New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The SCOTUS should recall that Congress already found that Trump incited an insurrection

Bugsy McGurk

President
That’s one of Trump’s arguments to evade the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment, right? That Congress must take some action to apply that clause.

Well, Congress DID take such action, when Trump was impeached for a second time, with majorities of both the House and the Senate finding that Trump incited an insurrection…

“Those votes came in the second impeachment of Trump, in January and February of 2021, in which majorities of both the House and the Senate backed an article of impeachment against Trump for “incitement of insurrection.”

Game, set, match.

 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
That’s one of Trump’s arguments to evade the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment, right? That Congress must take some action to apply that clause.

Well, Congress DID take such action, when Trump was impeached for a second time, with majorities of both the House and the Senate finding that Trump incited an insurrection…

“Those votes came in the second impeachment of Trump, in January and February of 2021, in which majorities of both the House and the Senate backed an article of impeachment against Trump for “incitement of insurrection.”

Game, set, match.

While I agree that there was an insurrection attempted...the facts arehe was impeached for, was acquitted by the Senate, and presently awaits adjudication on numerous matters before the courts related to this topic
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
While I agree that there was an insurrection attempted...the facts arehe was impeached for, was acquitted by the Senate, and presently awaits adjudication on numerous matters before the courts related to this topic
I think the one useful argument from Trump's lawyer is that the 14th does not say an insurrectionist cannot be on the ballot. He offered that Trump could be on the ballot and if he won then congress could vote by a 2/3rds majority, to allow him to take office. If he were to fail that vote then the VP would take office as president.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
While I agree that there was an insurrection attempted...the facts arehe was impeached for, was acquitted by the Senate, and presently awaits adjudication on numerous matters before the courts related to this topic
Sure, but there’s all this chatter about whether Trump engaged in an insurrection, and whether a congressional finding in that regard is required. Again, majorities of both houses of Congress concluded that he engaged in an insurrection. Not to mention the fact that we saw it with our own eyes. If the SCOTUS does not disqualify Trump under Section 3 they might as well rip it up and throw it in the trash. There will never be a clearer case of inciting an insurrection, as Congress (and the Colorado Secretary of State) concluded.
 

worldlymrb

Revenge
Sure, but there’s all this chatter about whether Trump engaged in an insurrection, and whether a congressional finding in that regard is required. Again, majorities of both houses of Congress concluded that he engaged in an insurrection. Not to mention the fact that we saw it with our own eyes. If the SCOTUS does not disqualify Trump under Section 3 they might as well rip it up and throw it in the trash. There will never be a clearer case of inciting an insurrection, as Congress (and the Colorado Secretary of State) concluded.
Your so-called insurrectionist is trouncing your dementia riddled puppet so bad that dems have to put all their hopes on unelected judges, voter fraud and a 10M illegal voter base to steal another one.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Sure, but there’s all this chatter about whether Trump engaged in an insurrection, and whether a congressional finding in that regard is required. Again, majorities of both houses of Congress concluded that he engaged in an insurrection. Not to mention the fact that we saw it with our own eyes. If the SCOTUS does not disqualify Trump under Section 3 they might as well rip it up and throw it in the trash. There will never be a clearer case of inciting an insurrection, as Congress (and the Colorado Secretary of State) concluded.
If you've been watching the supreme Court discussion on CNN you know that it is abundantly clear that there are many questions surrounding whether it wasn't insurrection and if he was found guilty of fomenting one. Clearly it is not the case that there will never be a clearer case of because they're asking direct questions about it. Principally the question, has he been convicted in a court of law of leading an insurrection. The answer to which is no
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
If you've been watching the supreme Court discussion on CNN you know that it is abundantly clear that there are many questions surrounding whether it wasn't insurrection and if he was found guilty of fomenting one. Clearly it is not the case that there will never be a clearer case of because they're asking direct questions about it. Principally the question, has he been convicted in a court of law of leading an insurrection. The answer to which is no
The language of Section 3 does not require criminal convictions and they have never been acquired to invoke it. That’s a red herring.

But when majorities of both houses of Congress conclude that a former president incited an insurrection, which we saw with our own eyes, a stronger case of insurrection could not possibly be made. So, we may as well just tear up Section 3 and throw it in the trash if the SCOTUS does not invoke it here. They will be nullifying it.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
The language of Section 3 does not require criminal convictions and they have never been acquired to invoke it. That’s a red herring.

But when majorities of both houses of Congress conclude that a former president incited an insurrection, which we saw with our own eyes, a stronger case of insurrection could not possibly be made. So, we may as well just tear up Section 3 and throw it in the trash if the SCOTUS does not invoke it here. They will be nullifying it.
It does not expressly state that no. Nor does it expressly excluded either. It's not a red herring. And calling it a red herring doesn't detract from the fact that this is never been applied to the office of the President. Not only section 3 but section 5 and everything in between
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
It does not expressly state that no. Nor does it expressly excluded either. It's not a red herring. And calling it a red herring doesn't detract from the fact that this is never been applied to the office of the President. Not only section 3 but section 5 and everything in between
It has never been applied to a president, which is not an argument not to do so now. We have never before had a president who incited an insurrection, as concluded by Congress. Now we do, so Section 3 is justly applied. It should not be nullified by the SCOTUS.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
It does not expressly state that no. Nor does it expressly excluded either. It's not a red herring. And calling it a red herring doesn't detract from the fact that this is never been applied to the office of the President. Not only section 3 but section 5 and everything in between
There have been cases in the past when an elected individual was refused his seat in congress due to having been a member of the confederate government. He was never convicted of insurrection.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Just accusing someone of an insurrection is all you need?

You know, that can swing both ways, just like your pronouns.
Please try reading the posts. This thread notes that majorities of both houses of Congress have concluded that Trump incited an insurrection. This thread does not argue that just accusing someone of insurrection is all you need.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
While I agree that there was an insurrection attempted...the facts arehe was impeached for, was acquitted by the Senate, and presently awaits adjudication on numerous matters before the courts related to this topic
The failure to convict was frequently excused by republicans in the senate because Trump was soon to be out of power anyway...and was not related to actually deliberating his participation in the attempt to stop the count and overturn elected Electors and the election itself.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
It has never been applied to a president, which is not an argument not to do so now. We have never before had a president who incited an insurrection, as concluded by Congress. Now we do, so Section 3 is justly applied. It should not be nullified by the SCOTUS.
Hence there before The supreme Court. Who themselves asked the question has he been convicted of inciting or leading an insurrection. The answer to which is no. Also, as you know the Congress was divided and he was acquitted in the Senate.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
There have been cases in the past when an elected individual was refused his seat in congress due to having been a member of the confederate government. He was never convicted of insurrection.
Yes that is correct. That is why these clauses were enacted were they not. To restrict persons in the confederate government. Further this is never been applied to a president, and that is why we are here, correct?
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Hence there before The supreme Court. Who themselves asked the question has he been convicted of inciting or leading an insurrection. The answer to which is no. Also, as you know the Congress was divided and he was acquitted in the Senate.
You raised the “conviction issue,” not them. So I replied to what you said.

And again, the argument I am making is not that he was convicted on impeachment. If he had been, the penalty would have included disqualification from office and Section 3 would not even be an issue now. But most GOP senators voted not to convict him on impeachment for their own ridiculous reasons. Nevertheless, majorities of both Houses concluded that he incited an insurrection, and that is the question raised by Section 3. Those who engage in insurrection are disqualified from office by the language of Section 3.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
You raised the “conviction issue,” not them. So I replied to what you said.

And again, the argument I am making is not that he was convicted on impeachment. If he had been, the penalty would have included disqualification from office and Section 3 would not even be an issue now. But most GOP senators voted not to convict him on impeachment for their own ridiculous reasons. Nevertheless, majorities of both Houses concluded that he incited an insurrection, and that is the question raised by Section 3. Those who engage in insurrection are disqualified from office by the language of Section 3.
No. Kavanaugh pointed to the fact that he has not been convicted of insurrection. And while majorities concluded saying he ultimately was acquitted because a 2/3 majority could not be reached.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Yes that is correct. That is why these clauses were enacted were they not. To restrict persons in the confederate government. Further this is never been applied to a president, and that is why we are here, correct?
That is certainly part of it. No president has ever attempted an insurrection to stay in power.

The argument that the president is not an officer is bizarre. Of course he is...serving as the Commander In Chief should be evidence enough.

The issue to me is that the amendment says he cannot assume office, not that he cannot run for office. So then, if he runs and wins the remedy is for the congress to then vote a 2/3rds majority to override the 14th amendment. Failing that, the VP would become president. Republicans should be prepared for that.
 

Boltlady

Mayor
The language of Section 3 does not require criminal convictions and they have never been acquired to invoke it. That’s a red herring.

But when majorities of both houses of Congress conclude that a former president incited an insurrection, which we saw with our own eyes, a stronger case of insurrection could not possibly be made. So, we may as well just tear up Section 3 and throw it in the trash if the SCOTUS does not invoke it here. They will be nullifying it.
What you saw was an orchestrated production number. If we ever get a chance to see the rest of the story the result may be different. Of course it will be tricky since a lot of the 'evidence' used has mysteriously disappeared.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
No. Kavanaugh pointed to the fact that he has not been convicted of insurrection. And while majorities concluded saying he ultimately was acquitted because a 2/3 majority could not be reached.
Again, conviction of a crime in court is irrelevant - Section 3 does not require that. Also irrelevant is the fact that 2/3rds of the Senate did not convict on impeachment. Again, if they had that alone would have resulted in Trump’s disqualification as a penalty. The Senate failure to convict does not mean Section 3 is nullified. It’s still in effect (supposedly), and one question it poses is whether someone was engaged in an insurrection. Majorities of both houses of Congress found that he incited an insurrection.
 
Top