Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ClearCase_guy

The 14th Amendment seems to speak of “engaging in insurrection”.
It doesn’t mention a charge, a trial, or a conviction.


Right but I think the context was that it could be so obvious to be undeniable, such as a confederate military officer who wasn’t formally charged with a crime. I don’t think anyone would be able to rationally argue against that even without a criminal trial.


83 posted on 01/10/2024 1:03:17 PM PST by CraigEsq (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: CraigEsq
I think the context was that it could be so obvious to be undeniable

Indeed. We had a full scale Civil War 1861-1865 and afterwards, if you were a Confederate veteran, or politician, it would have been so obvious that you had "engaged in an insurrection" that it didn't really need a lot of discussion.

But now it's 2024. Nancy Pelosi forms the opinion that some sort of insurrection took place? And she has decided that Trump is the one to blame? And THEREFORE Trump is ineligible for the presidency? Ummmmmmmmmmmm ... seems a stretch. I'm gonna need something a bit more substantial than that ...

85 posted on 01/10/2024 1:52:22 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson