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)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 Trumps 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 Trumps 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 Pences 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
If Drumpf isn't barred from office for *INSURRECTION* our pretense at LAW is over with. [View all]
UTUSN
Yesterday
OP
Another ridiculous take that shows that the article is fundamentally misunderstood. n/t
xocetaceans
Yesterday
#42
The problem is that Vance would slide into the spot. Trump is just a puppet. Vance is aligned with the
Vinca
Yesterday
#6
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
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
So, they "removed the disabilities" for THEM. Not blanket for anybody/everybody else.
UTUSN
Yesterday
#24
The focus is on insurrection, not partisan distractions. I think they are just disposing of a tangent there.
UTUSN
Yesterday
#23
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 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
Republicans and Congress are too busy rubbing their hands together over the thought of the outright bribes he will
Walleye
Yesterday
#30
Some elected officials were refused to be seated in the Reconstruction Era
bucolic_frolic
Yesterday
#32
Going through the motions would be something. Later to be called profile-courage.
UTUSN
Yesterday
#44
If you really think about it, there should be overwhelming bipartisan support under the circumstances.
Frank D. Lincoln
Yesterday
#55
Not trolling me. The issue of insurrection is its own thing, not being enlisted by me for my voting expediency.
UTUSN
Yesterday
#53
Elected reps are not bound to uphold the will of the people or popular opinion
bucolic_frolic
Yesterday
#51
People might as well move on. garland won't do a damn thing. And tRUMP being charged w/ an insurrection?
SWBTATTReg
Yesterday
#56
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
Can't argue with a mysterious post.ON EDIT answering orangecrush here to not kick thread:
UTUSN
16 hrs ago
#78
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