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.
factually incorrect as usual for a demofk such as you!
Stop with the disinformation shit you fkwad.
Amnesty Act - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In short, you had to be loyal to the USA, before you could be disloyal.What?
Trump hasn't been charged with insurrection as far as I know.
1872 that was removed with the Amnesty Act. Fk learn something parrot!!After the Civil War they didn't want those that committed insurrection, to hold any office in the government. Amendment 14 Section 3.
They had no plans of prosecuting the hundreds of thousands of insurrectionists from the war. Because they never intended to put them on trial in order to get a conviction, is why no conviction is necessary.
nope, still wrong, you remain obtuse!!!In short, you had to be loyal to the USA, before you could be disloyal.
Not if the insurrectionist held public office and took an oath to the Constitution. For example if Joe Blow the insurrectionist who's only crime was to walk through the Capitol during the Riot, who never held public office before, can not be excluded via the 14thThe precedent has been set: Insurrectionists can serve in US office.
In short, you had to be loyal to the USA, before you could be disloyal.
He was right. It only covered those who had previously sworn an oath to the US Constitution, and then switched sides. Those who were previously loyal to the CSA were not prohibited from rejoining the union.
what insurrection?Not if the insurrectionist held public office and took an oath to the Constitution. For example if Joe Blow the insurrectionist who's only crime was to walk through the Capitol during the Riot, who never held public office before, can not be excluded via the 14th
Amendment.
The law is also clear, that any such controversy is not to be handled by the vice president (who merely counts the votes) but to congress to object to the counting of votes. With both houses having to agree to set aside the votes objected to, or to accept other votes.Again, the stupid you don't know is you!!!
Objecting To Electoral Votes In Congress Recalls Bitter Moments In History
Vice President Pence is far from being the first vice president caught in an awkward position when presiding over the counting of electoral votes and being obligated to announce his own defeat.www.npr.org
Since as far back as 1796, when John Adams was vice president, the job of declaring the winner of the presidential election has been at least potentially problematic. Because when Adams was opening the envelopes that year, the winner was himself. There had been some controversy over the paperwork from Vermont, but Adams' main rival, Thomas Jefferson, said he did not wish to make a fuss over the "form" of the vote when the "substance" was clear.
The amnesty act only removed the possibility of conviction. But as I said, no conviction was ever planned. Only evidence of their disloyalty and participation in an insurrection.1872 that was removed with the Amnesty Act. Fk learn something parrot!!
Amnesty Act - Wikipedia
2. Which court is reviewing? ME? Appeals? Or is she waiting for the USSC opinion?
3. Correct, the question of insurrection was never determined via due process. Innocent until PROVEN GUILTY.
The president and vice president are elected as the head of US Federal government. If there is an insurrection it would be against the president, there is no fucking way that the Founders thought that the president could revolt against his own government. Which is why the president is not called an "officer".
The law is also clear, that any such controversy is not to be handled by the vice president (who merely counts the votes) but to congress to object to the counting of votes. With both houses having to agree to set aside the votes objected to, or to accept other votes.
The essential issue though, is what is the legal standard for that? Is it conviction of a federal crime of Insurrection? What is it? Thats what SCOTUS will decide. I imagine they will determine that there needs to be a conviction of a federal crime for that or citing the 14th Amendment, or Federal legislation setting something up to determine, which has not been done.
However I believe SCOTUS has instituted a framework in previous cases, that the 14th requires enabling legislation, but I could be in error.The 14th sec 3 only required evidence. Those that wrote it, had no intention of requiring a conviction. Only evidence of their participation.
"...except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.[6]factually incorrect as usual for a demofk such as you!
Stop with the disinformation shit you fkwad.Amnesty Act - Wikipedia
The precedent has been set: Insurrectionists can serve in US office.
Agreed in part, disagree in part.
I fully expect the SCOTUS to punt on the two core questions:
Personally I believe they will punt the decision and try to rule that the case is not "ripe" because it's a primary for a political party and that to be "ripe" the case must involve the General Election. Hoping that FPOTUS#45 isn't the GOP nominee for the General rendering the case moot.
- Did FPOTUS#45 engage in insurrection under the 14th Amendment, and
- Is the President and Officer under the 14th's provision of "any office, civil or military, under the United States"
WW
This Trump cult thug is actually trying to pretend that not being allowed to run for president is the same as being criminally convicted and sent to prison.Well by that standard anyone can be accused and convicted without a trial.
You're actualy not as stupid as you pretend to be. You use your pretend-stupidity as justification to be violent or to send your opponents to TheGulag, something that authoritarian thugs have done throughout history.Even John Adams defended the british which was very unpopular. You people are very scary.
