and while twisting the 14th amendment to get Trump, aren’t they themselves rebelling against our constitution?
throw them all out.
Do we actually imagine the “law” matters anymore?
The Dems along with their traitorous RINO allies will do everything possible to keep Trump out of office. They fear nothing because the people didn’t do squat in protesting the railroading of the Jan6 political prisoners so they think they can get away with anything now. Prepare yourself for civil insurrection and martial law. It may very well come to that.
the point is to try to get Trump off of some state ballots
“We believe that any disinterested observer who witnessed that bloody assault on the temple of our democracy, and anyone who learns about the many failed schemes to bloodlessly overturn the election before that, would have to come to the same conclusion.”
a) Trump didn’t assault anyone or anything
b) a “scheme to bloodlessly overturn the election” is by definition not an insurrection, since an insurrection involves violence, so by their own description they debunk their argument
For example, if I were to go to Washington DC and just, through my swift talking, convince the Chief Justice to swear me in as President instead of whoever actually got elected, that would not be an insurrection. It might be improper, and it might be illegal, but it wouldn’t be an insurrection, since there was no violence, or even threats or coercion involved.
Why wasn’t John F. Kerry barred from the 2004 ballot? He gave “aid and comfort” to enemies of the United States (North Vietnamese), even going to Paris to give them advice in the peace negotiations.
The U.S. Capitol building is no “temple of democracy.”
It is a nest of serpents...a den of thieves...a retirement home for career felons.
“We are not apologists for Trump’s spreading of baseless claims of electoral fraud or his efforts to stop the electoral count on Jan. 6.”
Prove the claims are baseless.
“Although Section 3 unquestionably applied to Confederates, its text contains nothing limiting it to the Civil War. Rather, it has continuing relevance to any future “insurrection or rebellion.” Although it does not explicitly refer to presidents or presidential candidates, comparison with other constitutional texts referring to “officer[s]” supports the interpretation that it applies to the presidency too.”
I totally disagree with this assessment.
Firstly - The Office of the President has never been considered an “office under the United States” and in David McKnight’s 1878 treatise on the US Government he states that it obviously is not an office under the United States. Being that he wrote that a little over ten years after the 14th was written, it is likely that was the prevailing understanding at the time. Section 3 refers specifically to offices UNDER the United States not any office in the government. The President occupies a position of special distinction and privileges in our system, it is not an ordinary government office, it is the only executive position clearly and unequivocally at the head of government and military.
Secondly - It stretches the imagination to believe the authors of the 14th Amendment would mention representatives, senators and electors of the President but were too lazy to include the President if they intended for Section 3 to apply to the head of the Executive Branch.
I am not arguing whether the South was right or wrong to secede rather arguing that what is going on today is total bunk. The 14th Amendment was written to deal with the aftermath of the Civil War. Not political targets of the opposition party.
“Although Section 3 unquestionably applied to Confederates, its text contains nothing limiting it to the Civil War. Rather, it has continuing relevance to any future “insurrection or rebellion.” Although it does not explicitly refer to presidents or presidential candidates, comparison with other constitutional texts referring to “officer[s]” supports the interpretation that it applies to the presidency too.”
Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, known as “the Appointments Clause,” states how federal officers must be appointed.
[The President] "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."
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep561477/
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 497-98 (2010), Roberts, CJ, Opinion of the Court
The diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the “assistants or deputies . . . subject to his superintendence.” The Federalist No. 72, p. 487 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Without a clear and effective chain of command, the public cannot “determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure,or series of pernicious measures ought really to fall.” Id., No. 70, at 476 (same). That is why the Framers sought to ensure that “those who are employed in the execution of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of dependence be preserved; the lowest officers, the middle grade, and the highest, will depend, as they ought, on the President, and the President on the community.” 1 Annals of Cong., at 499 (J. Madison).
The People do not vote for Officers of the United States; they are appointed. The President is not appointed. The President is not an Officer of the United States.
The judge decides what will hold up on court. Truth isn’t a factor any more.