- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
3
Posted on 2/8/24 at 2:10 pm to Dday63
quote:
The whole point of Section 3 is to disqualify oath breaking insurrectionists even if they have not, or cannot, be convicted.
Insurrection requires an insurrection. There was none in this instance.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 2:26 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Insurrection requires an insurrection. There was none in this instance.
There most certainly was a "rising against civil or political authority, or the established government; open and active opposition to the execution of law in a city or state."
Those people were unlawfully attempting to interfere with the lawful transfer of power at the very top of the government.
It was at best a lynch mob.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 2:31 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
You are one fricked up individual.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 2:32 pm to TDTOM
quote:
Can I get a list of people here that are actually attorneys?
Just look at the ones with the highest post counts per day
They can then bill their clients for doing "market research" and "public relations" associated with their cases
Posted on 2/8/24 at 2:33 pm to TDTOM
None of them are.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 2:33 pm to Dday63
quote:
No, upon conviction the Senate also could have disqualified Trump from holding any office under the United States.
Wrong. It says “…AND removal from office”. Notice how it says “and” instead of “or”.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 2:39 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Without any plans for a lynching. It was an insurrection brought without knives, guns, or incendiaries (other than those planted by the FBI), and where participants abided rope lines in statuary hall and were escorted to the Senate Well by Capitol Hill PoPo.
It was at best a lynch mob.
Insurrection
Peaceful BLM Protests
---
Strange days indeed.
Quite peculiar mama.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 2:48 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
18 U.S. Code § 2383 was written in 1948
It was codified in Title 18 in 1948, but the same statute already existed when the 14th Amendment was passed by Congress in 1868.
I posted a thread on this earlier today, because I was not aware of this information.
The Second Confiscation Act, passed during the Civil War, codified insurrection as a crime (it was a common law crime up until then). I never bothered reading the provision because I thought the Confiscation clause had been rendered moot by Johnson's amnesty grant.
But, no, the insurrection statute in thst Act remained in effect. Sections 2 and 3 of that Act were virtually identical to 18 USC 2383, except that it mentions liberating the slaves of insurrectionists.
So, when Title 18 was drafted and passed in 1948, all section 2383 did was repeat the insurrection statute that already existed.
Since the statute already existed before the 14th Amendment was even drafted, it could not possibly be considered the enabling legislation.
It also begs the question of why would section 3 even be necessary if the insurrection statute already existed? Obviously, they could not convict the Confederates under the Confiscation act, because Johnson granted them amnesty. Even without amnesty, the task of convicting everyone was out of the question.
So, section 3 provides an alternative to convictions for insurrection. Anyone who took an oath to support the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection" IA barred from holding civil or military offices again.
And there WAS an enforcement provision passed, but it was not carried over into Title 18, unfortunately.
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 2/8/24 at 2:54 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Both the House and the Senate voted to impeach Trump for inciting an insurrection. They just didn't have the two-thirds required to censure him.
What does that tell you?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 3:02 pm to MikeBRLA
quote:
Wrong. It says “…AND removal from office”. Notice how it says “and” instead of “or”.
And where am I wrong? You said the only punishment was removal from office, but anyone impeached may also be disqualified from holding future office
Posted on 2/8/24 at 3:04 pm to TDTOM
quote:
Can I get a list of people here that are actually attorneys?
100% NOT me
Posted on 2/8/24 at 3:05 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Those people were unlawfully attempting to interfere with the lawful transfer of power at the very top of the government.
Says who? There is no way to conclusively prove your statement.
I understand that is your opinion, but that doesn't make it fact.
I thought the legal system was based on provable facts?
quote:
in·sur·rec·tion
noun
a violent uprising against an authority or government.
The only violence was committed by the idiot cop who shot a unarmed woman who was climbing thru a window and posed no threat to anyone.
It's obvious the "insurrectionist" had no plan. There was no cohesive or strategic movement of people that would indicate a preplanned "insurrection".
The lack of such reveals what it actually was, a demonstration in which some overreacted and transgressed, much different than an insurrection.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 3:09 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
It was an insurrection brought without knives, guns, or incendiaries
None of that is required for an insurrection.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 3:12 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Insurrection requires an insurrection. There was none in this instance
I don't know...in August, 2021, Congress passed public law 117-32 was passed to award Four Congressional Gold Medals if Honor to Capitol policemen.
That Act contained a list of Congressional Findings of Fact, including:
quote:
(2) On January 6, 2021, a mob of insurrectionists forced its way into the U.S. Capitol building and congressional office buildings and engaged in acts of vandalism, looting, and violently attacked Capitol Police officers.
The Act passed the House 406 - 21, and passed the Senate unanimously. So it seems Cingress believed there was an insurrection.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 3:16 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:No.
So you disagree with ACB?
I disagreed with your statement:
quote:
Colorado, as a sovereign state, should be able to keep whomever they want off their ballot.
My opinion seems directly in line with ACB and Kagan.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 3:22 pm to lake chuck fan
I'm not in favor of calling the riot (Trump's lawyer used that word this morning) an insurrection.
But,
If you ignore the violence committed against the Capitol police and the damage to windows and doors to gain entry.
As one Justice asked Trump's lawyer, so if it's chaotic it cannot be an insurrection?
I think people were there for a variety of reasons, and many of them probably weren't sure why they were there. Some of them were there to encourage Republicans to question the Electoral ballots. And evidence suggests some of them were sent there to try to delay the entire process.
I mean, I don't think it was an insurrection, but let's not sugar coat it and place all negative actions on the FBI.
But,
quote:
The only violence was committed by the idiot cop who shot a unarmed woman
If you ignore the violence committed against the Capitol police and the damage to windows and doors to gain entry.
quote:
It's obvious the "insurrectionist" had no plan. There was no cohesive or strategic movement of people that would indicate a preplanned "insurrection".
As one Justice asked Trump's lawyer, so if it's chaotic it cannot be an insurrection?
I think people were there for a variety of reasons, and many of them probably weren't sure why they were there. Some of them were there to encourage Republicans to question the Electoral ballots. And evidence suggests some of them were sent there to try to delay the entire process.
I mean, I don't think it was an insurrection, but let's not sugar coat it and place all negative actions on the FBI.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 3:22 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Right you are. In Colorado and Maine all that is required is the accusation
None of that is required for an insurrection.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 3:25 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Which is?
My opinion
Posted on 2/8/24 at 3:26 pm to NC_Tigah
Kagen is as smart as anyone in the room. She wasnt buying it at all.
Page 5 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News