Let's make something clear.

At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.

Section 3, also known as the Disqualification Clause, has gained new relevance in the wake of the January 6th insurrection, when a violent mob that then-President Trump summoned and urged to “fight like hell” seized the United States Capitol to disrupt the peaceful transition of power. Adopted after the Civil War to protect American democracy from those who sought to destroy it, Section 3 disqualifies from office anyone who swore an oath to support the Constitution as a federal or state officer and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it, unless Congress removes the disqualification by a two-thirds vote.

CREW analyzed historical records to identify all public officials who a court, legislature, or other body determined to have been disqualified under Section 3. The list includes six officials aligned with the Confederacy who held office after the Civil War, as well as former New Mexico County Commissioner Couy Griffin, who a state court removed from office last year based on his participation in the January 6th insurrection following a lawsuit CREW brought on behalf of three New Mexico residents.


Judge removes Griffin from office for engaging in the January 6 insurrection

 
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.

Section 3, also known as the Disqualification Clause, has gained new relevance in the wake of the January 6th insurrection, when a violent mob that then-President Trump summoned and urged to “fight like hell” seized the United States Capitol to disrupt the peaceful transition of power. Adopted after the Civil War to protect American democracy from those who sought to destroy it, Section 3 disqualifies from office anyone who swore an oath to support the Constitution as a federal or state officer and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it, unless Congress removes the disqualification by a two-thirds vote.

CREW analyzed historical records to identify all public officials who a court, legislature, or other body determined to have been disqualified under Section 3. The list includes six officials aligned with the Confederacy who held office after the Civil War, as well as former New Mexico County Commissioner Couy Griffin, who a state court removed from office last year based on his participation in the January 6th insurrection following a lawsuit CREW brought on behalf of three New Mexico residents.


Judge removes Griffin from office for engaging in the January 6 insurrection

12 actually and 6 were right after the Civil War. The one in New Mexico should be appealed
 
Proving once again what a low IQ hack you are.

You don’t even know what the circumstances are.

Worse yet, you can’t even track what the circumstances apply to.

Get back to huffing glue. You’re of no value here, lil dick.

So, ya got nothing except petty insults.

Loser!
 
So, ya got nothing except petty insults.

Loser!
You wouldn’t know because you are too lazy and stupid to look.

I understand that faggots like you think you’re entitled to endless looping. But boy, you’re sadly mistaken.

Go away now. You’re worthless.
 
Like ... " Though it stings my dignity, I have to abide
by the courts decision to not allow me to drive a
car for the next 12 months. "
Screw dat ... I'll just ride me motorcycle to me
hearts content.Like in -
Easy Rider -.
:alcoholic:
 
Well… does this count?


“The House of Representatives of the 117th U.S. Congress adopted one article of impeachment against Trump of "incitement of insurrection", stating that he had incited the January 6 attack of the U.S. Capitol.”
I'm no lawyer nor Constitutional scholar, but, at first glance, I don't think it's anywhere near enough...

(1) if I read this right, Trump was named as an "inciter" of Insurrection but the article failed to formally DECLARE the event as such

(2) he was acquitted in the Senate - you're not exactly playing with a strong poker hand in this context

If this is a matter of mere inference relying upon Article 1 of the charge then I don't think inference will be enough...

I think the Magic Formula would have been...

(a) Formally and authoritatively declare that a State of Insurrection existed on January 6, 2021

(b) bat clean-up with various charges against individuals summoning, inciting or aiming such participants, or actually participating

It strikes me that it would have been a great deal easier to act upon Insurrection had the event itself been formally declared...

Even if no single individual was charged with that particular offense...

Insurrection approaches being both a Noun and a Verb...

Take care of business with respect to the Noun and then worry about the pseudo-verb aspects of it afterwards...

But that's just me...

And, if I'm on the right track here... it's probably too late... from a political perspective, if not a legal one...

Someone in that gaggle of high-priced Democratic Leadership should have had the foresight to lock that down on January 21, 2021...

The day after Old Joe was inaugurated, while it was still raw and fresh in everyone's minds, and very distant from the 2024 elections...

But they didn't...

Another opportunity missed by Democrats...

An inexcusable oversight and incompetent failure on the part of the Democrats, and a loophole that Trump might be able to jump through.

If the Colorado and Maine (and other?) ballot-bans fail to hold up in court, that lack of a formal declaration might be the escape hatch. he uses
 
Last edited:
/---/ The same one you're using on Trump.
You'll reply: "What insurrection did he partake in?"
I'll reply: "It doesn't matter. He'll be off the ballot."
You'll reply: "No fair, no fair. We'll go to court"
I'll reply: "See ya in court."
This is where you dopes always fail. You never have any actual evidence. Just bullshit memes.

Impeachment is the remedy for a president anyway. But again you losers never have anything of substance. Just empty talk.
 
I'm no lawyer nor Constitutional scholar, but, at first glance, I don't think it's anywhere near enough...

(1) if I read this right, Trump was named as an "inciter" of Insurrection but the article failed to formally DECLARE the event as such

(2) he was acquitted in the Senate - you're not exactly playing with a strong poker hand in this context

I think the Magic Formula would have been...

(a) Declare a State of Insurrection existed on January 6, 2021

(b) bat clean-up with various charges against individuals summoning, inciting or aiming such participants, or actually participating

It strikes me that it would have been a great deal easier to act upon Insurrection had the event itself been formally declared...

Even if no single individual was charged with that particular offense...

Insurrection approaches being both a Noun and a Verb...

Take care of business with respect to the Noun and then worry about the pseudo-verb aspects of it afterwards...

But that's just me...

And, if I'm on the right track here... it's probably too late... from a political perspective, if not a legal one...

Someone in that gaggle of high-priced Democratic Leadership should have had the foresight to lock that down on January 21, 2021...

The day after Old Joe was inaugurated, while it was still raw and fresh in everyone's minds, and very distant from the 2024 elections...

But they didn't...

Another opportunity missed by Democrats...

An inexcusable oversight and incompetent failure on the part of the Democrats, and a loophole that Trump might be able to jump through.

If the Colorado and Maine (and other?) ballot-bans fail to hold up in court, that lack of a formal declaration might be the escape hatch. he uses
Derp…

There would have to have been an insurrection for one to be accused of inciting insurrection. :rolleyes:
 
Oh, you showed me, did you? Then how come after three years, nobody was ever charged for that?

Answer: Because there was no insurrection.
I did indeed.
The fact that no one has been charged directly is irrelevant to the fact that it happened.
 
You are erroneously conflating the process by which indicted defendants are tried in a court of law and the procedures by which hearings are conducted for ballot disqualification in accordance with state laws.
No. You are ignoring why the disqualification cites “insurrection” as one of the grounds. But just because you invoke the magic word doesn’t mean a state law ballot disqualification procedure can make that determination.

And you deliberately ignore the fact you and your pals in Colorado lack any legal authority to make that call. No jurisdiction — which resides in federal criminal court.

Oh, and you can’t have a conviction even in a court with proper jurisdiction absent an indictment charging the crime.

A State’s court jurisdiction to hear a ballot disqualification case isn’t the same as jurisdiction to determine a candidate’s “guilt” of a federal crime. And you don’t get to determine what process is due. 😎
 
Last edited:
This is where you dopes always fail. You never have any actual evidence. Just bullshit memes.

Impeachment is the remedy for a president anyway. But again you losers never have anything of substance. Just empty talk.
Your a used car salesman arent ya??
 
I did indeed.
The fact that no one has been charged directly is irrelevant to the fact that it happened.
No. Actually. It’s not.

A riot did happen. But that’s not an insurrection. Words have meaning, Fakey, regardless of your libturd insistence that they don’t matter.
 

Forum List

Back
Top