Posted on 09/04/2023 6:48:21 AM PDT by CFW
Davis had been a senator and cabinet secretary and had taken an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" before the war. Having broken the oath, he was ineligible to hold US office after the war. His VP, Alexander Stephens, was elected to the Senate after the war, but denied the seat. He did manage to become a Congressman later. I don't know how he got around that clause.
Thank you. If it couldn’t have had an ice cube’s chance in hell of ever overthrowing the government it was never an insurrection, no matter how many times people try to label it that.
If Trump can’t run because of J6, then neither should any democrat who spoke up in support of any riot anywhere in the country, or who urged people to don’t to funds set up to bail out rioters. That would include Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer, Ratskin, Schitt, and hundreds of others across the country.
It was a protest then went bad.
Where are all the Republican DAs? Why are they not doing the same against the democrats for supporting BLM and antifa? Time to play nice is long gone.
All true, sir.
However, the left’s weaponization of the 14th Amendment is about Clock Management.
It’s identical to the statist left pushing novel legal theories about teachers and kids having a legal right to ignore parents. They simply want to keep the offense on the field long enough to inflict damage.
I mean, they’ll take the win…the Commerce Clause is a shell of its original intent.
But right now, all they need it to float the IDEA of the 14th Amendment being a block against Trump, or the IDEA that teachers are legally-blocked from informing Johnny’s parents that he is now Mary.
With that idea being kicked around, the clock keeps ticking.
WE think this is about them getting a first down.
THEY want this to drag to the election. With the kids, they want to destroy lives.
And the officials - MSM, judges, the academy - are on the left’s payroll.
They don’t care if they lose in the courts in 2026. By then, the damage is done.
We need to wake up- this is about clock management and not getting a first down.
This whole 14th Amendment stuff is absurd. On the date of the Raffensperger call, January 2nd, and the date of the January 6th riot, Trump was still president. How the heck can someone “insurrect” against a government they are still the head of?
“This whole 14th Amendment stuff is absurd. On the date of the Raffensperger call, January 2nd, and the date of the January 6th riot, Trump was still president. How the heck can someone “insurrect” against a government they are still the head of?”
Well, first you start with the premise that Trump was an illegitimate President and you go from there.
POTUS is definitely not mentioned in the list of Sec 3 elected officials. There was no need because impeachment conviction is the remedy there. Impeachment conviction bars a person from seeking office. Art 1, Sec 3, Clause 7:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
I do enjoy the irony of a Trump failed impeachment being evidence of why this nonsense can’t go forward.
Rather than continue internecine battles and in-house contention, I’d like to propose the theory that the Democratic apparatus is playing Trump’s supporters as their basic strategy, and hoping for unsightly reactions.
True that many of the obsessive haters of our country and its institutions see nothing wrong with using the law-enforcement organs of the State to achieve political ends. Yet I believe the less rabid parts of the Democrat apparatchik also craftily intend these prosecutions to incite some kind of reaction that can be painted by their Fifth Columnists in the state-adoring media as Jan 6 redux.
By trumpeting the awfulness of such an event the mushy, self-absorbed middle can be manipulated to “Holy cow! we gotta protect our democracy from being *literally* destroyed!” and then being harvested into the “D” column at that quaint exercise known as Election Day.
We should have a posture that includes ridicule and contempt for these strategies.
Wasn’t this case against Trump thrown out by the judge recently? I thought I read that somewhere.
The vote was GIVEN to man to get him to put down his gun whenever something really ticked him off.
Take his vote.
What will happen?
Same thing for a man not grabbing his gun when the armed man approachibg him has a badge(his vote). Take his vote away, see what happens.
.
Exactly. The "insurrection" must have started in November of 2016!
The people promoting the “insurrection” narrative developed an intense interest in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies anyone from holding public office at the federal or state level if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”
14A does not say that. It gives a particular list of who it disqualifies:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, 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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Donald Trump has clearly never been a member of Congress, a member of any state legislature, or an executive or judicial officer of any state. He has not taken an oath as any of those.
U.S. Const., Art. II, Section 2:
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:
An "officer of the United States" is an appointed position. Donald Trump, as President, was not an "officer of the United States." He has never taken an oath as an officer of the United States.
Section 5, curiously not mentioned in the article, of the 14th empowers Congress to enforce the amendment.
Scotus, states, prosecutors and no-name lawyers don’t have enforcement standing.
It is that simple.
Comments?
There is nothing that states or Congress can do without prior "appropriate legislation."14th Amendment Section 5:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.Section 3 is too vague in defining what constitutes "insurrection," therefore calling President Trump's speech an insurrection doesn't meet the standards of the 14th amendment Section 3 without further legislation.
Looking at 50 U.S. Code Title 50—WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE, specifically 50 U.S. Code CHAPTER 13—INSURRECTION, all of the individual sections refer to "state[s] in insurrection," not individual citizens.
This is understandable given that the 14th amendment was in response to the Civil War and the seceding states (states in insurrection), not individuals. Section 3 of the 14th amendment was written with the idea of preventing the office holders of future seceding states from holding offices in the United States.
Therefore, "insurrection" in the 14th amendment was meant to apply to the several states, not to individual citizens. A state must be in open rebellion before the citizens of that state can be held for insurrection.
If Congress tried to pass a new law to define insurrection as inciteful speech in front of a large crowd near the Capitol in order to use it as the basis for charging President Trump, it would be an ex post facto law if applied to Trump. A law like that would have to already be on the books to apply to the January 6 speech. A new law would only apply to future speech.
-PJ
Comments?
I don't think the 14th amendment gives Congress the power to remove the President. I don't think it would be considered "impeachment," as this is an entirely different thing.The 14th amendment was written to block anyone who participated in a civil war from becoming a Congressman, Elector to the Electoral College, Justice or Cabinet member, or a member of a state government where they might incite rebellion again. The one line in President Trump's speech acknowledging that the participants were going to march to the Capitol is not insurrection or rebellion. Almost everyone who holds a rally at the Mall ends with a march to the Capitol building.
First, the wording on this is such that it seems to include everyone EXCEPT the President and Vice President.
14th Amendment Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, 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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.Second, when read against the wording of Article II Section 4's impeachment clause...
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors....it is clear that the President and Vice President are separate and distinct from "any office, civil or military, under the United States" because they are included separately in the impeachment clause. "Officers of the United States" means anyone who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, that is, Justices to the Supreme Court, Cabinet members, and senior military officers. It is not the President, Vice President, or member of Congress.
Third, the 14th amendment excludes the President and Vice President from its scope because an insurrection or rebellion is, by definition, the overthrow of a country's leadership (President), not its legislative body. The assassination of President Lincoln was on their minds, which is likely why the President and Vice President were excluded: the President cannot overthrow himself. Pelosi may fancy herself as the "co-leader" (she's on record saying “The Constitution does.”), but she's not. The Speaker is second in line to fill a vacancy in the Presidency.
Finally, the role of Congress in the 14th amendment is not to make a finding of insurrection or rebellion, it is only to waive the penalty for someone so they can run for office again. It is the opposite of impeachment: by 2/3rds vote, Congress may "remove such disability," not impose it. Some other body must make a finding of insurrection or rebellion.
I'm not a lawyer, but that's my take on it.
-PJ
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.