Liberal Forum

maineman » 11 Nov 2023, 7:36 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023, 7:36 pm

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.

The link states it was repealed. 
What part of that do you NOT understand, *******?

If you have a problem with their documentation, take it up with the Library of Congress. 
Overview of Disqualification Clause | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
 
 

golfboy » 11 Nov 2023, 7:37 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023, 7:37 pm

The link states it was repealed. 
What part of that do you NOT understand, *******?

you really can't follow directions at all, can you?

maineman » 11 Nov 2023, 7:38 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023, 7:38 pm

you really can't follow directions at all, can you?

You aren't allowed to "give direction".  
You're too stupid. 
 

https://www.cato.org/blog/does-section- ... lify-trump

Contrary to what is sometimes asserted, successive amnesties declared by Congress in 1872 and 1898 affected only persons subject to disqualification at that time, and could not prospectively immunize persons whose later behavior brought them under the law.

golfboy » 11 Nov 2023, 7:43 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023, 7:43 pm

You aren't allowed to "give direction".  
You're too stupid.

it would have been so much more economical to just type the two letters and be done with it.    

maineman » 11 Nov 2023, 7:44 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023, 7:44 pm

https://www.cato.org/blog/does-section- ... lify-trump

Contrary to what is sometimes asserted, successive amnesties declared by Congress in 1872 and 1898 affected only persons subject to disqualification at that time, and could not prospectively immunize persons whose later behavior brought them under the law.

lol.  This idiot thinks a blog post overrides the Library of Congress. 
Room Temp.
 

golfboy » 11 Nov 2023, 7:50 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023, 7:50 pm

lol.  This idiot thinks a blog post overrides the Library of Congress. 
Room Temp.

The Library of Congress did not make any judgment about the applicability to future officers.

maineman » 11 Nov 2023, 7:53 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023, 7:53 pm

The Library of Congress did not make any judgment about the applicability to future officers.

The repeal was not limited. 
The Constitution applies to everyone, equally until it's changed. 
The 14th was not changed, after this was repealed. 

Dumb ***. 

President Trump is not disqualified from being president. There was no insurrection. He did not lead one. He did not instigate one. The FBI has already determined this.

Talks of insurrection is nothing more than a smear.

The attempt to remove President Trump from the ballots is nothing more than voter suppression.

I believe the Colorado supreme Court already shot down there attempt at voter suppression
 

golfboy » 11 Nov 2023, 7:55 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023, 7:55 pm

The repeal was not limited. 
The Constitution applies to everyone, equally until it's changed. 
The 14th was not changed, after this was repealed. 

Dumb ***.

It wasn't repealed. It was simply lifted for an existing group of individuals, not future office holders centuries later.
 

maineman » 11 Nov 2023, 7:59 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023, 7:59 pm

It wasn't repealed. It was simply lifted for an existing group of individuals, not future office holders centuries later.

It was repealed, and it was not limited. 

But since you are willfully ignorant and will do nothing but repeat your ignorant claims, I'll quote you the entire Section:


CHAP. 389.-  An Act To remove the disability imposed by section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States .

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled That the disability imposed by section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States heretofore incurred is hereby removed .
Approved, June 6, 1898.

Please show me any limitation in that language saying it only applied to some fictional existing group of individuals.
I'll wait. 
 
 
 

I'm enjoying the mental image of mainbitch wildly googling his leftwing blogs, trying to find something to contradict this law, passed by Congress.

golfboy » 11 Nov 2023, 8:16 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023, 8:16 pm

It was repealed, and it was not limited. 

But since you are willfully ignorant and will do nothing but repeat your ignorant claims, I'll quote you the entire Section:

CHAP. 389.-  An Act To remove the disability imposed by section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States .

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled That the disability imposed by section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States heretofore incurred is hereby removed .
Approved, June 6, 1898.

Please show me any limitation in that language saying it only applied to some fictional existing group of individuals.
I'll wait.

quite simply, the disability imposed by section three of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States dealt specifically with those people who had PREVIOUSLY - heretofore - taken the oath.  That disability was removed.  Future oath takers were not impacted.
 

maineman » 11 Nov 2023, 8:35 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023, 8:35 pm

quite simply, the disability imposed by section three of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States dealt specifically with those people who had PREVIOUSLY - heretofore - taken the oath.  That disability was removed.  Future oath takers were not impacted.

BWAAHHAHHAHAAAHAHHAHAH
Room temp strikes again!   He couldn't even find a blog to support his ignorant take.

mainbitch can't even understand simple English.
 
 

golfboy » 11 Nov 2023, 8:40 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023, 8:40 pm

BWAAHHAHHAHAAAHAHHAHAH
Room temp strikes again!   He couldn't even find a blog to support his ignorant take.

mainbitch can't even understand simple English.

You don't know what the word "heretofore" means?  Why am I not surprised?
 

the disability imposed by section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States heretofore incurred is hereby removed .

The disability was incurred before the passage of that piece of legislation. All those folks who, up until the passage of that bill in 1898, had been prohibited from holding office, had that disability removed. Nobody else.

Heretofore. Not hereafter. Big difference.

words.

They're hard for you to wrap your damaged little brain around, eh?
 

maineman » 11 Nov 2023, 8:41 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023, 8:41 pm

You don't know what the word "heretofore" means?  Why am I not surprised?

Poor mainbitch.    
Why did your parents hate you, and send you to public school?
 

golfboy » 11 Nov 2023, 8:45 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023, 8:45 pm

Poor mainbitch.    
Why did your parents hate you, and send you to public school?

if you don't know the difference in meaning between heretofore and hereafter, that is certainly not MY fault.

The disabilty had been HERETOFORE incurred.... not hereafter... not forevermore in the future... but heretofore.

maineman » 11 Nov 2023, 8:48 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023, 8:48 pm

if you don't know the difference in meaning between heretofore and hereafter, that is certainly not MY fault.

The disabilty had been HERETOFORE incurred.... not hereafter... not forevermore in the future... but heretofore.

lol.   ******* doesn't know when to quit digging.
 

golfboy » 11 Nov 2023, 8:51 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023, 8:51 pm

lol.   ******* doesn't know when to quit digging.

tap dancing doesn't become you.

The disability had HERETOFORE been incurred.  THAT is what was repealed.  NOT any future office holder who supported some future insurrection in distant future centuries 



prove me wrong.