Posted on 09/15/2023 2:37:25 PM PDT by LS
- Any offenses (real or not) were addressed in the two impeachments by the House and non convictions by the Senate.
- The “judicial” actions against him as President are now closed and moot.
- January 6th to January 20th 2021 was the two-week timeframe that Nasty Nancy and her cabal had to press their case—admittedly it would be on a super-expedited track—to hang something on him with a conviction in the Senate.
- They didn’t.
and Paul Gosar and many others in the past.
quotes from POLITIFACT:
“A great report by Peter. Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” [Dec.19]
https://peternavarro.com/the-navarro-report/
“The ‘Justice’ Department and the FBI have done nothing about the 2020 Presidential Election Voter Fraud, the biggest SCAM in our nation’s history, despite overwhelming evidence. They should be ashamed. History will remember. Never give up. See everyone in D.C. on January 6th.” [Dec. 26]
“We are excited to announce the site of our January 6th event will be The Ellipse in the President’s Park, just steps from the White House!” [Jan. 3]
“Unbelievable, what we have to go through, what we have to go through and you have to get your people to fight. If they don’t fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don’t fight. You primary them. We’re going to let you know who they are, I can already tell you, frankly.”
“Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. And if he doesn’t, that will be a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our constitution. Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy.”
“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”
“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period.”
“Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” he tweeted at 2:38 p.m. By that point, the mob had already shattered windows as they pushed inside the building.
His video statement repeated false claims about the fraudulent election and said, “We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special.”
https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/11/timeline-what-trump-said-jan-6-capitol-riot/
It is very clear that the authors of Section 3 did not mean to include the President and that is why they specifically mention Electors OF the President, it seems pretty likely they did not intend for the Vice President to be subject to this section also.
It seems preposterous to assert that the President in NOT an Officer of the United States, when Article II of the Constitution repeatedly mentions the “Office of President”, “removal from Office, etc.
The simplest reason the 14th A is inapplicable is that Trump has never been found guilty of insurrection, despite a Congressional impeachment inquiry about the J6 events. That was the time or never.
The POTUS isn’t an officer, the POTUS is the executive branch. He IS The Executive. “The Office of the President” is the physical walls and doors and windows of an office at the White House. The President however physically is and represents the whole of the Executive Branch. So no, the President isn’t an “officer” in the normal sense.
Text of H.R.2761 of the 42nd Congress:
To remove political disabilities of the 14th article of the amendments of the Constitution of the United States.There is some debate as to whether this was limited to Civil War participants or did the act remove the penalties in perpetuity? It appears that SCOTUS never ruled on this, as the closest it got was the 11th Circuit which dismissed it as moot.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the 14th article of the amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-six and Thirty-seventh Congresses, officers of the judicial, military, and naval services of the United States, heads of Departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.
-PJ
So the president is not considered an officer of the United States?
No, the President is most definitely NOT an "officer of the United States." As explicitly stated in two Supreme Court opinions, an officer of the United States is an appointed position. No elected official is an officer of the United States. 14A, §3 does not apply to the President. I also made this point here on another thread on 8/25/2023. "Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, known as “the Appointments Clause,” states how federal officers must be appointed."
See the applicable Supreme Court opinions below.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep124/usrep124303/usrep124303.pdf
United States v Mouat, 124 US 303, 307 (1888)
What is necessary to constitute a person an officer of the United States, in any of the various branches of its service, has 'been very fully considered by this court in United States v. Gernaine, 99 U. S. 508. In that. case, it was distinctly pointed out that, under the Constitution of the United States, all its officers were appointed by the President, By and with the consent of the Senate, or by a court of law, or the head of a Department; and the heads of the Departments were defined in that opinion to be what are now called the members of the Cabinet. Unless a person in the service of the Government, therefore, holds his place by virtue of an appointment by the President, or of one of the courts of justice or heads of Departments authorized by law to make such an appointment, he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep099/usrep099508a/usrep099508a.pdf
United States v Germaine, 99 US 508, 509-510 (1878)
The argument is that provision is here made for the appointment of all officers of the United States, and that defendant, not being appointed in either of the modes here mentioned, is not an ofcer, though he may be an agent or employ6 working for the government and paid by it, as nine-tenths of the persons rendering service to the government undoubtedly are, without thereby becoming its officers.The Constitution for purposes of appointment very clearly divides all its officers into two classes. The primary class requires a nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. But foreseeing that when offices became numerous, and sudden removals necessary, this mode might be inconvenient, it was provided that, in regard to officers inferior to those specially mentioned, Congress might by law vest their appointment in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. That all persons who can be said to hold an office under the government about to be established under the Constitution were intended to be included within one or the other of these modes of appointment there can be but little doubt. This Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no act of Congress is of any validity which does not rest on authority conferred by that instrument. It is, therefore, not to be supposed that Congress, when enacting a criminal law for the punishment of officers of the United States, intended to punish any one not appointed in one of those modes. If the punishment were designed for others than officers as defined by the Constitution, words to that effect would be used, as servant, agent, person in the service or employment of the government; and this has been done where it was so intended, as in the sixteenth section of the act of 1846, concerning embezzlement, by which any officer or agent of the United States, and all persons participating in the act, are made liable. 9 Stat. 59.
As the defendant here was not appointed by the President or by a court of law, it remains to inquire if the Commissioner of Pensions, by whom he was appointed, is the head of a department, within the meaning of the Constitution, as is argued by the counsel for plaintiffs.
I disagree that an Act ever has legal relevance to an Amendment, particularly if in more recent cases the amendment was invoked.
But the 14th amendment specifically gives Congress the power to enforce it in two places:
In Section 3:
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.In Section 5:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.How does Congress enforce a Constitutional provision except via acts?
The Amnesty Act of 1872 removed the disability just as Section 3 said Congress can do. The question is whether it removed it only for people who met the conditions at the time or if it removed the disability in perpetuity because it wasn't specific except to excepting two Congresses from it.
-PJ
All things are in context. Two courts have now ruled this is Civil War related only. The only case that did not do so was not appealed.
You can keep arguing this, but it’s a done deal and story after story is coming out that DemoKKKrats know it.
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.