On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 6:45 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> *> But Section 3 already assigns a role to Congress; they can remove the
> disqualification due to insurrection by 2/3 vote. That clearly implies
> that it was NOT up to Congress to disqualify anyone. It makes no sense
> that a
The Supremes dodged their responsibility to enforce the Constitution and
ban the Dump from holding any federal office. Instead they say it is up
to Congress of enforce the 14th Amendment Section 3. Presumably by
disqualifying the Dump from office. But Section 3 already assigns a
role to
On 3/4/2024 12:24 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:41 PM Dylan Distasio wrote:
/> Whether Trump was actually guilty of insurrection is a moot
point from a legal perspective in ruling on a state taking this
kind of action. It would have to come from Congress./
Out of curiosity, have you read the full text of the ruling?
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 4:47 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
> The liberal Supremes joined the MAGAts in dodging responsibility. Were
> Confederate officers who previously served in the US Army denied election
> one-by-one by acts of Congress?
The liberal Supremes joined the MAGAts in dodging responsibility. Were
Confederate officers who previously served in the US Army denied
election one-by-one by acts of Congress? I don't think so. Why is any
"action" needed unless someone challenges their disqualification on
factual grounds.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:41 PM Dylan Distasio wrote:
> *> Whether Trump was actually guilty of insurrection is a moot point from
> a legal perspective in ruling on a state taking this kind of action. It
> would have to come from Congress.*
>
Then why didn't the 14th amendment specify that
Even if we allow for the sake of a hypothetical that Trump directly was
part of an "insurrection," states have no authority to make this
determination around eligibility under the 14th amendment.The
ruling was unanimous including from liberals on the court who despise
Trump, and does nothing
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:16 PM howardmarks wrote:
*> How can it be construed as "insurrection" to ask a group not at the
> Capitol, words to the effect of "peacefully" going to the Capital to
> "lawfully protest . . . "? *
>
Something like that couldn't be interpreted as an insurrection, but I
Sorry, Supreme Court did not ignore the 14th Amendment to the USC. How
can it be construed as "insurrection" to ask a group not at the Capitol,
words to the effect of "peacefully" going to the Capital to "lawfully
protest . . . "? And, it's doubtful 2nd Amendment will be allowed by
the owners
Now that the Supreme Court has decreed that it's constitutional to ignore
the 14th amendment to the US Constitution and allow Trump to remain on the
ballot, would it also be constitutional to ignore the second amendment to
the Constitution?
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at
10 matches
Mail list logo
