Posted on 08/07/2024 4:01:14 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Alex Jones dissects, point-by-point, Jamie Ratskin's plans to instigate mass civil unrest when Trump wins the election to use as cover to declare martial law and prevent Trump from taking office.
(Excerpt) Read more at banned.video ...
Wonder who is a member of his army
Raskin, the Democrat’s Capo.
They've gotten away with stealing an election right in front of our eyes.
Why wouldn't they be confident they can do anything else to us they want?
Where have all my Democratic countrymen gone? Will no one stand up?.
Name that mystery animal hiding on his head. 😏
Me and mine have LOTS of ammo.
Bring it, pencil dick.
Raskin and Wasserman Schultz Working on Legislation to Adjudicate and Bar Officeholding Insurrectionists from Returning to OfficeMarch 5, 2024
Washington, DC – U.S. Reps. Jamie Raskin (MD-08) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25) released the following statement in response to Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on whether Donald Trump could be barred from the Colorado presidential ballot:
“The Supreme Court held that states cannot block insurrectionists from running for federal office unless Congress has acted first to identify and disqualify them under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although this ruling departs from the plain text and original purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, the good news is that the Supreme Court never challenged the Colorado Supreme Court’s factual finding that Donald Trump had participated in the insurrection that took place on January 6, 2021.
“While we question the Court’s flight from the plain meaning of the Constitutional language and from the plain facts of the case, as well as its odd refusal to say what the law is, we are working now to revise our previous bill to provide the closely tailored enabling legislation that the Court is now requiring. Our bill affirms the constitutional directive that anyone who swears to protect the Constitution but violates that oath by engaging in insurrection or rebellion can never serve again in federal or state office. It then provides a federal judicial process to determine whether a defendant is in fact an insurrectionist, making available both Attorney General actions for declaratory and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and corresponding private rights of action there too.
“Some 17 Senate and House Republicans previously voted with bipartisan and bicameral majorities in Congress (232-197 to impeach in the House, 57-43 to convict in the Senate) to determine that Donald Trump had incited an insurrection against the Constitution. We remain hopeful that there will be another significant bloc of Republicans who will join Democrats in voting to adopt a plan for adjudication of insurrectionism in the federal courts so the clear and compelling constitutional purposes can be vindicated.
“Because the Supreme Court has not provided any other way to settle the disqualification of an insurrectionist prior to the casting and counting of Electoral College votes, Congress must now develop a judicial mechanism for ascertaining such persons and Speaker Johnson must permit the House of Representatives to vote on it. If not, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment could simply be rendered a dead letter or a dangerous flashpoint as applied to federal officeholders.”
I must have missed it. When was Trump convicted of "insurrection?"
Well the Colorado Supreme Court did declare just that and the Supremes didn’t strike that down in their ruling so as of now it stands at that State level. Being Colorado highest court only the US Supremes can strike it down they chose not too. So in one state the Don is guilty according to their judicial process. Don’t have to like it one bit but as the state’s have tenth amendment rights until the federal supremacy clause is involved by the Supreme Court it stands in Colorado.
They answer tiurb question. They intend to legislate what was left out of the 14th amendment. That being what constitutes insurrection and what doesn’t this is actually Congress’s job it was always up to the legislature to define law not the court’s. If they have the votes to pass such legislation that’s how the process was designed to work. Legislatures legislate , court’s adjudicate. Our founder’s didn’t think the legislature would do anything but represent the will of the people so they made them the strongest branch of government for a reason. They never intended for judges to rule from the bench. So if they actually pass legislation defining what qualifies as insurrection then that’s the actual constitutional process for it. Their bill defines a specific federal judicial process to convict someone of insurrection that’s exactly how the founders would have done it. They just didn’t expect that the judges would be commies that can’t be predicted.
“Our bill affirms the constitutional directive that anyone who swears to protect the Constitution but violates that oath by engaging in insurrection or rebellion can never serve again in federal or state office. It then provides a federal judicial process to determine whether a defendant is in fact an insurrectionist, making available both Attorney General actions for declaratory and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and corresponding private rights of action there too.”
I must have missed it. When was Trump convicted of "insurrection?"
You have apparently missed several things.
The quote is what Jamin Raskin actually proposed, a piece of legislation, not the overthrow of the goverment. The source and Alex Jones tend to exaggerate for click-bait.
Trump has not been convicted of insurrection, nor did I say he was. He was tried in the Senate and acquitted.
14A-3 does not apply to President Trump.
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.
Trump was never a member of Congress, a member of any state legislature, an executive or judicial officer of any state, or an officer of the United States.
Art. 2, Sec. 2, Cl. 2
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.
An "officer of the United States" is an appointed position. Trump has never been an "officer of the United States."
Jamin Raskin is, in general, full of leftist crap, so what he actually said is bad enough.
[Jamin Raskin] Our bill affirms the constitutional directive that anyone who swears to protect the Constitution but violates that oath by engaging in insurrection or rebellion can never serve again in federal or state office.
It Raskin's claim were true, 14A-3 would not specify a laundry list of who it applies to.
[Jamin Raskin] “Some 17 Senate and House Republicans previously voted with bipartisan and bicameral majorities in Congress (232-197 to impeach in the House, 57-43 to convict in the Senate) to determine that Donald Trump had incited an insurrection against the Constitution.
The cited votes were in an impeachment proceeding and constituted an acquittal in that forum. The vote determined that Trump was held not guilty.
Well the Colorado Supreme Court did declare just that and the Supremes didn’t strike that down in their ruling so as of now it stands at that State level. Being Colorado highest court only the US Supremes can strike it down they chose not too. So in one state the Don is guilty according to their judicial process.
Anderson v. Griswold, 2023 CO 6319 (Dec 2023) was a civil suit. Civil cases are incapable of finding anyone guilty of any crime. The jury in a civil trial does not render a verdict of guilty or not guilty.
That being what constitutes insurrection and what doesn’t this is actually Congress’s job it was always up to the legislature to define law not the court’s.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.
Keep in mind that the current VP will be the one counting the votes for certification.
If Trump had 500 electoral votes, the dems still wouldn’t certify him as winner.
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.