Posted on 05/24/2022 7:44:03 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
I have to agree with your assessment.
Simply charge them as insurrectionists and remove them, using their own ruling as justification.
watch
dissent will become insurrection
THE PARTY has spoken
“The opinion from the Richmond, Virginia-based appeals court sends the case back to lower court in Raleigh, North Carolina, to be reconsidered. “
Where the lower court should tell the corrupt 4th circuit to go pound sand. They should not be required to do the dirty work for the 4th circuit.
4th circuit infiltrated.
Sounds a lot like North Korea where the "dear leader" gets 100% of the vote. Great system we've got here where those in power can keep anyone they want from running against them.
Perhaps in a tongue-in-cheek way. But such action would really be stopping both a rebellion and an invasion, not to mention the theft of a nation.
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
January 6, 2021, was NOT a time of war or public danger. If anyone loses their rights to hold office because of that, the challenge, in accordance with the Fifth amendment, is right there.
You should have read it more carefully. It does state '... if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.'.
Read post #19 please.
The 4th Circuit didn't "rule" that insurrectionist members of Congress may be barred from office. The plain language of the 14th Amendment says that.
The 4th Circuit held that the 1872 Amnesty Act does not apply to Madison Cawthorn, which it obviously does not, and therefore the district court erred in issuing an injunction against the North Carolina Board of Elections. The 4th Circuit explicitly "express[ed] no opinion about whether Representative Cawthorn in fact engaged in 'insurrection or rebellion' or is otherwise qualified to serve in Congress."
One of the concurrences, written by Judge Richardson, also correctly pointed out that the district court had no jurisdiction to consider Cawthorn's qualifications or lack thereof, because that issue is exclusively committed to the House under Article I, Section 5.
Why waste my time if you are not going to address my point that the law says 'if convicted in court of proper jurisdiction', to which you respond
But the panel had no disagreement on the outcome—they all voted to vacate the injunction. Heytens and Wynn held that the district judge was wrong on the merits in issuing the injunction because the 1872 Amnesty Act does not apply to Cawthorn. Richardson would have held that the district judge had no jurisdiction to issue it at all because the House is the sole judge of a candidate’s qualifications under the Constitution. It’s hard to imagine either en banc or SCOTUS review being granted on a non-outcome determinative dispute like this, and I certainly don’t think anyone in SCOTUS or in the 4th Circuit thinks the district judge actually got it right.
Also, Cawthorn’s primary loss will be certified, and this case will be moot, by the time either the en banc court or SCOTUS could possibly hear this case.
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.