If Drumpf isn't barred from office for *INSURRECTION* our pretense at LAW is over with.

[UTUSN]

This is not to be confused or conflated with election-denialism - unlike the lying whining that Drumpf and his zombies have subjected the country to for the past four years. It is about *insurrection* and even if the "disability" is removed by 2/3 vote in each house, at least the nod would be made that we sort of believe what we say we do.

***********QUOTE*********

https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-congress-power-block-trump-130000458.html

Opinion - Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now

The Constitution provides that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” This disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote in each House.

Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel. ....

Finally, there is the bipartisan inquiry of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. More than half of the witnesses whose testimony was displayed at its nine public hearings were Republicans, including members of the Trump administration. The inescapable conclusion of this evidence is that Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution. In particular, Trump unlawfully demanded that his vice president, Mike Pence, throw out votes in the Electoral College for political opponent Joe Biden, a power he did not have. While the riot was in progress, Trump used Pence’s rejection of his demand to further enflame the crowd and cause them to chant “Hang Mike Pence.”

The unlikelihood of congressional Republicans doing anything that might elect Harris as president is obvious. But Democrats need to take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

*******UNQUOTE*********

[BoRaGard]

1. Make it so, America

or submit to The Felon (R, inc.) and his darkside desires.

[bif]

2. Laws and The Constitution simply don't apply to him

He's also a convicted rapist and felon. Go figure!?!?

[NotHardly]

35. Laws and consequences are for the Poors

[sop]

3. Pity our Attorney General didn't do anything about it for four years.

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. Pick your preferred AG- Schiff? Kirschner? Weissman? Yates?

The outcome would have been the same, because the same SCOTUS (the actual villains of this story) would have prevailed, regardless of who was AG. The same obstacles and delays would have been litigated, and the outcome would have been the same:

There would be no trial before election day, regardless of who was AG

[xocetaceans]

39. That take on the issue is ridiculous on its face. n/t

[Fiendish Thingy]

57. Explain your reasoning.

If the courts ultimately control the rules, scheduling and even the existence of a trial, how would a different AG change those facts?

[malaise]

4. K & R

Lock him up

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. All well and good, except Republicans control congress.

Even if Dems had control, any resolution disqualifying Trump would surely be overturned by SCOTUS, since Trump was never charged with, or convicted of, the statutory crime of insurrection.

Some would say SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over internal congressional matters, just as it has no authority over the January 6 procedure of certifying the electoral votes.

It’s all a moot point, since none of this hypothetical scenario will happen- Trump will be certified as the winner on January 6, and, unless he dies before then, will be inaugurated for his second term on January 20.

[UTUSN]

10. If they vote 2/3 to let it go, fine: At least we went through the motions.

The article goes through all of the opposing possibilities - and disposes of them.

*** Besides, continuing not to fantasize, having a majority is not "control" : Control would be 2/3.

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. It would take a majority to pass a disqualification resolution.

That’s not going to happen.

[xocetaceans]

42. Another ridiculous take that shows that the article is fundamentally misunderstood. n/t

[Fiendish Thingy]

58. So easy to leave one liner retorts

No critical thinking required.

[Vinca]

6. The problem is that Vance would slide into the spot. Trump is just a puppet. Vance is aligned with the

puppeteers. I've always thought their plan was to get Trump elected, oust him with the 25th and install Vance.

[UTUSN]

12. Chips fall where chips may. The focus is on insurrection.

[xocetaceans]

43. True. n/t

[Walleye]

26. I don't know it as bad as Vance is. He's more like a normal human being. Trump is a huge problem here.

[UTUSN]

48. "normal" can include being so icky as to make him allergic to being associated with.

[Walleye]

50. Yes, but I don't think he has the magnitude of insanity to be capable of ruining the whole country in one term

As we expect the orange one will try to do.

[Buckeyeblue]

59. Maybe the plan is to get him elected and then disqualify him

What a double cross that would be. And Vance could deliver one of the disqualifying votes. Of course Trump would go ballistic. But Vance would have 4 years to win them back or do so much damage that it wouldn't matter.

Of course this won't happen. But it would be crazy if it did.

[MadameButterfly]

9. This would only have been helpful at the ballot stage (as in

the Colorado challenge) where the result would have been a Democrat, not another insurrectionist election denier.

[UTUSN]

11. No, the ballot stage was crapped on by the SCofUS.

[MadameButterfly]

13. I'm aware of that

If SCOTUS stopped it then, they would stop it now. Unless they'd rather have JD, which is a distinct possibility.

Colorado had the right ida and that was when to fight. They should have won.

[UTUSN]

16. Would stop "it"/what now? They did the ballot part, not the insurrection part.

[MadameButterfly]

18. Colorado tried to keep Trump off the ballot because of the insurrection.

SCOTUS said no. What isn't clear here?

[UTUSN]

19. My last clarity here is: They said couldn't keep it from running or from being on the ballot. Reason for it don't matter

[Midwestern Democrat]

15. I thought the US Supreme Court - UNANIMOUSLY - rejected the whole "You can declare someone an insurrectionist without

a criminal trial" nonsense.

[UTUSN]

17. I'm no Legal eagle. The authors in the article go through (all) of the opposing arguments.

[UTUSN]

20. Did every single Confederate (or any) go through a trial specifically about insurrection?

[Southern_gent]

21. No

Because congress also passed the Amnesty Act of 1872 which provided amnesty to former Confederates by removing most of the penalties imposed on them by the Fourteenth Amendment.

[UTUSN]

24. So, they "removed the disabilities" for THEM. Not blanket for anybody/everybody else.

Removing the disability *now* for Drumpf would be 2/3 vote in each house.

[Southern_gent]

36. Congress never

Created an endorsement mechanism for the 14th amendment even though the amendment authorized them to create law to enforce it.



Section 5

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

[UTUSN]

49. I'm no scholar but I think what's in the Constitution is what it is.

[Polybius]

22. From the article:

The unlikelihood of congressional Republicans doing anything that might elect Harris as president is obvious. But Democrats need to take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Why would Harris become President if Trump is disqualified? Why not Vance?

[UTUSN]

23. The focus is on insurrection, not partisan distractions. I think they are just disposing of a tangent there.

The rest of that paragraph is back to the central theme.

Just for fun, if we want to go down a rabbit hole, we might say that since VANCE hooked up with Insurrectionist-Drumpf, he became an accessory after the fact to insurrection? Then what, throw an election to the House?

[Polybius]

34. You have a point

I'd say if Trump is disqualified, then the entire ticket could technically be as well. As for what next, perhaps the winner goes to the next runner up, Harris.

[iemanja]

40. She wouldn't

Some people are desperate to the point of being pathetic, and these column writers are two of them. The other option is that they are just trolling Democrats. That may be more likely.

[Southern_gent]

60. This

[UTUSN]

25. *** Adam SCHIFF, Liz CHEENEE, Marc ELIAS - am looking at *you*! *********

[Think. Again.]

27. Is there anything that says...

....that electors must refrain from casting Electoral College votes for Constitutionally ineligible candidates?

[yourout]

28. The Trail of wreckage starts with Nixon not being charged with treason for his back room dealing with North Vietnam to k

Then Ronnie Reagan's backroom deals with the ayatollas then Bush seniors Iran Contra then Clinton lying under oath then Obama droning US citizens. Then Trump's multiple jailable offenses.

[Silent Type]

29. The polls were the ultimate court. Unfortunately, trump won.

[UTUSN]

41. The issue is insurrection, period. Not ballots, polls, voting results, trials, etc.

Not to be confused with winning/losing, denialism. Or who might take the place.

[Silent Type]

54. It'll be a long 4 years if we are going to claim insurrection should prevent trump from taking office. It won't work and

will gain us nothing come next election.

I'm focusing on mid-trerms, hope we run on major healthcare reform, etc., because trump will take office and unless he does something to really tick off both chambers of Congress and/or Supreme Court, he'll be there until the end.

[UTUSN]

62. It's not a 4 yrs' issue. The shelf life is Jan 20. It's not about jockeying for elections' advantage.

[cadoman]

90. who determines whether an insurrection took place?

The media? The J6 committee? Congress? The Secretaries of State of each State? The DoJ?

The voters?

A lot of J6 "protestors" are rightly in jail for assaulting police officers, trespassing, damaging property, stealing property, etc. Garland successfully nailed Stewart Rhodes and others on very serious charges of seditious conspiracy. He attempted the obstruction of proceedings charges so you can't say his office wasn't being creative or willing to push statutory limits. The sentences they've sought have consistently been on the high side of guidelines and a sympathetic DC judiciary has largely granted them.

We need to consider the serious possibility that rather than Obama SC nominee Garland being a renegade, and the normally sharp Biden being oblivious, that there weren't facts that justified charges of insurrection. Because that's where Biden, the DoJ, and the public are. We are currently the outliers and need to ask ourselves if we want to run another election on this narrative.

[Walleye]

30. Republicans and Congress are too busy rubbing their hands together over the thought of the outright bribes he will

Be normalizing. They only think crimes now are committed by brown people in big cities. They don’t think of bribery as a crime at all.

[yaesu]

31. Lets face it, the US is a lawless shithole country. nt

[bucolic_frolic]

32. Some elected officials were refused to be seated in the Reconstruction Era

Congress would vote for or against some of them up until about 1905.

Now the cancer controls everything. Too late to save the patient.

[Renew Deal]

33. It's not going to happen

There is not enough political support for something like that.

[UTUSN]

44. Going through the motions would be something. Later to be called profile-courage.

[Renew Deal]

70. A forgetable anectdote

[Frank D. Lincoln]

55. If you really think about it, there should be overwhelming bipartisan support under the circumstances.

The way I see it, it would be in the best interests of both Democrats and Republicans to block Trump from taking office.

It would:

A. block an aspiring tyrant who plans to completely dominate each and every member of both chambers of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans.

B. make an end run around Trump who plans to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to have dictatorial power, which would render Congress obsolete.

C. (possibly) weaken Elon Musk's grip on Congress.

D. liberate Republicans from having to continually be threatened with primary challenges every time they turn around.

E. serve as a warning to JD Vance not to get too far out of line (unless this maneuver could get rid of him at the same time).

If Congress doesn't block Trump from taking office, then there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that each and every member of Congress (both chambers, both parties) will bitterly regret it.

If Trump gets back in, he's going to be "America's Hitler" and that's in no one's best interest.

My only wish is that all members of Congress had common sense.

[Renew Deal]

71. He should have been impeached and convicted after the insurrection

When that didn't happen, and certainly after the 2024 election, it's too late.

[Kid Berwyn]

37. We must make this into an unforgettable national memory.

Otherwise, Trump will write the story and his telling leaves out democracy.

[iemanja]

38. This is a year too late

The courts already ruled on it. I can't believe anyone actually thinks this is a reasonable option. There would be war in the streets.

[UTUSN]

45. No, did not rule on insurrection. Chips fall where chips may.

[iemanja]

47. So you are happy to throw out the will of the people

because you didn't get your way in the election? How anti-democratic of you. The other obvious point is that it isn't going to happen. The column writers are trolling. The chips have already fallen.

[UTUSN]

53. Not trolling me. The issue of insurrection is its own thing, not being enlisted by me for my voting expediency.

That it's not going to happen is all too likely, which has no bragging point. That is just a sign of lack of conviction and courage. No need to cast personal asparagus in a discussion on a discussion board, hah!

[iemanja]

65. The trolling is that something can be done about it

When it can’t.

[UTUSN]

68. That's not even a definition of trolling, which is not the topic anyway.

[iemanja]

74. The topic isn't stopping Trump from taking office?

The trolling is like Fitzmas, getting Democrats to believe the impossible is a legitimate option.

[UTUSN]

76. No, it's about insurrection. And trolling is different from flaming.

Flaming is:

* Highjacking, changing the subject
* Diverting
* Ignoring counter arguments/reasons
* imputing, projecting motives
* Not providing evidence
* Eventually, ad hominems
* On and on
* Grinding on/never allowing resolution

[iemanja]

79. Insurrection

Ground breaking. Who knew Trump engaged in insurrection? My eyes are opened. I'll remind you of the title of your OP since you seem to have forgotten:
"If Drumpf isn't barred from office for *INSURRECTION* our pretense at LAW is over with"

Now you're claiming barred from office has nothing to do with your thread. Okay, whatever you say. Maybe next time use a title that conveys your meaning since you don't want anyone commenting on keeping Trump out of power.

That you can't handle disagreement doesn't mean I'm flaming. Happy Fitzmas.

[UTUSN]

81. "can't handle disagreement" doesn't equate with authentic engagement. S'long.

Adding, grinding on/never allowing resolution, to the flaming characteristics.

[iemanja]

82. Kettle, pot.

[UTUSN]

85. C'mon, let's bid each other a nice g'bye. I'll start (again) : G'bye!

[iemanja]

86. I thought we had already.

You did already say goodbye.

[UTUSN]

87. You don't let it be.

[iemanja]

88. LOL

Have a happy holiday, and goodnight.

[standingtall]

64. I'd absolutely being willing to throw out the will of 49% of idiots

Not so cut and dry as to dimply say it's undemocratic. Trump should've never been allowed to run for office again in the first place and if the constitution would've been interpreted and applied properly he wouldn't have been. So if there were ballot initiatives where a plurality of voters decided Elon Musk could be President would you be okay with that? Or an initiatives where a plurality said it was okay to bring back slavery would you be okay with that? Or an initiative where a plurality of voters decided that the U.S. should be a territory of Russia or some other foreign actor. Would you be okay with that? If only Germany could've thrown out the will of Nazi supporters in the 1930s they wouldn't have destroyed their Country. You are right nothing going to come of this and we are going to have to suffer through at least 4 years of hell.

[iemanja]

66. 50%

And the way to keep Nazi sympathizers out of power is to figure out how to win an election. We don’t have plebiscites on foreign policy or anything else in this country, so your point about Russia is irrelevant. The key point is that you are willing to overturn democracy to get your way. Point noted. I happen to disagree. I think it’s the responsibility of the Democratic Party to adopt messaging and policies that voters want.

[bucolic_frolic]

51. Elected reps are not bound to uphold the will of the people or popular opinion

They are sworn to uphold the Constitution. Sometimes that involves using their sound judgment, however they wish to interpret it. That's what is missing here in my view. Democratic republic is more than the sum of the electorate. It has principles. The electorate has self-interest.

It's all wiggle room at this point, it's not going to happen, but it does have sound political theory of more than 500 years behind it.

[hadEnuf]

46. "Make a stand"

Yeah, that's an interesting thought isn't it?

[cer7711]

52. It's as if Jefferson Davis was elected president in 1868.

Our system failed.
The United States is in the process of breaking up.
Political fissures this deep and bitter cannot be papered over with make-nice noises.

[SWBTATTReg]

56. People might as well move on. garland won't do a damn thing. And tRUMP being charged w/ an insurrection?

Put it in your pipe and smoke it, it ain't happening.

As one poster said, it should have been done a long time ago. Colorado had it right.

So, too late. Hate to say it, but get used to it, get used to tRUMP's oncoming dump party where he dumps all of his BS on his daily press conferences, day in, day out. Four years of this crap. Four years.

What I'm more interested in, is what things can we do...if we still haven't the willpower, a lot of it got sucked away from us after K's loss, despite her having $600 million, tons of voters, etc., and we are also depressed as hell, and not really in a good mood to do a damn thing anymore.

[Native]

61. K&R

[Xoan]

63. Garland dropped the ball!

[WarGamer]

67. we've been over this 1000x

Trump has never been LEGALLY found guilty or liable for insurrection.

That's a definition that must be adjudicated by the Courts.

[UTUSN]

69. If you would cite *one* court decision saying adjudication is necessary,

it would take the onus off me for having tried your patience 1000x over, and I would self-delete the topic. The article cites three or more different findings of Drumpf being held to be an insurrectionist. And repeating, were any Confederates charged specifically in court?

[WarGamer]

72. so you're advocating...

That the Alabama State House could hold hearings and "claim" that Kamala Harris is an insurrectionist... and without the word of actual Federal Courts...

Just accept she's an insurrectionist?

I ALWAYS employ the "other shoe test" on issues like this.

[UTUSN]

73. The only thing I am advocating is in the OP. If you're not going to cite the finding you claim,

no need to spin off into other things for me. Thanks.

[Skittles]

75. Trump could not pass even the most basic background check

WHY is he allowed to be president? IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE.

[orangecrush]

77. Been over.

[UTUSN]

78. Can't argue with a mysterious post.ON EDIT answering orangecrush here to not kick thread:

Last edited Fri Dec 27, 2024, 01:45 AM - Edit history (1)

Sorry, gotcha, thanks.

[orangecrush]

89. Pretense at law.

[Meowmee]

80. He wasn't barred from running and he's not going to be barred from office

He’s had zero consequences for his numerous severe crimes.

[UTUSN]

83. Doesn't mean he shouldn't be. But you're correct about that.

[Meowmee]

84. I didn't say it meant that, of course he should've been barred and he should be barred now

No question about it in my mind. 😀

[msfiddlestix]

91. Well, obviously it was always legal for a criminal to run for President, and then hold that office, we just never knew

until the past year. The ReThugs always knew it, banked on our ignorance.
There even were a squad of legal eagles indicating everything that sick fuck did was perfectly legal defending the AG for not taking action, because they knew and tried to tell the rest of us, nothing legal could be done to prevent it. And we shouldn't have ever expected what seemed quite obvious to the rest of us. If only we had gone to law school instead of pursuing other career paths we would have known too.

But now we know., and they get the last word, and the last laugh.
So Cheers to seeing things as they really are, and not just some silly fantasy we grew up understanding of who we are as a nation.