Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
The Capitol Insurrectionists
The Capitol Insurrectionists
By B.See
25 Oct 2021 4:42 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
3 Nov 2023 9:07 pm
So you have NOTHING to back up your claim that the President is an officer of the United States.
But I do... here is the Constitution:
The Appointments Clause spells states the president can nominate "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States."
The Impeachment Clause: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment. …" The fact the President and Vice President are added to "all civil officers" shows they are not "officers of the United States".
The Commissions Clause States: "all the officers of the United States" receive presidential commissions. All means all. and there is no record of any elected official, whether a President, Vice President or a member of Congress, ever receiving a presidential commission.
The reason is simple: Elected officials like the President are not "Officers of the United States."
And SCOTUS has also rules on this... twice.
In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that "[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'" Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States."
And...In United States v. Mouat (1888), Justice Samuel Miller interpreted a statute that used the phrase "officers of the United States." He wrote, "nless a person in the service of the government, therefore, holds his place by virtue of an appointment by the president, or of one of the courts of justice or heads of departments authorized by law to make such an appointment, he is not strictly speaking, an officer of the United States."
3 Nov 2023 9:11 pm
People who serve in an office are, by definition, officers.golfboy » 03 Nov 2023, 9:07 pm » wrote: ↑ So you have NOTHING to back up your claim that the President is an officer of the United States.
But I do... here is the Constitution:
The Appointments Clause spells states the president can nominate "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States."
The Impeachment Clause: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment. …" The fact the President and Vice President are added to "all civil officers" shows they are not "officers of the United States".
The Commissions Clause States: "all the officers of the United States" receive presidential commissions. All means all. and there is no record of any elected official, whether a President, Vice President or a member of Congress, ever receiving a presidential commission.
The reason is simple: Elected officials like the President are not "Officers of the United States."
And SCOTUS
Hence the name.
and SCOTUS (just thought I'd gratuitously throw that out like you did... cool, eh?)
3 Nov 2023 9:15 pm
Read the edit, *******.maineman » 03 Nov 2023, 9:11 pm » wrote: ↑ People who serve in an office are, by definition, officers.
Hence the name.
and SCOTUS (just thought I'd gratuitously throw that out like you did... cool, eh?)
The Constitution and SCOTUS just kicked your Room Temp ***.
3 Nov 2023 9:18 pm
I don't wait around for you to get your **** together. You post... I respond.golfboy » 03 Nov 2023, 9:15 pm » wrote: ↑ Read the edit, *******.
The Constitution and SCOTUS just kicked your Room Temp ***.
If you can't get it right the first time, that's not my problem.
Come on back when you're ready to play hardball.
3 Nov 2023 9:18 pm
And you are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3, which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign officials.
Note that there is no time limit in this language.
Congress even got rid of these remaining exceptions in the Amnesty Act of 1898, which stated that “the disability imposed by section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States heretofore incurred is hereby removed.”
Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign officials.
Note that there is no time limit in this language.
Congress even got rid of these remaining exceptions in the Amnesty Act of 1898, which stated that “the disability imposed by section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States heretofore incurred is hereby removed.”
3 Nov 2023 9:19 pm
lol. mainbitch got his ****** grabbed in public again, and as usual has to run away like a little liberal girl.maineman » 03 Nov 2023, 9:18 pm » wrote: ↑ I don't wait around for you to get your **** together. You post... I respond.
If you can't get it right the first time, that's not my problem.
Come on back when you're ready to play hardball.
3 Nov 2023 9:34 pm
golfboy » 03 Nov 2023, 9:19 pm » wrote: ↑ lol. mainbitch got his ****** grabbed in public again, and as usual has to run away like a little liberal girl.
there is a difference between running away and not twiddling my thumbs waiting around. In any case, I noticed your Roberts "quote" was missing quotation marks for your key conclusion. funny ****.
3 Nov 2023 9:36 pm
golfboy » 03 Nov 2023, 9:18 pm » wrote: ↑ And you are ignoring the final sentence in Section 3, which is a unique provision found in no other amendment to the Constitution. It allows Congress to remove the disqualification clause “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign officials.
Note that there is no time limit in this language.
Congress even got rid of these remaining exceptions in the Amnesty Act of 1898, which stated that “the disability imposed by section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States heretofore incurred is hereby removed.”
funny.
golfboi thinks that congress can rewrite amendments to the constitution without actually amending the constitution.
no. really.
3 Nov 2023 9:38 pm
When are you going to post ANYTHING to back up your claims?maineman » 03 Nov 2023, 9:34 pm » wrote: ↑ there is a difference between running away and not twiddling my thumbs waiting around. In any case, I noticed your Roberts "quote" was missing quotation marks for your key conclusion. funny ****.
I posted multiple examples from the Constitution saying you're wrong.
I posted 2 SCOTUS rulings saying you're wrong.
And then I showed Congress repealed the "disability".
And you've literally posted NOTHING to back up your claims.
But how can you, when you're wrong?
3 Nov 2023 9:52 pm
lol... and mainbitch runs away again.golfboy » 03 Nov 2023, 9:38 pm » wrote: ↑ When are you going to post ANYTHING to back up your claims?
Adios mainbitch... I'm off taking the wife to a resort for a couple days.
Enjoy wallowing in your ignorance.
3 Nov 2023 9:53 pm
You ignorant little bitch... does the stupid hurt?maineman » 03 Nov 2023, 9:36 pm » wrote: ↑ funny.
golfboi thinks that congress can rewrite amendments to the constitution without actually amending the constitution.
no. really.
What's the last sentence of the Amendment say?
"But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
And they did. Twice.
BWAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAAAAHAHHA
Told you he didn't read the Amendment.
3 Nov 2023 10:06 pm
4 Nov 2023 4:13 am
*** thought butt sex a capital idea.....until aids
4 Nov 2023 7:16 am
He also believes there was election fraud.maineman » 03 Nov 2023, 9:36 pm » wrote: ↑ funny.
golfboi thinks that congress can rewrite amendments to the constitution without actually amending the constitution.
no. really.
Trumps saying he loves uneducated voters applies to people like goofboi. They are nothing but gullible marks that will commit treason for their mango mussolini.
Those poor,poor Capitol insurrectionists cooling their heels in jail and prison are proof.
I can hardly wait for trump to lose again so we can hear more wailing from them. The squealing right now is glorious,wait until he loses everything for the GOP.
The only thing that will be better is when trump dies and the celebrations start.
4 Nov 2023 7:17 am
do you happen to have those two-thirds roll calls, by any chance?golfboy » 03 Nov 2023, 9:53 pm » wrote: ↑ You ignorant little bitch... does the stupid hurt?
What's the last sentence of the Amendment say?
"But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
And they did. Twice.
BWAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAAAAHAHHA
Told you he didn't read the Amendment.
4 Nov 2023 7:22 am
Yahtzee!!!!maineman » 04 Nov 2023, 7:17 am » wrote: ↑ do you happen to have those two-thirds roll calls, by any chance?
11 Nov 2023 5:43 pm
Yes, it was repealed, you stupid ****.maineman » 04 Nov 2023, 7:17 am » wrote: ↑ do you happen to have those two-thirds roll calls, by any chance?
The right to remove disabilities imposed by this Section was exercised by Congress at different times on behalf of enumerated individuals.1 In 1872, the disabilities were removed, by a blanket act, from all persons except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.2
Twenty-six years later, in 1898, Congress enacted that the disability imposed by section 3 . . . incurred heretofore, is hereby removed.3Footnotes
- Jump to essay-1E.g., and notably, the Private Act of December 14, 1869, ch.1, 16 Stat. 607.
- Jump to essay-2Ch. 193, 17 Stat. 142.
- Jump to essay-3Act of June 6, 1898, ch. 389, 30 Stat. 432. Legislation by Congress providing for removal was necessary to give effect to the prohibition of Section 3, and until removed in pursuance of such legislation persons in office before promulgation of the Fourteenth Amendment continued to exercise their functions lawfully. Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 7 (C.C.D.Va. 1869) (No. 5815). Nor were persons who had taken part in the Civil War and had been pardoned by the President before the adoption of this Amendment precluded by this Section from again holding office under the United States. 18 Op. Att’y Gen. 149 (1885). On the construction of engaged in rebellion, see United States v. Powell, 27 F. Cas. 605 (No. 16079) (C.C.D.N.C. 1871).
It's stunning you can remember to breathe without having someone reminding you.
11 Nov 2023 6:03 pm
golfboy » 11 Nov 2023, 6:43 pm » wrote: ↑ Yes, it was repealed, you stupid ****.
The right to remove disabilities imposed by this Section was exercised by Congress at different times on behalf of enumerated individuals.1 In 1872, the disabilities were removed, by a blanket act, from all persons except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.2
Twenty-six years later, in 1898, Congress enacted that the disability imposed by section 3 . . . incurred heretofore, is hereby removed.3FootnotesIt's stunning you can remember to breathe without having someone reminding you.
- Jump to essay-1E.g., and notably, the Private Act of December 14, 1869, ch.1, 16 Stat. 607.
- Jump to essay-2Ch. 193, 17 Stat. 142.
- Jump to essay-3Act of June 6, 1898, ch. 389, 30 Stat. 432. Legislation by Congress providing for removal was necessary to give effect to the prohibition of Section 3, and until removed in pursuance of such legislation persons in office before promulgation of the Fourteenth Amendment continued to exercise their functions lawfully. Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 7 (C.C.D.Va. 1869) (No. 5815). Nor were persons who had taken part in the Civil War and had been pardoned by the President before the adoption of this Amendment precluded by this Section from again holding office under the United States. 18 Op. Att’y Gen. 149 (1885). On the construction of engaged in rebellion, see United States v. Powell, 27 F. Cas. 605 (No. 16079) (C.C.D.N.C. 1871).
isn't that a really long way of saying you don't have the roll calls?
11 Nov 2023 6:20 pm
Why do I need the roll calls when it was pass/repealed, *******?maineman » 11 Nov 2023, 7:03 pm » wrote: ↑ isn't that a really long way of saying you don't have the roll calls?
It doesn't matter if it passed by 2/3rds or unanimously. It's passed and that part of the amendment was repealed.
Room IQ strikes again.
11 Nov 2023 6:36 pm
golfboy » 11 Nov 2023, 7:20 pm » wrote: ↑ Why do I need the roll calls when it was pass/repealed, *******?
It doesn't matter if it passed by 2/3rds or unanimously. It's passed and that part of the amendment was repealed.
Room IQ strikes again.
doesn't it require 2/3rds to cause the repeal?
It's a simple Y/N question
If Yes, I repeat my earlier question, do you HAVE the roll calls or not?
That's another simple Y/N question.
SO... in response to this post, you only need to type two letters.
Who is online
In total there are 4344 users online :: 5 registered, 13 bots, and 4326 guests
Bots: LCC, ADmantX, NING, proximic, TTD-Content, YandexBot, Applebot, facebookexternalhit, CriteoBot, Googlebot, bingbot, curl/7, Mediapartners-Google