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.
There is no link.Link please.
To your detriment.Thank you. Your uninformed opinion is summarily dismissed.
To your detriment. I'm content to await a ruling by the Appellate or Supreme Courts once they publish their reasoning.To your detriment.
Mr. Carrion Crow has gone MAGA!!!!There is no link.
Only common sense, anticipating judicial review.
How can a State declare a state of Insurrection on the Federal level unless the Federal government itself has thus declared?
And, lacking such an authoritative declaration on the Federal level, individual States lack jurisdiction and/or standing in the matter.
Which is... almost certainly... EXACTLY the approach that US Courts of Appeals, or SCOTUS itself, is likely to take in adjudicating all this.
Whatever. I have been entirely honest and open that my own stance here is speculative. Logical speculation regarding jurisdiction.Dismissing your uninformed opinion serves to clarify the consideration of what is substantiated and what is not. Come back when you can substantiate your assertion.
Could I get some red wine vinaigrette with that word salad. You can read about all the worthless motions Trump filed that were thrown out here.To your detriment. I'm content to await a ruling by the Appellate or Supreme Courts once they publish their reasoning.
Individual States have no legal standing or jurisdiction to declare Insurrection on the Federal level. Only the Feds can do that.
www.lawfaremedia.org
No, fool. I find your Orange POS repulsive and dangerous to American Democracy. But I believe in the Rule of Law.Mr. Carrion Crow has gone MAGA!!!!
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT
Section 5 says Congress is the authorityHistorical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw out his espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groups and organizations have challenged the eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress, arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate. A New Mexico state court, however, has removed Otero County Commissioner County Griffin from office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for, the January 6 interruption of the election certification.
Absent evidence in contradiction of CREW's assertion I suspect Trumpleton's will ineffectually attack CREW and or the CRS. It is the Trumpian way. When facts and evidence fail them they rely on what amounts to character assassination. Which is why Trump attacks the media, anyone who opposes him, and most especially those like Jack Smith who are working to hold Don accountable for his illegal actions.
Furthermore, quite a bit has been made about the removal of a candidate's name from the ballot being anti-democratic. Yet the Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic. From the moment Trump began the anti-democratic act of conspiring to steal the election he violated his oath of office and forfeited his right to once again run to be the prez.
Continual harping on this is getting us nowhere.Could I get some red wine vinaigrette with that word salad. You can read about all the worthless motions Trump filed that were thrown out here.
Denver District Court Trump Disqualification Challenge Dismissed
Judge Wallace added in a footnote that the correct interpretation of Section 3 was “not for this court to decide.”
Way to go, champ!No, fool. I find your Orange POS repulsive and dangerous to American Democracy. But I believe in the Rule of Law.
1920 Eugene V. Debs ran for President on the Socialist ticket while in prison.Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw out his espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groups and organizations have challenged the eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress, arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate. A New Mexico state court, however, has removed Otero County Commissioner County Griffin from office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for, the January 6 interruption of the election certification.
Absent evidence in contradiction of CREW's assertion I suspect Trumpleton's will ineffectually attack CREW and or the CRS. It is the Trumpian way. When facts and evidence fail them they rely on what amounts to character assassination. Which is why Trump attacks the media, anyone who opposes him, and most especially those like Jack Smith who are working to hold Don accountable for his illegal actions.
Furthermore, quite a bit has been made about the removal of a candidate's name from the ballot being anti-democratic. Yet the Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic. From the moment Trump began the anti-democratic act of conspiring to steal the election he violated his oath of office and forfeited his right to once again run to be the prez.
Yet NOT EVEN ONE FIREARM. Hmmmm.From only the attendees who went through security checkpoints at the Ellipse, the Secret Service confiscated hundreds of weapons and prohibited items, including 269 knives or blades, 242 canisters of pepper spray, 18 brass knuckles, 18p. 4141 tasers, 6 pieces of body armor, 3 gas masks, 30 batons or blunt instruments, and 17 miscellaneous items like scissors, needles, or screwdrivers.
That's a lot of shit for a peaceful protest.
There were no facts in evidence about an insurrection. It wasn’t a criminal case and it wasn’t charged. So what happened in Colorado was judicial lawlessness.What happened in CO is both courts considered the facts in evidence of Don's actions with respect to insurrection. There are no facts in evidence of Biden's wrongdoing. Just allegations. If Repubs had any facts on Joe he'd be impeached in the House by now. See the difference?
You place a lot of stock in one biased “finding” by one local court judge.I found this excerpt from Judge Wallace's report most entertaining.
Kash Patel testified on behalf of Intervenor Trump. Mr. Patel was the former Chief of Staff to the acting Secretary of Defense on January 6, 2021. Mr. Patel testified that on January 3, 2021, then-President Trump authorized 10,000-20,000 National Guard forces. He also testified about his experiences with the January 6th Select Committee including that he gave a deposition to the Committee. The Court finds that Mr. Patel was not a credible witness. His testimony regarding Trump authorizing 10,000-20,000 National Guardsmen is not only illogical (because Trump only had authority over about 2,000 National Guardsmen) but completely devoid of any evidence in the record.9 Further, his testimony regarding the January 6th Committee refusing to release his deposition and refusing his request to speak at a public hearing was refuted by Mr. Heaphy who was a far more credible witness. The Court did not give any weight to Mr. Patel’s testimony other than as evidence that the January 6th Select Committee interviewed many of Trump’s supporters as part of its extensive investigation.
Denver District Court Trump Disqualification Challenge Dismissed
Judge Wallace added in a footnote that the correct interpretation of Section 3 was “not for this court to decide.”
There are state crimes. The Feds can’t prosecute those.To your detriment. I'm content to await a ruling by the Appellate or Supreme Courts once they publish their reasoning.
Individual States have no legal standing or jurisdiction to declare Insurrection on the Federal level. Only the Feds can do that.
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.
Your ignorance was cute……a few years ago. Now it’s just sad.Nope. It doesn’t say that either.
You’re now rewriting the constitution.
So, you still can't come up with a link to support your lies.I never do busy work demanded of a failing poster to hide his poor posts.
Its common knowledge if one is not a moron, are you a moron?
