• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

14th Amendment still applies and will apply

poweRob

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
83,522
Reaction score
57,980
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Good news folks. A federal appeals court ruled that the constitutional still matters.

​


Let's see how Marjorie takes the news.
 
Great in theory, but in our reality where basically nobody meaningful has been charged with insurrection, despite their support for it, I'm not sure that this decision really matters.
 
Excast said:
Great in theory, but in our reality where basically nobody meaningful has been charged with insurrection, despite their support for it, I'm not sure that this decision really matters.
Click to expand...
That was my thought as well. Insurrection has to happen for the 14th to apply.
 
Excast said:
Great in theory, but in our reality where basically nobody meaningful has been charged with insurrection, despite their support for it, I'm not sure that this decision really matters.
Click to expand...
It's not just insurrection. There's an "or" stipulation.

...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same
 
Still trying to distract from the disaster that is Joe and Kammy, huh?
 
poweRob said:
Good news folks. A federal appeals court ruled that the constitutional still matters.

​


Let's see how Marjorie takes the news.
Click to expand...

If D's win the majority in the house, this decision will pave the way for her not to be seated. Can't believe that her constituents are okay with her horrible memory and obvious lies.
 
Excast said:
Great in theory, but in our reality where basically nobody meaningful has been charged with insurrection, despite their support for it, I'm not sure that this decision really matters.
Click to expand...
Not charged does not mean will not be charged. But that is besides the point. The 14th does not require a crime be charged, only participation in the insurrection.
insurrection, noun, a violent uprising against an authority or government.
 
Politics would be so much easier if one side can just prevent the other side from running for office.

It's a shame the Dems are so distrustful of democracy.
 
poweRob said:
Good news folks. A federal appeals court ruled that the constitutional still matters.

​


Let's see how Marjorie takes the news.
Click to expand...

This is not new news. This is already establesed fact. That is why the attempt to make this claim against her. If they can get the judges to rule in their favorm, she is out.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Politics would be so much easier if one side can just prevent the other side from running for office.

It's a shame the Dems are so distrustful of democracy.
Click to expand...
Seems the republicans don't trust democracy enough to let people vote.
 
mrjurrs said:
Not charged does not mean will not be charged. But that is besides the point. The 14th does not require a crime be charged, only participation in the insurrection.
insurrection, noun, a violent uprising against an authority or government.
Click to expand...

Hmm… do you think that a mere allegation of insurrection should suffice?
 
Loulit01 said:
Would sedition suffice?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Remember, you cannot go by what a definition means today. You have to use the contemporary definition of what the words meant then.

What did sedition mean in 1868?
 
Lord of Planar said:
They seem to, and there has been no evidence yet that a court will base a guilt verdict on.
Click to expand...

Yep, just have someone accuse you (very loudly and publicly?) of being an insurrectionist or a rebel and you are no longer eligible to hold federal office. ;)
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't think so. Remember, you cannot go by what a definition means today. You have to use the contemporary definition of what the words meant then.

What did sedition mean in 1868?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure I know what it meant in April, 1861.

Sedition doesn't mean what it meant in 1868. Sedition means what SCOTUS says it means. This SCOTUS will say only liberals can be guilty of sedition so MTG gets a pass.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Politics would be so much easier if one side can just prevent the other side from running for office.

It's a shame the Dems are so distrustful of democracy.
Click to expand...
😄 Like you have a clue about democracy.
 
Grandpappy said:
Still trying to distract from the disaster that is Joe and Kammy, huh?
Click to expand...
This is your go to thread derail comment when you don't want anyone talking about particular topic isn't it?
 
Athanasius68 said:
Politics would be so much easier if one side can just prevent the other side from running for office.

It's a shame the Dems are so distrustful of democracy.
Click to expand...

Obvious projection. Dems didn't violently attack our government because of a distrust of our democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom