Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Hey Libtards. About this whole omitting Trump from the ballot thing...
Hey Libtards. About this whole omitting Trump from the ballot thing...
By Vegas
1 Jan 2024 10:24 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
After due process is follow. Which, by the way, is another issue I have heard tossed around.jerrab » 02 Jan 2024, 5:26 pm » wrote: ↑ rights are taken away every day. people get sent to jail. is it your opinion murderers go free?
even if they murder 50 people in one day?
you already said it doesn't cut it.ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 5:30 pm » wrote: ↑ After due process is follow. Which, by the way, is another issue I have heard tossed around.
ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 5:09 pm » wrote: ↑ It had several purposes. According to the US Senate; "Passed by the Senate on June 8, 1866, and ratified two years later, on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States," including formerly enslaved people, and provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws,” extending the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. The amendment authorized the government to punish states that abridged citizens’ right to vote by proportionally reducing their representation in Congress. It banned those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. The amendment prohibited former Confederate states from repaying war debts and compensating former slave owners for the emancipation of their enslaved people. Finally, it granted Congress the power to enforce this amendment, a provision that led to the passage of other landmark legislation in the 20th century, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation."
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-fo ... ndment.htm
Now...I asked you a simple question that you did not answer. Either answer that question of concede defeat.
you did not ask a question.
what is the purpose of section 3ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 5:09 pm » wrote: ↑ It had several purposes. According to the US Senate; "Passed by the Senate on June 8, 1866, and ratified two years later, on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States," including formerly enslaved people, and provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws,” extending the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. The amendment authorized the government to punish states that abridged citizens’ right to vote by proportionally reducing their representation in Congress. It banned those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. The amendment prohibited former Confederate states from repaying war debts and compensating former slave owners for the emancipation of their enslaved people. Finally, it granted Congress the power to enforce this amendment, a provision that led to the passage of other landmark legislation in the 20th century, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation."
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-fo ... ndment.htm
Now...I asked you a simple question that you did not answer. Either answer that question of concede defeat.
Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
You are correct...I asked BlackVegetable (a.k.a. R. Suave). My deepest and most sincere apologies for confusing, even for a moment, the two of you. Feel free to blast me for that...I deserve it.
As I understand it, the purpose of that section was to keep out Confederates, who were also former officials in the US government. If memory serves me correctly, Congress later granted them blanket amnesty,,,thus making it a moot point.jerrab » 02 Jan 2024, 5:48 pm » wrote: ↑ what is the purpose of section 3
Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 5:52 pm » wrote: ↑ As I understand it, the purpose of that section was to keep out Confederates, who were also former officials in the US government. If memory serves me correctly, Congress later granted them blanket amnesty,,,thus making it a moot point.
which ones got elected again?
it applies to these times as well.
it was written to make sure who ever was involved in a rebellion or insurrection against the government could never be elected again. it would be preposterous to say this does not include the president.ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 5:52 pm » wrote: ↑ As I understand it, the purpose of that section was to keep out Confederates, who were also former officials in the US government. If memory serves me correctly, Congress later granted them blanket amnesty,,,thus making it a moot point.
Vegas » 01 Jan 2024, 11:24 am » wrote: ↑ Two states have done it. It's possible that others may follow.
I know you guys laugh and think it's hilarious. But have you ever considered the consequences? Yeah, I didn't think so. You all never do.
This is the kind of **** that can lead to a legitimate civil war. You are literally telling people who they can't vote for. That's not a good thing in a democracy. Not good at all.
I am just saying, you all may have crossed the line here. It's bad enough you pedos groom kids, now you are doing this ****?
the constitution should not be held hostage under threat. this is all the more reason he should never be elected again.
We will probably see. I can see and understand the logic. However, I will admit I don't know the generally accepted grammatical nuances and writing styles of that era. That could (probably is) important. The opinions of the nine justices is all that will matter.jerrab » 02 Jan 2024, 6:20 pm » wrote: ↑ it was written to make sure who ever was involved in a rebellion or insurrection against the government could never be elected again. it would be preposterous to say this does not include the president.
What 4 more years of plugs?Vegas » 01 Jan 2024, 11:24 am » wrote: ↑ Two states have done it. It's possible that others may follow.
I know you guys laugh and think it's hilarious. But have you ever considered the consequences? Yeah, I didn't think so. You all never do.
This is the kind of **** that can lead to a legitimate civil war. You are literally telling people who they can't vote for. That's not a good thing in a democracy. Not good at all.
I am just saying, you all may have crossed the line here. It's bad enough you pedos groom kids, now you are doing this ****?
jerrab » 02 Jan 2024, 6:44 pm » wrote: ↑ the constitution should not be held hostage under threat. this is all the more reason he should never be elected again.
What do you mean?
Retarded Horse's view on women.
JohnEdgarSlowHorses » Today, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑Today, 7:28 pm
JohnEdgarSlowHorses » Today, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑Today, 7:28 pm
- I LOVE IT WHEN A CRACK WHORE GETS BEAT UP Image
- I WANT TO WATCH YOU BEAT YOUR CRACK WHORE WIFE Image Image Image
- PUT THAT WIFE BEATER ON AND GET BUSY
maineman » 02 Jan 2024, 5:12 pm » wrote: ↑ That's your opinion. The Constitution tells us who we can and cannot vote for. As much as you might want to, you cannot vote for someone who was not born in the US. You cannot vote for someone who has not reached the age of 35. And you cannot vote for someone who led an insurrection. There are plenty of other folks who you CAN vote for... pick one of them.
Him leading this 'insurrection' has never been proved. You want it to be true, your media wants it to be true, but it is speculation and theories. Nothing more.
Retarded Horse's view on women.
JohnEdgarSlowHorses » Today, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑Today, 7:28 pm
JohnEdgarSlowHorses » Today, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑Today, 7:28 pm
- I LOVE IT WHEN A CRACK WHORE GETS BEAT UP Image
- I WANT TO WATCH YOU BEAT YOUR CRACK WHORE WIFE Image Image Image
- PUT THAT WIFE BEATER ON AND GET BUSY
And this is from your favorite media shepherd that you swear by.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... reme-court
Retarded Horse's view on women.
JohnEdgarSlowHorses » Today, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑Today, 7:28 pm
JohnEdgarSlowHorses » Today, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑Today, 7:28 pm
- I LOVE IT WHEN A CRACK WHORE GETS BEAT UP Image
- I WANT TO WATCH YOU BEAT YOUR CRACK WHORE WIFE Image Image Image
- PUT THAT WIFE BEATER ON AND GET BUSY
You are, literally, a **** moron.Vegas » 02 Jan 2024, 9:30 pm » wrote: ↑ And this is from your favorite media shepherd that you swear by.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... reme-court
Hey, it came from your favorite source. So, call them the morons.
Retarded Horse's view on women.
JohnEdgarSlowHorses » Today, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑Today, 7:28 pm
JohnEdgarSlowHorses » Today, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑Today, 7:28 pm
- I LOVE IT WHEN A CRACK WHORE GETS BEAT UP Image
- I WANT TO WATCH YOU BEAT YOUR CRACK WHORE WIFE Image Image Image
- PUT THAT WIFE BEATER ON AND GET BUSY
You didn't even **** read it.Vegas » 02 Jan 2024, 9:30 pm » wrote: ↑ And this is from your favorite media shepherd that you swear by.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... reme-court
What a moron.
You have no idea what he's saying...Vegas » 02 Jan 2024, 9:35 pm » wrote: ↑ Hey, it came from your favorite source. So, call them the morons.
What "right" are you referring to?ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 5:23 pm » wrote: ↑ When taking away a right of a person, "In general" doesn't cut it, in my opinion.
ConsRule » 02 Jan 2024, 8:29 pm » wrote: ↑ We will probably see. I can see and understand the logic. However, I will admit I don't know the generally accepted grammatical nuances and writing styles of that era. That could (probably is) important. The opinions of the nine justices is all that will matter.
if it was limited to the civil war that would had been included.
that is the first thing the supreme court will decide
Who is online
In total there are 2069 users online :: 11 registered, 12 bots, and 2046 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, roadkill, Blackvegetable, Buck Naked, RebelGator, Beekeeper, jerra b, SouthernFried, Cannonpointer, Deezer Shoove, nefarious101
Bots: ADmantX, proximic, YandexBot, CensysInspect, CriteoBot, DuckDuckBot, Applebot, Mediapartners-Google, Googlebot, facebookexternalhit, bingbot, curl/7