The end of Democracy?

[Fuzzy1975]

My disagreement wasn't about Impeachment OR insurrection. It isn't about the 14th Amendment or Article I or II of the Constitution. I quote those to show that NO ONE can be held as guilty UNTIL they are found guilty in a tribunal. You keep tap dancing around the fact that you are insisting that someone can be found guilty of insurrection WITHOUT having a trial. Now if you can't understand plain English I'll get out of here and just let you be wrong.


Comshaw

The facts are 9 people have been disqualified from office for the 14th amendment with no criminal conviction. It is a civil process.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

 

[HisArpy]

My disagreement wasn't about Impeachment OR insurrection. It isn't about the 14th Amendment or Article I or II of the Constitution. I quote those to show that NO ONE can be held as guilty UNTIL they are found guilty in a tribunal. You keep tap dancing around the fact that you are insisting that someone can be found guilty of insurrection WITHOUT having a trial. Now if you can't understand plain English I'll get out of here and just let you be wrong.


Comshaw

You're arguing with someone who has faith that what they believe is true. Whether it's true or not isn't relevant to them, they believe it is.

And that, as you said, is the most dangerous thing for democracy.

That red pill wasn't bitter at all, was it?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You're arguing with someone who has faith that what they believe is true. Whether it's true or not isn't relevant to them, they believe it is.

And that, as you said, is the most dangerous thing for democracy.

That red pill wasn't bitter at all, was it?

Some educational reading for you as well.....


https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

 

[jaF0]

You keep tap dancing around the fact that you are insisting that someone can be found guilty of insurrection WITHOUT having a trial.

I'm saying (as are the academics who make their living at this kind of thing) that nothing says you have to be found guilty of anything to be disqualified under 14-3 regardless of whether you have to be found guilty to be disqualified under any other article.

You do not have to be found guilty of anything to be disqualified under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 either

 

[jaF0]

There is also this:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

 

[jaF0]

Sections 2 and 3 of The Confiscation Act of 1862 raise some questions, but I'm not sure if this is still in effect. I see mention of it being revised in 1948, but can't find the details.


Section 2
And be it further enacted, That if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court.

Section 3
And be it further enacted, That every person guilty of either of the offences described in this act shall be forever incapable and disqualified to hold any office under the United States.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiscation_Act_of_1862

 

[HisArpy]

Sections 2 and 3 of The Confiscation Act of 1862 raise some questions...

Section 2
And be it further enacted, That if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection ..., and be convicted thereof...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiscation_Act_of_1862

Apparently you missed the important part. Again.

 

[YDB95]

Apparently you missed the important part. Again.

The "and be convicted thereof" applies only to the penalties in section 2.

 

[HisArpy]

The "and be convicted thereof" applies only to the penalties in section 2.

Apparently you don't understand that being disqualified to be an officer of the US would be such a "punishment."

It REALLY is just like you're a dam fool or something.

 

[Chobham]

SCOTUS has decided to take the case up and I expect an expedited ruling.

 

[pocjet]

The real danger to democracy is what the DOJ announced at the end of the week. They will now prosecute everyone that went to Washington on January 6th even if they never entered the capital. The First Amendment allows for free assembly, but the DOJ does not democracy has die

 

[Chobham]

The real danger to democracy is what the DOJ announced at the end of the week. They will now prosecute everyone that went to Washington on January 6th even if they never entered the capital. The First Amendment allows for free assembly, but the DOJ does not democracy has die

On what grounds?

 

[pocjet]

On what grounds?

The DOJ doesn't need grounds, they are the Gestapo

 

[pocjet]

On what grounds?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1743790582600708500

 

[Rightguide]

The very people we see decrying the loss of democracy are the very same people doing all they can to stop the democratic process. Democrats "always" project what they are doing onto their enemies. ALWAYS.

 

[Chernosoth]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[HisArpy]

On what grounds?

I believe the charge will be "creating a public disturbance."

Not kidding about that.

 

[RightField]

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.


Having thought long and deeply about the text, history, and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause for much of our professional careers, both of us concluded some years ago that, in fact, a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.

The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause.



https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...onstitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/



This stuff has already been posted multiple times on this board however.

There's the "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

 

[jaF0]

^^^ That only applies in criminal matters in court.

Disqualification is a political step.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

There's the "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

Yes there is, but section 3 of the 14th isn't a criminal offence. It is civil. Maybe look up what that means.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

Yes there is, but section 3 of the 14th isn't a criminal offence. It is civil. Maybe look up what that means.

An ability to look something up is giving Reichguide an awful lot of undeserved credit. Derpy, too, for that matter.

 

[RightField]

You may close your mind all you want but the whole watching world saw an insurrection. And an accompanying conspiracy whose participants have begun to accept their complicity and acknowledge their participation.

I saw a protest that got out of hand. It was far gentler than most of the Dem-facilitated protests over the summer except for the unarmed female protester who was murdered by a guard - without arrest. No insurrection.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

An ability to look something up is giving Reichguide an awful lot of undeserved credit. Derpy, too, for that matter.

You make a very valid point!!! My bad.

 

[jaF0]

Never mind. Just another BB.

 

[RightField]

The very people we see decrying the loss of democracy are the very same people doing all they can to stop the democratic process. Democrats "always" project what they are doing onto their enemies. ALWAYS.

Very True.