- 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
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:42 am to Laman1978
quote:
I'm not playing anymore. I will put on a ski mask and beat this fricker with a bat.
Why do cock suckers like this idiot, have THE most punchable faces (I’m looking at you too Chuck) are always democRATS
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:42 am to LSUpsychWARD
I googled and that quote only appears on echo chamber X/Twitter accounts and nowhere else.
I think that may be an alt account for Black Insurrectionist
I think that may be an alt account for Black Insurrectionist
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:42 am to LSUpsychWARD
Is Raskin an elector? If so, he has pretty much no choice. He will have to certify. I'd say I'd hate to see what happens to him if he refuses, but I'd probably enjoy it.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:43 am to Gifman
quote:
SFP says there's no way for Democrats to block certification.
There is not. This looks like absolutely fake news.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:43 am to Blizzard of Chizz
We absolutely must drive these vermin from the levers of still breathing.
FYP
FYP
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:45 am to LSUpsychWARD
Why do good souls die of cancer and he didn't?
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
SFP says there's no way for Democrats to block certification.
There is not. This looks like absolutely fake news.
Seriously, please explain. I've read different ideas about this, but that if it happens the House would vote on it. Then I read something about it would then go to Vance.... ?????
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:55 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
Seriously, please explain.
The Supreme Court (in the Colorado case) ruled that Congress has to pass a law.
So the 14th Amendment text says this and that about a few things (including the insurrection language). But, Section 5 specifically says this:
quote:
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
That's why the states acting to remove Trump were reversed, because this power is exclusive to Congress.
BUT, the section also specifically says "by appropriate legislation", so Congress has to pass a law (which they have in the past but there is nothing on the books now) in order to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Here is a quote from the majority opinion.
quote:
Congress’s Section 5 power is critical when it comes to Section 3. Indeed, during a debate on enforcement legislation less than a year after ratification, Sen. Trumbull noted that “notwithstanding [Section 3] . . . hundreds of men [were] holding office” in violation of its terms. Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., at 626. The Constitution, Trumbull noted, “provide[d] no means for enforcing” the disqualification, necessitating a “bill to give effect to the fundamental law embraced in the Constitution.” Ibid. The enforcement mechanism Trumbull championed was later enacted as part of the Enforcement Act of 1870, “pursuant to the power conferred by §5 of the [Fourteenth] Amendment.” General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U. S. 375, 385 (1982); see 16 Stat. 143–144.
Here is the dissenting opinion bitching about how the majority added this requirement (instead of just invalidating the COSC ruling)
quote:
Court and petitioner from future controversy. Ante, at 13. Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement.
So there must be a law passed by Congress to enforce Section 3. No law exists (and no law is likely even possible prior to the inauguration).
Further, I speculate if they could somehow pass it between now and the inauguration, it would be challenged and the USSC would rule the law cannot be retroactive. That means it can't apply to past behavior (only behavior after the law was passed). This would mean this federal law woudl have had to existed on January 6, 2021 (and none did).
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:56 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
He will def try to not certify.
Too much rhetoric stating the opposite by his overlords. He might try, but would be made to quickly fall in line.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:57 am to LSUpsychWARD
Democracy dies with Democrats
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:58 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
He will def try to not certify.
It dont matter if they can or can't, just the sentiment is enough to realize they are absolutely full of shite and hate "their democracy."
The Dem reaction will be hilarious over the next few days, probably a little violent in some places.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:59 am to H8BasedContent
quote:
We absolutely must drive these vermin from the levers of still breathing.
Its typical Dem election denying bullshite.
They've filed impeachment papers on ever elected Republican since Ike.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 7:00 am to LSUpsychWARD
Would that make this guy a "threat to democracy"?
Posted on 11/5/24 at 7:02 am to Smeg
quote:
Would that make this guy a "threat to democracy"?
That's certainly the echo bouncing around the chamber
Posted on 11/5/24 at 7:10 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
It dont matter if they can or can't, just the sentiment is enough to realize they are absolutely full of shite and hate "their democracy."
The Dem reaction will be hilarious over the next few days, probably a little violent in some places.
Right. It doesn't matter if they are successful. I think they know they won't be successful.
But, they want to "delegitimize" the Trump victory...just like they tried to do in 2016. If they can force the USSC to make a ruling, any ruling, they will view it as a win because then they will throw the anti-USSC propaganda out there for 4 years.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 7:11 am to moneyg
quote:
But, they want to "delegitimize" the Trump victory...just like they tried to do in 2016
yep, many refused to accept Trump as the elected candidate.
All the handwringing regarding J-6 is virtue signaling, Demos are far worse than republicans when it comes to "their Democracy."
Posted on 11/5/24 at 7:12 am to moneyg
quote:
But, they want to "delegitimize" the Trump victory...just like they tried to do in 2016. If they can force the USSC to make a ruling, any ruling, they will view it as a win because then they will throw the anti-USSC propaganda out there for 4 years.
They have a much better option that doesn't risk to delegitimize themselves like this would: the federal prosecutions.
They know that fight is going to be very fruitful for their attacks and they don't have to do anything except wait and see how Trump and the DOJ respond to him taking office while under 2 different federal prosecutions.
Be prepared to hear "constitutional crisis" 3M times between inauguration and 2026
Posted on 11/5/24 at 7:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Word and stuff. Like, alot of them.
So in other words,
Try it, Jamie. Just try it. We dare you.
Back to top
