• 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!

Not an insurrection? The State of New Mexico disagrees.

jaypatriot said:
Only one person was killed on 1/6.
She was an unarmed white female military veteran shot by a nervous black cop who was protecting the capitol building.
Not a story promoted by the Liberal press.
Click to expand...

You spelled “domestic terrorist” wrong.
 
Cordelier said:
The Constitution isn't self-executing, though. For Trump to be considered an insurrectionist, would he not have to be tried and convicted for violating 18 USC § 2383? Until such a conviction is obtained, is he not entitled to a presumption of innocence?
Click to expand...

No. The 14th is abundantly clear.

You just have people trying to muddy the waters.
 
jaypatriot said:
So we both believe that neither Trump nor Biden is the answer to our need for strong leadership. And please don't say, "There's always Kamala".

For the record, I would rather cast my vote for an executive leader like Nikki Haley or DeSantis, with government leadership records, than an old fossil who's been around for five decades and has to use short staircases to avoid falling down.
Click to expand...

Well, there’s always Kamala.
 
Superfly said:
Holy shit … seriously?



… you don’t know what that means? First day on the internet?
Click to expand...
I am not going to suggest anything puerile, misogynistic, or crude.
That's your forte as a 'road tripper'.
Superfly said:
Holy shit … seriously?



… you don’t know what that means? First day on the internet?
Click to expand...

Now I understand the reference you made.
You must have had fun on the road.
What instrument did you play?

Road Trip​


A lengthy sexual encounter that might involve multiple positions, oral sex, sex toys, dress-up, etc.
Instead of the usual quickie, how would you like to take a road trip tonight?

Urban Dictionary: Road Trip

The long and boring trip that eventually becomes memorable and fun through time.
www.urbandictionary.com www.urbandictionary.com
 
jaypatriot said:
I am not going to suggest anything puerile, misogynistic, or crude.
That's your forte as a 'road tripper'.


Now I understand the reference you made.
You must have had fun on the road.
What instrument did you play?

Road Trip​


A lengthy sexual encounter that might involve multiple positions, oral sex, sex toys, dress-up, etc.
Instead of the usual quickie, how would you like to take a road trip tonight?

Urban Dictionary: Road Trip

The long and boring trip that eventually becomes memorable and fun through time.
www.urbandictionary.com www.urbandictionary.com
Click to expand...

Self-owned in the same post. That takes some skill.
 
Superfly said:
No. The 14th is abundantly clear.

You just have people trying to muddy the waters.
Click to expand...

If the 14th Amendment is abundantly clear, then it must be so across all of it's sections - not just Section 3, but Section 5 also: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Did not Congress exercise this power by making insurrection a crime under 18 USC §2383 (conviction of which carries the same prohibition from office enumerated in Section 3)? What's more, if Congress is given the sole power to enforce the terms of the 14th Amendment, from where do the States derive their power to do so?
 
Cordelier said:
If the 14th Amendment is abundantly clear, then it must be so across all of it's sections - not just Section 3, but Section 5 also: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Did not Congress exercise this power by making insurrection a crime under 18 USC §2383 (conviction of which carries the same prohibition from office enumerated in Section 3)? What's more, if Congress is given the sole power to enforce the terms of the 14th Amendment, from where do the States derive their power to do so?
Click to expand...
States run elections. They can keep candidates off the ballot for insurrection, Congress can allow them back on with a 2/3 vote.
 
jaypatriot said:
I correctly spelled out the exact situation:
unarmed white female military veteran shot by a nervous black cop
Click to expand...
Nope.
Unarmed criminal shot while committing a crime by a LEO stationed at the last line of personal defense for elected federal representatives.
 
Cordelier said:
Why don't you feel a conviction for violating 18 USC §2383 would be a necessary precondition for Trump to be considered guilty of insurrection? Is he not entitled to a presumption of innocence until such a conviction is obtained?
Click to expand...
The 14th doesn't say guilty, it says "...engaged in..."

Are you saying that P01135809 was not engaged in the events of January 6, 2021?
 
mrjurrs said:
States run elections. They can keep candidates off the ballot for insurrection, Congress can allow them back on with a 2/3 vote.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that the power to determine whether someone is guilty of insurrection is clearly within the Federal purview and not with the States.
 
mrjurrs said:
The 14th doesn't say guilty, it says "...engaged in..."

Are you saying that P01135809 was not engaged in the events of January 6, 2021?
Click to expand...

Congress has deemed it necessary and appropriate - given it's power granted under §5 of the 14th Amendment - to enforce the provisions of §3 of the 14th Amendment by making insurrection a Federal crime. If you want to keep anyone off the ballot for engaging in insurrection, it then becomes necessary to obtain a conviction for that crime.
 
Cordelier said:
I'd argue that the power to determine whether someone is guilty of insurrection is clearly within the Federal purview and not with the States.
Click to expand...
You'd be wrong. There is nothing about committing a crime that would preclude you from running for President. There is something about having engaged in an insurrection disqualifying you.

Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
 
mrjurrs said:
You'd be wrong. There is nothing about committing a crime that would preclude you from running for President. There is something about having engaged in an insurrection disqualifying you.

Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you... my argument is that the determination of whether or not an individual has engaged in insurrection clearly does not reside with the States. The sole power to enforce the 14th Amendment is to be derived from legislation deemed appropriate by Congress. For a State to unilaterally bar an individual from the ballot for insurrection would thus be clearly unconstitutional.
 
Cordelier said:
I don't disagree with you... my argument is that the determination of whether or not an individual has engaged in insurrection clearly does not reside with the States. The sole power to enforce the 14th Amendment is to be derived from legislation deemed appropriate by Congress.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken. If it was why would the 14th include this, "...But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."?

The states place the candidates on the ballot, not the feds.
 
mrjurrs said:
You are mistaken. If it was why would the 14th include this, "...But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."?

The states place the candidates on the ballot, not the feds.
Click to expand...

Think about what the Congress is actually doing when it decides to remove the disability - in effect, it is overturning a criminal conviction. So, of course, a super majority would be appropriate.

States place candidates on the ballot, but they have to apply the same criteria to all candidates, do they not? It can't draw distinctions or make exceptions for individual candidates unless such exceptions are constitutionally valid, wouldn't you agree?

Let's turn the argument on it's head... let's say a candidate was convicted of insurrection, but Rhode Island insisted that she be allowed to remain on the ballot. Wouldn't the Congress have the power under Article I §4 to overrule the State and remove her from the ballot?
 
Cordelier said:
Think about what the Congress is actually doing when it decides to remove the disability - in effect, it is overturning a criminal conviction. So, of course, a super majority would be appropriate.

States place candidates on the ballot, but they have to apply the same criteria to all candidates, do they not? It can't draw distinctions or make exceptions for individual candidates unless such exceptions are constitutionally valid, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
Congress may not overturn a criminal conviction of any type. They can put someone back on a ballot that has been removed.

I would not necessarily agree with what seems obvious. They must meet certain qualifications, 35, residency and natural born citizen, along with certain restrictions (can't have served two terms already) and imo, been a previously sworn federal officer who engaged in an insurrection. After that, the states have elections power. If someone feels a state has wronged them...that goes to Article 3.
 
mrjurrs said:
Congress may not overturn a criminal conviction of any type. They can put someone back on a ballot that has been removed.

I would not necessarily agree with what seems obvious. They must meet certain qualifications, 35, residency and natural born citizen, along with certain restrictions (can't have served two terms already) and imo, been a previously sworn federal officer who engaged in an insurrection. After that, the states have elections power. If someone feels a state has wronged them...that goes to Article 3.
Click to expand...

Read 18 USC §2383. The prohibition from public office is part and parcel with conviction and the language used mirrors that of §3 of the 14th Amendment. I'd suggest that is not a coincidence.

All of the qualifications you list are Constitutionally mandated, though. So is not engaging in an insurrection. As @Superfly suggested, the 14th Amendment is perfectly clear - the only problem arises in determining who exactly has the power to enforce the terms. By my reading, §5 of the 14th Amendment resolves that question.
 
Cordelier said:
Read 18 USC §2383. The prohibition from public office is part and parcel with conviction and the language used mirrors that of §3 of the 14th Amendment. I'd suggest that is not a coincidence.

All of the qualifications you list are Constitutionally mandated, though. So is not engaging in an insurrection. As @Superfly suggested, the 14th Amendment is perfectly clear - the only problem arises in determining who exactly has the power to enforce the terms. By my reading, §5 of the 14th Amendment resolves that question.
Click to expand...
Conviction of that crime would be another restriction to office.

Congress may not overturn any criminal conviction. You continue to ignore the states supremacy on federal elections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom