is absurd, but democrats are pushing it nonetheless.
How does this crap even get published? Oh my God, the stupidity.
Does this da POS not understand that appellate courts do not normally rule on District Courts’ ‘finding of facts’?
-fJRoberts-
[Conway] Section 3 doesn’t apply to him because the person holding what the Constitution itself calls the “Office of the President” is, somehow, not an “officer of the United States."
That "somehow" is the Constitution, Article 2, §2, The Appointments Clause:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep099/usrep099508a/usrep099508a.pdf
United States v Germaine, 99 US 508, 509-510 (1878)
The argument is that provision is here made for the appointment of all officers of the United States, and that defendant, not being appointed in either of the modes here mentioned, is not an officer, though he may be an agent or employee working for the government and paid by it, as nine-tenths of the persons rendering service to the government undoubtedly are, without thereby becoming its officers.The Constitution for purposes of appointment very clearly divides all its officers into two classes. The primary class requires a nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. But foreseeing that when offices became numerous, and sudden removals necessary, this mode might be inconvenient, it was provided that, in regard to officers inferior to those specially mentioned, Congress might by law vest their appointment in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. That all persons who can be said to hold an office under the government about to be established under the Constitution were intended to be included within one or the other of these modes of appointment there can be but little doubt. This Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no act of Congress is of any validity which does not rest on authority conferred by that instrument. It is, therefore, not to be supposed that Congress, when enacting a criminal law for the punishment of officers of the United States, intended to punish any one not appointed in one of those modes. If the punishment were designed for others than officers as defined by the Constitution, words to that effect would be used, as servant, agent, person in the service or employment of the government; and this has been done where it was so intended, as in the sixteenth section of the act of 1846, concerning embezzlement, by which any officer or agent of the United States, and all persons participating in the act, are made liable. 9 Stat. 59.
As the defendant here was not appointed by the President or by a court of law, it remains to inquire if the Commissioner of Pensions, by whom he was appointed, is the head of a department, within the meaning of the Constitution, as is argued by the counsel for plaintiffs.
No elected official is an officer of the United States.
One assumes with Dad out of the picture Mom might be trying to salvage the other 3. (The slut, Claudia, is the oldest) NBC News: Kellyanne and George Conway announce divorce
Evidently Federal law makes insurrection a crime punishable by fine or up to ten years in prison.
The Colorado Supreme Court has decided, without a criminal trial, to determine that Trump is guilty. Suppose that some time in the future Trump is tried for insurrection and is found NOT GUILTY. Would Trump deserve something more than just an apology from the Colorado Supreme Court?
Is it the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to advise the Colorado Supreme Court that they have no power to convict trump of a federal felony? Or should the judges of the Colorado Supreme Court have picked up on that in law school?
A stupid person wrote this piece
Yes it is absurd but that never stopped the liberals nor their lickspittle media from pursuing it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.