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.
So you think past improper conduct validates future improper conduct, GOT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wrong again commie, it becomes part of the Constitution after it's ratified, the amendment itself charges congress to create laws to enforce it, no one else.
You silly little bitch Congress passed the 14th amendment period. It's law now you silly little simp.
No, that's not all you did. You said the Constitution is wrong by allowing people who were legally found not guilty to still be punished. Except that's not true as such people can still be punished.
You declaring it was "improper conduct" does not actually establish it was improper conduct. The courts have consistently sided against those who fought the 14th Amendment keeping them out of office.
for a federal office after they were pardoned..
Because it's idiotic. Not to mention, if only Congress could ban people from holding public office by enacting such legislation, why didn't they pass a such law?
Great, show where it states Congress shall have "sole" power to enforce it...
Passed by Congress into law you fucking imbecileNo matter how many times you repeat that, it will not be true. They passed a proposal. your own link said that.
Wow, the first post I read today and it's a LIE. How about you quote the post where I said that.
They did and it's been posted. You're just so hung up on commie propaganda and talking points you probably didn't bother to read it.
See section 5, as I said before there's only one amendment where the feds and the States were given concurrent jurisdiction to enforce it. Absent that, congress has the sole authority. You're just wishing something is there, that isn't. As with the remainder of the Constitution, it means exactly what it says.
Passed by Congress into law you fucking imbecile
"Of course only in commie land can a person who first received amnesty and then pardoned can be punished."
Feel free to point to the words "not guilty" anywhere in that statement. You ignorant commies just love to accuse people of saying things they never said. You're just a dishonest person and a LIAR.
- Kenneth H. Worthy: Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N.C. 199 (1869), appeal dismissed, 76 U.S. 611 (1869)
- William L. Tate: In re Tate, 63 N.C. 308, 309 (1869)
- J.D. Watkins: Louisiana ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631 (La. 1869)
- Zebulon B. Vance: The Election Case of Joseph C. Abbott v. Zebulon B. Vance and Matt W. Ransom of North Carolina (1872)
- A.F. Gregory: A Case Under the 14th Amendment, Daily Dispatch
- Victor L. Berger: Cannon’s Precedents, Ch. 157, § 56
- John H. Christy: Hinds’ Precedents, Ch. 14, § 459 ; Col. John H. Christy Obituary, Calhoun Times (Mar. 3, 1877)
Post it...
Nope, the word, "sole," is not there.
So you have not one example that was appealed to the federal courts. Good job commie.
- Kenneth H. Worthy: Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N.C. 199 (1869), appeal dismissed, 76 U.S. 611 (1869) Sheriff is not a federal office.
- William L. Tate: In re Tate, 63 N.C. 308, 309 (1869) Solicitor of the 12th Judicial District is not a federal office.
- J.D. Watkins: Louisiana ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631 (La. 1869) This on was done prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment. WTF?
- Zebulon B. Vance: The Election Case of Joseph C. Abbott v. Zebulon B. Vance and Matt W. Ransom of North Carolina (1872) Well here's one, they claimed he was ineligible even after receiving a presidential pardon. Also it was never appealed in the federal courts, the guy resigned.
- A.F. Gregory: A Case Under the 14th Amendment, Daily Dispatch Not even going to try to find the story in that mess. Would you care to post the relevant article?
- Victor L. Berger: Cannon’s Precedents, Ch. 157, § 56 A State House seat in not a federal office.
- John H. Christy: Hinds’ Precedents, Ch. 14, § 459 ; Col. John H. Christy Obituary, Calhoun Times (Mar. 3, 1877) This link gave this response: "Forbidden You don't have permission to access this resource", so I can't comment on it.
