re: Jamie Raskin: No "Criminal Conviction" Needed To Bar Trump Via 14th Amendment

This is how you act when your spouse made a Q drop.

quote:

---

No better way of saying you are scared of Trump without actually saying you are scared of Trump.

---

We’re inching closer and closer toward the period of acceptance by the left and Trump hating Republicans insomuch as there’s likely no avoiding Trump’s return to the White House come January 2025. We may even begin to see a bizarre trend of relaxing the vitriol towards him from “high profile” officials and politicians who have acknowledged concern themselves about the fact that they’ve made themselves targets of a President who’s preparing himself to use every tool possibly available to right some lingering wrongs that need addressing. I’m not suggesting that we’ll see people starting to “suck up,” but rather fade into the shadows from their former positions of squawking and squabbling.

Raskin is a moron.

quote:

---

Dumbest thing I have read all day.

---

You're close to breaking, aren't you Hank.....

quote:

---

Just fyi there is a federal law that addresses this

---

Nope. But feel free to post the cite to the statute that you THINK applies.

You are beyond dumb

18 U.S. Code § 2383

You should also be banned again hank

quote:

---

The 14th was a Civil War Amendment, and the drafters clearly did not intend to exclude former Confederates ONLY if there had been a criminal conviction of THAT Confederate.

---

The amendment is silent on this.

quote:

---

How do we know this? Because they excluded from office THOUSANDS of former Confederates who had not been tried and convicted of anything.

---

This is false. The organization that launched a lawsuit to remove a guy in NM under the 14th amendment has even admitted this, by stating that only 8 people were subject to this disqualification from the amendment. Most of these were the result of court adjudications (I don't know the burden of proof in those) and a couple were the result of Congress refusing to seat a member, which is dubious because it means Congress can ignore all the voters and seat whomever it pleases. IIRC the Constitution's provisions are about conduct and regulating that conduct while in Congress but not overriding the voters and determining who can go to Congress.

I am convinced that disqualification by civil action is unconstitutional, unless these were accompanied by people that admitted their actions with the Confederacy, which seems to have been what happened back then, and thus, these types of cases hold no sway with the Trump situation. And it's known that back in the Reconstruction Era many people interpreted the disqualification on their own, freely admitted to having been part of the Confederacy, and sent in requests to Congress to get a vote for forgiveness so they could run for office. None of this supports your claim.

quote:

---

"Innocent until Proven Guilty?" Damn, you did actually just apply a criminal law burden of proof(ish) axiom to a non-criminal proceeding. Just ... wow.

---

There is no "proceeding" that stems from the 14th amendment directly. However...It has to be a criminal burden and it must be decided in a suitable setting because the punishment is in line with criminal proceedings. People are otherwise able to vote, hold office, etc, unless their conduct is the subject of criminal proceedings. Criminal felony proceedings are required to strip away these freedoms. If there isn't a criminal burden then Congress can simply meet and declare whatever they want, about whomever they want, and start disqualifying people with no burden, no checks, no balances, no scrutiny, no adversarial procedure and so on and so on. This would be tyranny. Running for and holding office is a right covered by the Bill of Rights and is not among the enumerated rights, yet still a right, if you insist it is not protected by the First Amendment.

Political speech, presenting grievances etc are the types of things protected by the First Amendment and a political campaign is an extension of political speech and also protected. These efforts to get rid of Trump's candidacy by throwing around the 14th Amendment, without a court adjudication, and in light of impeachment/removal failing, are tantamount to a conspiracy against his rights and election interference.

Dumbasses like Raskin should be very careful with this course of action. Insurrection can obtain a very loose interpretation if we go down this road and a President - the man charged with enforcing the laws in this nation - can cast a very wide net over the Democratic Party with this and unilaterally determine a lot of 'insurrection' using the same logic as Democrats are trying to employ right now. A President that does this can declare every action of a Congress that seats such members to be invalid, and a whole lot more.

quote:

---

Stuff like this, no matter how much I think Trump has devolved into a buffoon makes me think he’s the right choice

---

If the VP running mate was a trustworthy constitutionalist, I would vote for Trump if he was in a vegetative state worst than Biden.

quote:

---

You should also be banned again hank

---

"I'm not Hank....there's Hank right there....

quote:

---

Section 2383 is a criminal statute and has no bearing whatsoever upon eligibility for elected office.

---

Since when are the Fascists trying to stop Trump running for office depending on precedent, ACTUAL Law or right and wrong?

Feel free to try again....