Posted on 12/16/2022 6:02:54 AM PST by Red Badger
Rhode Island is corrupted to the core.................
I think so too. I wasn’t crazy about the idea, ok, not at all yesterday, but woke up today and found myself chuckling about how tongue in cheek the whole things was about the cards.
All leadership positions in all federal agencies should be regularly rotated, to prevent the establishment of fiefdoms by the swamp dwellers.
Cool another banana republic moment for the left!!
Shhhhhhhhhh, or the GOPe Traitors will hear you. LOL.
Cicillinefag will eventually face a firing squad for Treason against the US Constitution. Since when is Congress the Judge, Jury and Executioner??? The prohibition on Bills of Attainder is very clear and there has been no due process afforded, no trial and no conviction on the BS made up charges.
“”Rhode Island is corrupted to the core””
I stay in touch with a couple of old friends from high school and there is one former classmate we avoid - she lives in Rhode Island. We found out she didn’t appreciate receiving our emails about the corrupt dems and decided to take her off our contact list. I guess liberalism is a disease in RI...we didn’t know that!! Everyone asks “whatever became of ????” and we say, “we don’t know.”
I would say, "She was assimilated by the BORG."..............
Both of whom objected to Trump's Electoral Vote Count Jan. 6, 2017.
Jayapal simple-mindedly objected to the Georgia slate's electoral certification.
Sh@b00n Lee objected to the Michigan slate due to "Russian interference".
p
This “bill will go nowhere.
Te so called insurrection was a fabrication and a false flag operation hosted by the FBI who had embedded agents in the crowd to stir up the small crowd of about 1000 people out of the million who attended the protest that day.
This bill is barred by the Constitution as a Bill of Attainder:
“Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Supreme Court cases have given “broad and generous meaning to the constitutional protection against bills of attainder” by interpreting it to ban not only legislation imposing a death sentence, as the term was used at English common law, but also legislation that imposes other forms of punishment on specific persons without trial...........”
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-2/ALDE_00013187/
The latter. Volokh, for all his flaws, had the right take on 14A Sec3:
The 14th Amendment Disqualification Gambit"Can Congress, for example by majority vote on a concurrent resolution, simply declare that Trump has engaged in an insurrection and disqualify him from ever holding the office of president again? That would be a neat trick in that it would avoid the difficulties of winning conviction in a Senate trial by a two-thirds majority.
In the Washington Post, Daniel Hemel walks through why this is a strained interpretation of Section Three and why it would be a bad idea. I recommend checking it out:
"There’s a problem with this theory, though. A provision in the original 1787 Constitution — Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 — prohibits Congress from passing any “bill of attainder.” A bill of attainder is a law declaring a specific person to be guilty of a crime and prescribing a punishment. The bill of attainder clause reflects the principle that the judiciary, not the legislature, is responsible for adjudicating guilt and meting out justice."Be that as it may, a law barring Trump from future officeholding that is passed by a simple majority of the House and Senate would raise serious constitutional questions. Trump’s defenders would no doubt argue that the law violates the bill of attainder clause, and unlike many of Trump’s legal arguments, this one would be far from frivolous. Trump could cloak himself in the authority of Chase, an outspoken abolitionist, racial progressive and original member of Abraham Lincoln’s “team of rivals.”
Myles Lynch has a draft article working through the history of how Section Three has actually been applied.
A Senate impeachment trial may not adhere to the same standards of due process as an ordinary judicial proceeding, but there is a reason why the punishment of disqualification can be applied only after a trial and a conviction before a court with a high hurdle for a guilty verdict. "Insurrection" is not a political offense like "high crimes and misdemeanors." It is a criminal act in violation of the criminal code and capable of being adjudicated in ordinary criminal courts. If Section Three is to be applied, then it should follow a criminal conviction for engaging in an insurrection.
If instead partisan majorities can simply declare that individuals have participated in, encouraged, or given aid to insurrections, then it is not hard to imagine how the scope of "insurrection" could grow, the evidence that an individual had actually engaged in one could be thin to none, and how this power could be turned against political opponents. How many Democratic politicians would a Republican majority in Congress be willing to disqualify from holding future office given their expressed views on various protests turned riots? It would be better not to find out."
14 seconds apart, wow.
I will remain silent for a while.
As in speechless.
41 members of the National Association of the American Communist Party.
Its Divine Providence at Work! LOL.
Are the people most afraid of Trump the same ones behind the real coup that’s going on?
I suspect it is highly unconstitutional - with such a point being lost on the Dems...
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
A bill of Attainder is legislative punishment without someone first having received due-process... specifically when the legislation is directed at an individual.
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.