Posted on 01/18/2024 10:10:04 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
Yes, like in 18 U.S. Code § 2102 that clears President Trump:
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.President Trump spoke of his belief that he won the election, and then asked the attendees to peacefully walk to the Capitol to show the lawmakers their support for President Trump. That meets the exception to the "to incite a riot" definition.
The actual rioters who broke in the Capitol must defend their own actions, but US Code says that President Trump's actions did not incite these people to act.
According to this section of the US Code, President Trump's speech on January 6 didn't even meet the definition of incitement to riot. How can it then meet the definition of insurrection?
-PJ
Because they’re lying.
The 14th amendment does not state a criminal conviction is necessary to disqualify someone from being president. Historically, the majority of those disqualified after the civil war were never convicted.
Democrats are the party of INSURRECTION which the 14th was created for....I would enforce it but that would mean NO DEMOCRAT would ever be allowed to hold office in the United States and each would be treated as the seditious bastards they are.
I never said it did. I said §2383. Enacted June 25, 1948.
Historically, the majority of those disqualified after the civil war were never convicted.
§2383 was not in effect then.
“I never said it did.”
Post 31.
Me:
“There is no criminal conviction required for disqualification.”
You:
“Yes there is. Insurrection leading to disqualification occurs when one is fined or imprisoned.”
But has President Trump been fined or imprisoned?
No, he has not. So the only way he can be disqualified under the 14th and subsequent §2383 is expressly outlined in my post 15.
So there IS a criminal conviction required for disqualification.
“If you respect the Constitution, you must respect enforcement of the 14th Amendment”
Cool.
The other clause they are arguing about doesn’t apply to the nationally elected President of Vice President.
You’re talking in circles.
Yeah, I didn’t think you knew what was going on.
If you have taken an oath of office and you engage in insurrection, you are ineligible to be president,
However, Pres. Trump has not engaged in insurrection, has not been charged (and will not be) with insurrection, and is not guilty of insurrection.
So, pound sand to the flaming liberal Fascist wannabe.
You should reread section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Also, 18 U.S. CODE § 2383 - REBELLION OR INSURRECTION codifies Insurrection. IOW, Congress has already made the law clear.
If you respect the Constitution, you need to actually READ the entire 14th amendment and understand it before you write an absurd article in the press and make a complete ass of yourself.
Trump was never convicted of participating in anything resembling an insurrection, and was in fact found not guilty of same, at least as far as the impeachment process covers this issue. But, leave it to a leftist to make an ass of himself regarding this corrupt anti-democratic abuse of power by a corrupt and ill informed Colorado Supreme Court, and a non educated AG of the state of Maine.
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.