If that happens, everyone who still wants the USA to be a constitutional republic needs to find the three closest Obama/Hillary/Biden voters and pay extra attention to them.
Posted on 03/05/2024 4:27:47 AM PST by MtnClimber
The Supreme Court didn’t dig into the weeds of the entire insurrection debate, but one obvious issue with the various efforts to remove Trump from the ballot in various states was that insurrection had been left entirely to Democrat state officials to define. That kind of nonsense however won’t fly in an actual legislative process.
Now that the Supreme Court blocked state officials from announcing that Trump can’t be on the ballot because he’s an “insurrectionist”, House members are now trying to play the same game.
Congress will have to try and act,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, told Axios.
What he’s saying: Raskin, a former member of the Jan. 6 select committee, said he is already crafting the bill, telling Axios, “I’m working on it — today.”
Raskin pointed to legislation he introduced with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) in 2022 creating a pathway for the Justice Department to sue to keep candidates off the ballot under the 14th Amendment.
“We are going to revise it in light of the Supreme Court’s decision,” Raskin said.
Raskin suggested the bill would be paired with a resolution declaring Jan. 6 an “insurrection” and that those involved “engaged in insurrection.”
For now, in a GOP House, the bill is mostly virtue signaling, but tellingly Raskin is not so much trying to define insurrection as trying to define J6 as an insurrection. It’s the typical end run around the process of defining the thing because otherwise Democrat BLMers might fall afoul of it.
The Raskin bill conveniently defines J6 as an insurrection and carefully defines the term so as to specifically apply it to Trump. It does not however define what an insurrection is making the whole exercise into a bill that specifically exists to block a particular candidate from being able to take office on grounds that would be unlikely to apply to his own party. Does that raise some major banana republic issues? Obviously.
Still, has Raskin considered what kind of can of worms he’s opening here?
“An individual described in this subsection is an individual who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or has given aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States.”
Forget BLM for a moment. Giving aid or comfort to America’s enemies would block nearly every Democrat from taking or holding office. Pass a resolution declaring that funding Iran or any other terror group was an example of providing aid or comfort to America’s enemies and the party can get started.
That's a distinction without a difference
The thing is, even a lot of Republicans were repulsed by J6, including myself who was a huge Trump supporter at the time. Imagine your outrage had it been Hillary supporters smashing into the capitol back in 2016, when the electoral college was supposed to be selecting Trump. You think you would have just gotten over it, and let it go in a few months? No, you would have spent the next eternity trying to take her down.
So this is perfectly in line with their thoughts, and don’t expect them to stop either. Republicans and Democrats are different in many ways, but to most Americans the electoral college is somewhat sacred, whether the votes on one side were questionable or not. Questionable elections are nothing new, smashing in the capitol was.
Do demonrats ever consider the effects of their actions, at best it is about feelings, and good intentions, at worst the issues is never the issue…
Laws are for others not for them
Such legislative acts, along with ex post facto laws, are specifically prohibited by the Constitution............as if the Dems care about our Constitutional rights and our laws.
Every one who has voted gun restrictions is in rebellion of the constitution.
Every one who has voted to send aid to foreign wars without congressional approval is in rebellion of the constitution.
every one voting for this will be subject to its folly.
All because the Democrats can’t defeat a presidential candidate.
Thank you as you’re correct. Our problem now is we make it about party instead of principal. We no longer look at it as “right vs wrong”…it’s right vs left. That’s why I mentioned Republicans and Democrats bypassing the constitution to write illegal bills and laws…were so blinded by party that we don’t see that while we argue, they win and “we the people”, lose.
Sure they have. They have carefully considered that the Republicans will do nothing in response.
Questionable elections are nothing new, smashing in the capitol was.
\/
. you are such a doughnut munching narrative control cubicle fraud.
have yo forgotten the riots and firebomb moltov cocktails of 2016 at the white house in the capital when trump took office ?
how conveinant.
spit.
\/
. had it been Hillary supporters smashing into the capitol back in 2016,
\/
it WAS hillary and R-democracy(tm) supporters who did the smashing
not trump supporters
youre such a disingenuous poser
spit
If that happens, everyone who still wants the USA to be a constitutional republic needs to find the three closest Obama/Hillary/Biden voters and pay extra attention to them.
The Dems are terrified the people will have a chance to vote.
A Bill of Attainder is expressly prohibited in the Constitution, but not that it matters to Democrats.
No doubt about it. Except that now, it's more about personality, than even party. We're told we're supposed to be happy that Trump brought a bunch of union members etc over to the Republican party, when they're the ones who probably smashed into the capitol, that we're still paying for to this day. We’re never going to win on this issue, with the average American, even if actual hard evidence of fraud ever comes to light, which it still hasn’t unfortunately.
The proper way to address it is through the courts, not in the streets. Lose in the courts, get better lawyers, or find a new jurisdiction in which to argue. The laws and sanctity of America should come first, and be preserved. All these idiots jonesing for a civil war don’t realize they will simply lose, and the America of old would be forever lost.
If the bill requires a “trial,” it will no doubt be before a DC kangaroo court.
You have to be a blithering idiot to even listen to this crappola. SCOTUS clearly said that he has to be impeached in the House and then convicted in the Senate for this to have any effect, whatsoever.
This is another “show trial” for the NPC’s and imbeciles who support the Democrats.
A person that sleazy ought to have enough dirt to take him down. Why won’t the Republicans do that?
“bill of attainder”
You can’t write a law targeting an individual.
That’s not my understanding. From what I’ve seen and heard, they’ve pretty much left it up to Congress to determine how Congress would rule on this issue. Which is exactly why Raskin is already crafting a new congressional bill to implement something to take advantage of that new power. I doubt it will pass, but the flexibility of how the power is ultimately wielded seemed to be left up to them.
I suspect this would qualify as a “Bill of Attainder” directed at an individual as well as an “Ex-Post Facto” law that would also be struck down by SCOFUS.
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.