Poll: Who has enforcement authority of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution?

Who does the 14th specify as having the authority to enforce the 14th?

  • Congress

    Votes: 27 93.1%
  • The Maine SOS

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A civil court judge in Colorado.

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Total voters
    29
Insurrection is a crime against either the federal or state government. The constitution requires both the federal government and all the states to follow the constitution. The 14th puts a bar on all offices, federal and state, appointed and elected.
And with the number of offices covered, literally hundreds of thousands, the decision has to be made by the person controlling those offices.


Exactly what do you fail to understand about Section 5

Section 5​

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Which they did by passing legislation to make insurrection a federal crime. You are innocent of a crime under our system unless/until you are charged and convicted of that crime. So nothing you said, changed a single thing about what I said.

.
 
The same thing Article I says, and the same thing for every Amendment.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
So a civil court judge in Colorado doesn’t have enforcement power, and neither does the Maine SOS.
 
Congress:

It does this by...

(1) passing laws designed to accomplish such enforcement

(2) creating Federal judicial jurisdictions and operational agencies designed to enforce those laws

Therefore, Congress does this by proxy...

Just as we see for virtually all other enforcement actions pertaining to violations of Constitutional provisions or mandates...

And, with respect to those "operational agencies", such agencies are virtually always under the Executive Branch.

Checks and Balances... :auiqs.jpg:
 
That’s your modern interpretation of the 14th. You can’t admit that it was designed to apply to those who fought for the South in the Civil War as that would mean the term insurrection meant a conflict much later than a riot that lasted only a few hours.


By contrast, the treatment of the Jan. 6, 2021 one-day political demonstration at our nation’s capital as an insurrection is pettiness to the extreme.[/i]
Insurrection like many things is defined in absolute terms. A small insurrection is still an insurrection.

Like being pregnant for a day or 9 months is still pregnant.
And rape is defined as any penetration no matter how slight or how brief.
 
So you think the 14th nullifies the 5th.
If it was passed (ratified) after the 5th amendment, any portion in conflict with the constitution or prior amendment would supersede.

Just like the 21st amendment nullified the 18th amendment.
 
If it was passed (ratified) after the 5th amendment, any portion in conflict with the constitution or prior amendment would supersede.

Just like the 21st amendment nullified the 18th amendment.

Not quite, the 18th specifically repealed the 18th.

The 5th though, applies to criminal cases. A candidate meeting one of the 6 Constitutional requirements for assuming the Office of the President is a civil determination.

WW
 
If it was passed (ratified) after the 5th amendment, any portion in conflict with the constitution or prior amendment would supersede.

Just like the 21st amendment nullified the 18th amendment.
So the 5th is null and void. No more due process for Americans.

What a moron you are. :auiqs.jpg:
 
Not quite, the 18th specifically repealed the 18th.

The 5th though, applies to criminal cases. A candidate meeting one of the 6 Constitutional requirements for assuming the Office of the President is a civil determination.

WW
Exactly. Nowhere in the 14th does it say “This amendment nullifies the 5th”.
 
Insurrection like many things is defined in absolute terms. A small insurrection is still an insurrection.

Like being pregnant for a day or 9 months is still pregnant.
And rape is defined as any penetration no matter how slight or how brief.
That is simply false and illustrates you ignorance of the law.

There is 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, Felony Murder, Manslaughter, etc.

There are misdemeanors, Class 1 felonies, class 2, class 3

And the same can be said of any other breaking of the law.

The key here, that you clearly don't understand is -- "INTENT" which is what dimocrap scum are shitting their lace panties over.

They need to show 'intent' by proving that Trump KNEW he was committing an illegal act. And they can't. They can't prove it.

God DAYUM but dimocraps are some stupid fucks
 
So a civil court judge in Colorado doesn’t have enforcement power, and neither does the Maine SOS.
Wrong, a civil court judge can enforce it under article 6 of the constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby
 
Not quite, the 18th 21st specifically repealed the 18th.

The 5th though, applies to criminal cases. A candidate meeting one of the 6 Constitutional requirements for assuming the Office of the President is a civil determination.

WW
The 12th nullified parts of Article 2
the 13th nullified parts of Article 1
the 17th nullified parts of Article 1

None of them specifically said they were doing so. But their very wording
overrode previous constitutional language.
 
So the 5th is null and void. No more due process for Americans.

What a moron you are. :auiqs.jpg:
Only the parts in conflict with the 14th, pertaining to enforcement of the 14th.

Remember, it overrode the due process and compensation requirements of the 5th.

But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
 
That is simply false and illustrates you ignorance of the law.

There is 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, Felony Murder, Manslaughter, etc.

There are misdemeanors, Class 1 felonies, class 2, class 3

And the same can be said of any other breaking of the law.
The definition of rape doesn't change. The circumstances change the degree of felony.


(a)Rape.—Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by—

— The term “sexual act” means— (A) the penetration, however slight, of the penis into the vulva or anus or mouth;

So insurrection no matter now slight, is still insurrection
 
The definition of rape doesn't change. The circumstances change the degree of felony.


(a)Rape.—Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by—

— The term “sexual act” means— (A) the penetration, however slight, of the penis into the vulva or anus or mouth;

So insurrection no matter now slight, is still insurrection


Are you aware title 10 deals with the military?

.
 
Yep, and it's the law of the land. No State civil court or SOS can unilaterally assume that responsibility, congress must give them that authority through legislation, which they haven't.

.
Sure they can. If they need to in order to obey Article 6 of the US Constitution.

Remember: the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,

And states give enforcement of election laws to their secretary of state, or local election boards. And like in Bush V Gore the Sec of State determined election law, and was the decider of what were the legal vote counts. And that was upheld by the USSC.
 
Are you aware title 10 deals with the military?

.
Rape is rape. And as I showed like insurrection, it's all or nothing. That no matter how slight or how brief. In for a penny, in for a pound.

A little insurrection is still an insurrection.
 

Forum List

Back
Top