Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

UTUSN

(72,720 posts)
Thu Dec 26, 2024, 10:58 AM Yesterday

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

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*********




91 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Make it so, America BoRaGard Yesterday #1
Laws and The Constitution simply don't apply to him bif Yesterday #2
Laws and consequences are for the Poors NotHardly Yesterday #35
Pity our Attorney General didn't do anything about it for four years. sop Yesterday #3
Pick your preferred AG- Schiff? Kirschner? Weissman? Yates? Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #7
This message was self-deleted by its author sop Yesterday #8
That take on the issue is ridiculous on its face. n/t xocetaceans Yesterday #39
Explain your reasoning. Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #57
K & R malaise Yesterday #4
All well and good, except Republicans control congress. Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #5
If they vote 2/3 to let it go, fine: At least we went through the motions. UTUSN Yesterday #10
It would take a majority to pass a disqualification resolution. Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #14
Another ridiculous take that shows that the article is fundamentally misunderstood. n/t xocetaceans Yesterday #42
So easy to leave one liner retorts Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #58
The problem is that Vance would slide into the spot. Trump is just a puppet. Vance is aligned with the Vinca Yesterday #6
Chips fall where chips may. The focus is on insurrection. UTUSN Yesterday #12
True. n/t xocetaceans Yesterday #43
I don't know it as bad as Vance is. He's more like a normal human being. Trump is a huge problem here. Walleye Yesterday #26
"normal" can include being so icky as to make him allergic to being associated with. UTUSN Yesterday #48
Yes, but I don't think he has the magnitude of insanity to be capable of ruining the whole country in one term Walleye Yesterday #50
Maybe the plan is to get him elected and then disqualify him Buckeyeblue Yesterday #59
This would only have been helpful at the ballot stage (as in MadameButterfly Yesterday #9
No, the ballot stage was crapped on by the SCofUS. UTUSN Yesterday #11
I'm aware of that MadameButterfly Yesterday #13
Would stop "it"/what now? They did the ballot part, not the insurrection part. UTUSN Yesterday #16
Colorado tried to keep Trump off the ballot because of the insurrection. MadameButterfly Yesterday #18
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 UTUSN Yesterday #19
I thought the US Supreme Court - UNANIMOUSLY - rejected the whole "You can declare someone an insurrectionist without Midwestern Democrat Yesterday #15
I'm no Legal eagle. The authors in the article go through (all) of the opposing arguments. UTUSN Yesterday #17
Did every single Confederate (or any) go through a trial specifically about insurrection? UTUSN Yesterday #20
No Southern_gent Yesterday #21
So, they "removed the disabilities" for THEM. Not blanket for anybody/everybody else. UTUSN Yesterday #24
Congress never Southern_gent Yesterday #36
I'm no scholar but I think what's in the Constitution is what it is. UTUSN Yesterday #49
From the article: Polybius Yesterday #22
The focus is on insurrection, not partisan distractions. I think they are just disposing of a tangent there. UTUSN Yesterday #23
You have a point Polybius Yesterday #34
She wouldn't iemanja Yesterday #40
This Southern_gent Yesterday #60
*** Adam SCHIFF, Liz CHEENEE, Marc ELIAS - am looking at *you*! ********* UTUSN Yesterday #25
Is there anything that says... Think. Again. Yesterday #27
The Trail of wreckage starts with Nixon not being charged with treason for his back room dealing with North Vietnam to k yourout Yesterday #28
The polls were the ultimate court. Unfortunately, trump won. Silent Type Yesterday #29
The issue is insurrection, period. Not ballots, polls, voting results, trials, etc. UTUSN Yesterday #41
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 Silent Type Yesterday #54
It's not a 4 yrs' issue. The shelf life is Jan 20. It's not about jockeying for elections' advantage. UTUSN 23 hrs ago #62
who determines whether an insurrection took place? cadoman 4 hrs ago #90
Republicans and Congress are too busy rubbing their hands together over the thought of the outright bribes he will Walleye Yesterday #30
Lets face it, the US is a lawless shithole country. nt yaesu Yesterday #31
Some elected officials were refused to be seated in the Reconstruction Era bucolic_frolic Yesterday #32
It's not going to happen Renew Deal Yesterday #33
Going through the motions would be something. Later to be called profile-courage. UTUSN Yesterday #44
A forgetable anectdote Renew Deal 19 hrs ago #70
If you really think about it, there should be overwhelming bipartisan support under the circumstances. Frank D. Lincoln Yesterday #55
He should have been impeached and convicted after the insurrection Renew Deal 19 hrs ago #71
We must make this into an unforgettable national memory. Kid Berwyn Yesterday #37
This is a year too late iemanja Yesterday #38
No, did not rule on insurrection. Chips fall where chips may. UTUSN Yesterday #45
So you are happy to throw out the will of the people iemanja Yesterday #47
Not trolling me. The issue of insurrection is its own thing, not being enlisted by me for my voting expediency. UTUSN Yesterday #53
The trolling is that something can be done about it iemanja 20 hrs ago #65
That's not even a definition of trolling, which is not the topic anyway. UTUSN 20 hrs ago #68
The topic isn't stopping Trump from taking office? iemanja 18 hrs ago #74
No, it's about insurrection. And trolling is different from flaming. UTUSN 17 hrs ago #76
Insurrection iemanja 14 hrs ago #79
"can't handle disagreement" doesn't equate with authentic engagement. S'long. UTUSN 13 hrs ago #81
Kettle, pot. iemanja 13 hrs ago #82
C'mon, let's bid each other a nice g'bye. I'll start (again) : G'bye! UTUSN 13 hrs ago #85
I thought we had already. iemanja 13 hrs ago #86
You don't let it be. UTUSN 13 hrs ago #87
LOL iemanja 13 hrs ago #88
I'd absolutely being willing to throw out the will of 49% of idiots standingtall 21 hrs ago #64
50% iemanja 20 hrs ago #66
Elected reps are not bound to uphold the will of the people or popular opinion bucolic_frolic Yesterday #51
"Make a stand" hadEnuf Yesterday #46
It's as if Jefferson Davis was elected president in 1868. cer7711 Yesterday #52
People might as well move on. garland won't do a damn thing. And tRUMP being charged w/ an insurrection? SWBTATTReg Yesterday #56
K&R Native Yesterday #61
Garland dropped the ball! Xoan 21 hrs ago #63
we've been over this 1000x WarGamer 20 hrs ago #67
If you would cite *one* court decision saying adjudication is necessary, UTUSN 19 hrs ago #69
so you're advocating... WarGamer 19 hrs ago #72
The only thing I am advocating is in the OP. If you're not going to cite the finding you claim, UTUSN 18 hrs ago #73
Trump could not pass even the most basic background check Skittles 18 hrs ago #75
Been over. orangecrush 16 hrs ago #77
Can't argue with a mysterious post.ON EDIT answering orangecrush here to not kick thread: UTUSN 16 hrs ago #78
Pretense at law. orangecrush 13 hrs ago #89
He wasn't barred from running and he's not going to be barred from office Meowmee 14 hrs ago #80
Doesn't mean he shouldn't be. But you're correct about that. UTUSN 13 hrs ago #83
I didn't say it meant that, of course he should've been barred and he should be barred now Meowmee 13 hrs ago #84
Well, obviously it was always legal for a criminal to run for President, and then hold that office, we just never knew msfiddlestix 1 hr ago #91
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If Drumpf isn't barred fr...