zero chance this will withstand a Supreme Court challenge
There was no insurrection. Period.
Except no one was charged with insurrection.
Insurrection can mean almost anything.
Merriam Webster defines it as:
insurrection: [noun] an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.
Another defines it as:
a violent uprising against an authority or government:
So based on the different definitions, it’s not clear that it has to be violent. It’s not clear that it even has to be a march. It could be voicing an objection to gun control or transgender rights.
Campaigning against an incumbent is an insurrection.
Should the Congress become in control of the GOPee in Nov., they need to clean house on Traitor Roberts’ “non-partisan” Fed. Judiciary.
Defund them.
“To ask such a question is nearly to answer it,”
No, to treat an asked question as nearly answered is intellectually lazy and partisan.
CC
Just the little problem of that “innocent until proven guilty” thingy.
Remove these evil judges yesterday.
These people don’t seem to understand what a real insurrection is, so we might wind up having to show them. This just appears to be another Dem strategy to remove populist politicians and preventing them from even running. Since it may become more difficult for them to outright steal an election in the future, their next move would be disqualifying certain candidates because of their ‘insurrectionary rhetoric’.
Our betters have spoken /eyeroll
Were you aware that 8 U.S. Code § 1481 (a)(7) days that anybody who committed or conspired in an act of insurrection can be stripped of his citizenship? And that paragraph (b) of that section places the burden of proof is not on the government but on the person?
Note that this section does not say that you had to be found guilty of those crimes, merely that you committed them. In other words, the government simply needs to assert that thus and so action was an insurrection and show that you were somehow involved and **boom** no more US citizenship.
After they prohibit any MAGA candidate from being able to run, I really believe that they’ll go after citizenship next. And not just for political candidates. Those without a second passport will be left stateless.
All 3 of these judges need to be removed in 2023.
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.
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.
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.