Wonder if they have ever read the complete speech?
“Congress could ... authorize the attorney general to bring an action to enforce Section 3 against Trump before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit (or a 3-judge federal district court panel) and allow for immediate, expedited appeal to SCOTUS.”
It seems like the Dems have dedicated their entire lives trying to get rid of President Trump.
The only problem is they keep failing miserably!
After Trump was acquitted of his second sham impeachment, Democrats are now exploring options to enact the 14th Amendment.
The reason Dems are eyeing the 14th Amendment now is that one section of it states that anyone “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the US cannot hold public office.
More @ WLT
That article and some of the folks in it say a "simple majority" but my copy of the Constitution says 2/3 of each house. Someone is either lying or stupid but since it's emessenbeecee and a bunch of shitlibs (Katyal, Reich, etc.), I'm going to go with both.
ReplyDeleteanyone “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”
DeleteThanks and it's 2/3rds for this?
The last sentence of Amendment XIV, Section 3 says "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
ReplyDeleteGreat find and thanks.
DeleteI think this means over turn the ban. Disability in this context is the removal of a persons ability to hold office. Removal of the disability means they can give the ability back to hold office.
Delete"No person shall be a...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Thats the take away, although how they are tried for insurrection or rebellion, or found to have given aid and comfort to the enemy is not outlined.
The US Code states the same thing...
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
So I would assume they would have to be convicted in a court first and then Congress vote on it even though conviction gives the same penalty.
So I would assume they would have to be convicted in a court first and then Congress vote on it even though conviction gives the same penalty.
DeleteSame here.
Somebody is going to have to use the 2nd. Who has the most tools to work with?
ReplyDeleteGot that right.
DeleteI can see what you're saying Mad. If that's the case then how are they saying that the removal happens with a simple majority vote (such as in the article)? Are they saying a simple majority of the court? It's not clear to me how they can (claim) to use the 14th amendment.
ReplyDeleteI'm still going to assume they are somehow lying because that is what they usually do (;-)).
I'm still going to assume they are somehow lying because that is what they usually do (;-)).
Delete"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."