Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sure it was obvious to all… but don’t you legally need a conviction in court to verify that a person acted against the government during the civil war in order for the 14th amendment to be applicable to them?Well, they were democrats so there was a trust concern.
Because it was open warfare and these were uniform wearing officers of an opposing army.
Can you cite any time this provision was used? It has never been used. In fact no Confederate was ever tried for treason. It took democrats today to call Confederates traitors. Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson both issued blanket pardons just to stop anyone from calling any Confederate a traitor. It took democrats of today to ignore the pardons.Sure it was obvious to all… but don’t you legally need a conviction in court to verify that a person acted against the government during the civil war in order for the 14th amendment to be applicable to them?
The bigger question is why was it written. A question that has already been answered. Founders wanted trustworthy patriots running for office.Can you cite any time this provision was used? It has never been used. In fact no Confederate was ever tried for treason. It took democrats today to call Confederates traitors. Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson both issued blanket pardons just to stop anyone from calling any Confederate a traitor. It took democrats of today to ignore the pardons.
Why is all of this going on? Because our history is being destroyed and rewritten.
Perhaps they couldn't and that's why the provision was never used. Someone wrote this as a good idea at the time. Yet it could never be actually used.The bigger question is why was it written. A question that has already been answered. Founders wanted trustworthy patriots running for office.
Since it was written and is part of our constitution then how it is applied needs to be understood. So far you haven’t been able to explain how confederate general la could be disqualified if they weren’t convicted of a crime
That link says 4 leftist hacks, not "Colorado".
Once again you can't show where I said any such thing. You have to make it up, liar.Of course you did, Dumbfuck. I asked you to point to where the 14th Amendment stated a politician needed to be "convicted" of insurrection and you couldn't do. That's a tacit confession that a conviction isn't necessary.
Which ones ran for office? Got any names?Doesn't have to be convicted of committing a crime as he's not facing a criminal action. Which is why Confederates were banned from holding public office without being charged with committing insurrection.
You think an amendment to the constitution was written and ratified that could not be used? Seriously?Perhaps they couldn't and that's why the provision was never used. Someone wrote this as a good idea at the time. Yet it could never be actually used.
Sure. The proof is it was never used.You think an amendment to the constitution was written and ratified that could be used? Seriously?
That’s not proof and it’s being used right now.Sure. The proof is it was never used.
That's right. For the first time. It just might not apply.That’s not proof and it’s being used right now.
It was an amendment to the constitution and it put restrictions on who could serve as president. Traitors and rebels who broke the public trust are out. Pretty clear. It also pretty clearly does not require a criminal conviction to prove one is a traitorThe war waged on the south was total war. It was waged against military and civilians alike. Livestock was slaughtered, wells poisoned, homes ransacked. The goal of the war was to break the south, break their will, break their character. Sherman's March to the sea incinerated whatever was left. The burning of Atlanta was a lesson in how inhuman mankind could be to itself.
The most important thing to the north was that this never happens again. To find a provision passed without being used isn't surprising.
So all that's necessary is an accusation? The opinion of a democrat accuser.It was an amendment to the constitution and it put restrictions on who could serve as president. Traitors and rebels who broke the public trust are out. Pretty clear. It also pretty clearly does not require a criminal conviction to prove one is a traitor
Why wouldn’t it apply?That's right. For the first time. It just might not apply.
Because the efficacy of this provision has no bearing on why the ruling will be thrown out.Why wouldn’t it apply?
An accusation? No actions, facts, events… just like confederate officials in a civil war. No need for a criminal conviction to disqualify them per the 14th amendment. It was their actions and participation in rebellion.So all that's necessary is an accusation? The opinion of a democrat accuser.
How so? On what grounds do you think the ruling will be thrown out?Because the efficacy of this provision has no bearing on why the ruling will be thrown out.
Have you read the dissent? One of the justices said that in 33 years on the bench he never saw such a travesty. There will be plenty of advisory briefs against the ruling, including from justices on the case. None in support.How so? On what grounds do you think the ruling will be thrown out?
