Liberal Forum

BooRadley » 05 Mar 2024, 7:22 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 7:22 am

9-0

Try to spin that
 

I did, and you ignored it. Go back into literature and your origin of "To Kill A Mocking Bird".

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 7:11 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 7:11 am

You mean, by quoting my unambiguous stand?

That's an outrage!

 

Nah, you get outraged too much around here.

But, you have been touting that decision for quite some time.   
 

Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 7:31 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 7:31 am

Nah, you get outraged too much around here.

But, you have been touting that decision for quite some time.

Tiny,

Don't recreate...

I've posted my words...
 

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 7:38 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 7:38 am

Tiny,

Don't recreate...

I've posted my words...
 

 

9-0

R.Suave » 04 Mar 2024, 12:52 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Mar 2024, 12:52 pm

No....it means that SCOTUS reinterpreted Section 3.


 

 

Seems pretty clear they didn't.

Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 7:41 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 7:41 am

Seems pretty clear they didn't.

To whom?

It is quite clear that they did.
 

Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 7:39 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 7:39 am

9-0

What did they say about Insurrection?

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 7:56 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 7:56 am

What did they say about Insurrection?

 

You tell me, Askholio.  I am aware of what they said and didn't say.


 

Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 8:04 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 8:04 am

You tell me, Askholio.  I am aware of what they said and didn't say.

Then why must I tell you?


**** idiot.
 

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 8:06 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 8:06 am

Then why must I tell you?


**** idiot.
 

 

Ok, then you asked because you don't know.  Google it, Askholio.  

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 8:06 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 8:06 am

Then why must I tell you?

**** idiot.

STFU YOU LYING POS LIBERAL SHILL

R. Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 8:06 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 8:06 am

Then why must I tell you?


**** idiot.
 

Playing intellectual catch 22, robs you of your own time understanding what you are wrong about all the time since adopting the notion life isn't self evident in your own skin.

Everyone following the rules of engagement are following the same protocols as you use so far regardless the angles of deflections directing people to believe next rotation off the planet is a physical tomorrow.

R.Suave » 03 Mar 2024, 8:35 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Mar 2024, 8:35 pm

Except that Section 3 doesn't require a criminal conviction, only a court finding.

Where does it say that?

Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

• Section 3 Disqualification from Holding OfficeNo 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.

To answer the question, it doesn't.

But sec 5 of the 14th says this:

Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

• Section 5 Enforcement
•  
• The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
  
  https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... section-5/

In reaching its decision in Trump v. Anderson, the U.S. Supreme Court observed that Congress enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment,6 and reasoned that Section 5 grants Congress alone the authority to provide for the enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.7 The Court noted, however, that states retain concurrent authority to enforce Section 3 with respect to state offices.

https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... _00000070/

 Sourced with credible citations and links.  As a man does it.  
 
 
 

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 7:55 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 7:55 am

To whom?

It is quite clear that they did.

**** your questions. 

Oh, and one more thing: 9-0. 

Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 9:45 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 9:45 am

Where does it say that?

Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

• Section 3 Disqualification from Holding OfficeNo 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.

To answer the question, it doesn't.

But sec 5 of the 14th says this:

Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

• Section 5 Enforcement
•  
• The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
  
  https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... section-5/

In reaching its decision in Trump v. Anderson, the U.S. Supreme Court observed that Congress enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment,6 and reasoned that Section 5 grants Congress alone the authority to provide for the enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.7 The Court noted, however, that states retain concurrent authority to enforce Section 3 with respect to state offices.

https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... _00000070/

 Sourced with credible citations and links.  As a man does it.

Not according to Rico's retelling.

 
 

Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 9:45 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 9:45 am

Where does it say that?

Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

• Section 3 Disqualification from Holding OfficeNo 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.

To answer the question, it doesn't.

But sec 5 of the 14th says this:

Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

• Section 5 Enforcement
•  
• The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
  
  https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... section-5/

In reaching its decision in Trump v. Anderson, the U.S. Supreme Court observed that Congress enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment,6 and reasoned that Section 5 grants Congress alone the authority to provide for the enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.7 The Court noted, however, that states retain concurrent authority to enforce Section 3 with respect to state offices.

https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... _00000070/

 Sourced with credible citations and links.  As a man does it.

shall have engaged in insurrection

Note that it does NOT say "shall have been convicted".

Nod.

But sec 5 of the 14th says this:

so what? Here's the language of Section 3.

But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Nothing about Congress ENFORCING, only a high hurdle for Congress to REMOVE the disability.

Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

• Section 5 Enforcement
•  
• The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Both Equal Protection and Due Process are self-executing.

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 10:36 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 10:36 am

Note that it does NOT say "shall have been convicted".

Nod.


so what? Here's the language of Section 3.


Nothing about Congress ENFORCING, only a high hurdle for Congress to REMOVE the disability.


Both Equal Protection and Due Process are self-executing.



 

I said nothing about a conviction.  So that is a moot point.  

• The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Congress will make that determination for federal elections.  That is the point.  You made this claim:

#56 Re: Why? Because Originalism....Duh!Share       Post 03 Mar 2024, 8:35 pmR. Suave

Except that Section 3 doesn't require a criminal conviction, only a court finding.

It says nothing about a court finding either. 

Nod
 
 

RedheadedStranger » 05 Mar 2024, 10:31 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 10:31 am

Not according to Rico's retelling.

He does come up with creative spin (lies). 

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 7:12 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 7:12 am

No...I read.

It's why I (think) I know so much more than you do, Rippy.

FIFY

 

 
 

Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 10:47 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 10:47 am

I said nothing about a conviction.  So that is a moot point.  

• The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Congress will make that determination for federal elections.  That is the point.  You made this claim:

It says nothing about a court finding either. 

Nod

Absent a Court finding establishing the fact, you're left with an Assertion.

Courts are considered arbiters of Fact.