Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Unfortunately, I do not think it does. He's not being charged with nor has he been convicted of treason or rebelling against the United States in any court or by the Senate via impeachment. He's being charged with obstructing an official proceeding and defrauding the U.S. government, which I do not think would qualify under this section of the Constitution. Also, I think someone tried this before on the state level and it was rejected.
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Are you actually going to waste your time and watch it?
Maybe catch part of it? You?
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
easyrider16 wrote:Unfortunately, I do not think it does. He's not being charged with nor has he been convicted of treason or rebelling against the United States in any court or by the Senate via impeachment. He's being charged with obstructing an official proceeding and defrauding the U.S. government, which I do not think would qualify under this section of the Constitution. Also, I think someone tried this before on the state level and it was rejected.
You’re more the legal eagle than I am, but I was under the impression that he didn’t need to be convicted in order for this to apply.
Never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level, then overwhelm you with their experience.
"I have noticed that when you post, you often say more about yourself than the topic you chose to speak about." -The Suit
I think you're right, but I also think it very unlikely that a judge would try to enforce this provision against Trump without a conviction on the record.
There might be a stronger case for Trump, as he is alleged to have organized this fake electors scheme, but that's not quite the same thing as insurrection or rebellion against the government. I just don't see a judge disqualifying a major candidate like Trump unless there is something rock solid, like a criminal conviction for sedition, especially since he himself wasn't present at the capitol (likely by design for this very reason).
easyrider16 wrote:I think you're right, but I also think it very unlikely that a judge would try to enforce this provision against Trump without a conviction on the record.
There might be a stronger case for Trump, as he is alleged to have organized this fake electors scheme, but that's not quite the same thing as insurrection or rebellion against the government. I just don't see a judge disqualifying a major candidate like Trump unless there is something rock solid, like a criminal conviction for sedition, especially since he himself wasn't present at the capitol (likely by design for this very reason).
The case against Madison Cawthorn went to appeal and was overturned, but the case was moot since he lost his nomination.
“It makes clear that the 1872 Amnesty Act poses no barrier to similar future … challenges of the qualification of candidates to appear on the ballot, thus ensuring that section three of the 14th amendment can continue to serve its purpose as an important mechanism for holding public officials accountable when they violate their oaths of office.”
Never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level, then overwhelm you with their experience.
"I have noticed that when you post, you often say more about yourself than the topic you chose to speak about." -The Suit
I hope you're right and I'm wrong. But I think that Cawthorn appeal was about a narrow issue, not the question of whether he actually engaged in rebellion or insurrection or gave aid and comfort to those who did. And if they try this with Trump, you know where it will end up. Do you trust those 6 conservative justices at SCOTUS to do the right thing? Robertson might, but the other 5...