• 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

Loulit01 said:
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.
Click to expand...
And SCOTUS will use the definition as understood when the law was written. If it be 1861, so be it. That is the definition the SCOTUS will use.
 
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...
Boy oh boy are you right!

Next thing you know, they will be attacking the elections they lose just because they didn't like the outcome. Hell, they may even run some psychpath that wll refuse to acknowledge any election they don't like and go so far as to make up lies about our elections in order to overturn them, and those evil Democrat cult members will cheer and cheer!

Am I right?
 

# 13,
# 14
# 15
were approved under duress!

Any doubts?



Moi






alfred_e_neuman-cell.JPG
​
 
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...

More bisarre fantasies from the left.
 
Well this is interesting. I often note the high correlation between good and bad rulings and who appointed the judge, while of course it's not 100%, it's a terribly high one, I'm surprised how often there is a correlation. Even considering Republicans appoint radicals to the court, it shouldn't be so high.

So I looked at this ruling, and it's a bit interesting. An Obama judge, a Biden judge, and... a trump judge. So the obvious 'partisan' result would be a 2-1 ruling.

But that's not the case. This was a 3-0 ruling. What what gives? A 'good' trump judge? An issue even a bad trump judge agrees on it's so clear? Well, no. Turns out, it fits a partisan result almost as much as that 2-1 ruling would.

The clue is seeing different 'concurring opinions' - this wasn't a 3-0 vote for one opinion. Hm, I wonder why they felt a need to write their own opinions, maybe the trump judge has some weird opinion? Turns out - yup.

In fact, the second Democratic judges' opinion seems to have been written to rebut the trump judge. Here's a key quote from it, that seems almost a bit shockingly critical: "I fully concur in Judge Heytens’s well-reasoned and persuasive majority opinion. But Judge Richardson’s provocative and novel concurrence compels a correcting response"

Yup. The Democratic judges agree, but view the trump judge's separate opinion as 'provocative and novel [compelling] a correcting response'. There you go. Another ruling where who appointed the judges seems important.
 
Loulit01 said:
Seems the republicans don't trust democracy enough to let people vote.
Click to expand...
I'm losing a lot of trust in democracy, given the power of propaganda and the quality of Republican voters, but I still see it as the least bad option and support their right to vote.
 
Loulit01 said:
Seems the republicans don't trust democracy enough to let people vote.
Click to expand...
Your on a topic about Marjorie and you want to talk Republicans don't want people to vote?
 
Last edited:
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...

For the record, I have no care at all for Marjorie and generally disapprove of just about everything she says and does.

That said, what crime has she been charged with let alone convicted of?

Those charged in with something related to this are another matter of course, but there are a few steps to go to even get MTG into that category.
 
OrphanSlug said:
For the record, I have no care at all for Marjorie and generally disapprove of just about everything she says and does.

That said, what crime has she been charged with let alone convicted of?

Those charged in with something related to this are another matter of course, but there are a few steps to go to even get MTG into that category.
Click to expand...
I'm with you there.
 
Craig234 said:
I'm losing a lot of trust in democracy, given the power of propaganda and the quality of Republican voters, but I still see it as the least bad option and support their right to vote.
Click to expand...
It works both ways, you know.
 
OrphanSlug said:
For the record, I have no care at all for Marjorie and generally disapprove of just about everything she says and does.

That said, what crime has she been charged with let alone convicted of?

Those charged in with something related to this are another matter of course, but there are a few steps to go to even get MTG into that category.
Click to expand...
They've gone after all the foot soldiers so far and the organizers haven't been called to task. I'm not saying she can't run now, but this sets a precedent that should the investigation progress into showing her guilt of having conpsired with the conspirators, they don't have to then validate that the 14th amendments place in the process. It's already fleshed out in advance.
 
poweRob said:
They've gone after all the foot soldiers so far and the organizers haven't been called to task. I'm not saying she can't run now, but this sets a precedent that should the investigation progress into showing her guilt of having conpsired with the conspirators, they don't have to then validate that the 14th amendments place in the process. It's already fleshed out in advance.
Click to expand...

I hope so, but I am the cynic in the room.
 
Michael Cole said:
Bullcrap
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not.

Though the Northern states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, it was decisively rejected by the Southern and border states, failing to secure the 3/4 of the states necessary for ratification under Article V. The Radical Republicans responded with the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which virtually expelled the Southern states from the Union and placed them under martial law. To end military rule, the Southern states were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. As one Republican described the situation: “the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet.”

President Andrew Johnson saw the Reconstruction Act as “absolute despotism,” a “bill of attainder against 9,000,000 people.” In his veto message, he stated that “such a power ha[d] not been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than five hundred years.” Sounding for all the world like Roger Pilon, Johnson asked, “Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like this?” and answered, “Certainly not, if we derive our authority from the Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which it imposes.”

The rump Republican Congress overrode Johnson’s veto and enacted statutes that shrank both the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction and the Court itself – just in case the judicial branch got any funny ideas of its own about constitutionalism. Jackboot on its neck, the South ratified, but not before New Jersey and Ohio, aghast at Republican tyranny, rescinded their previous ratifications of the mendment. Even with the fictional consent of the Southern states, the republicans needed New Jersey and Ohio to put the amendment over the top. No matter; by joint resolution, Congress declared the amendment valid. Thus it – you’ll excuse the phrasing– “passed into law.”

www.lewrockwell.com

The Squalid 14th Amendment - LewRockwell

SEC. 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection...
www.lewrockwell.com www.lewrockwell.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom