Liberal Forum

RedheadedStranger » 05 Mar 2024, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 10:52 am

FIFY

Rippy,

Post what you read.




See?
 

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 10:53 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 10:53 am

Rippy,

Post what you read.

See?

You mean, copy and paste a bunch of ****?

Like you do?

nod
 

Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 10:48 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 10:48 am

He does come up with creative spin (lies).

It's not really that creative.

It's more like "nuh uh!"


 

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 10:52 am

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

Courts are considered arbiters of Fact.
 

 

Nope.  It says nothing of a court finding.  It does say this:

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

That is not an assertion.  At the moment the only one making unfounded ASSertions is you.   

Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:03 am

Nope.  It says nothing of a court finding.  It does say this:

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

That is not an assertion.  At the moment the only one making unfounded ASSertions is you.

you don't need to understand it for it to be so.

RedheadedStranger » 05 Mar 2024, 10:54 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 10:54 am

You mean, copy and paste a bunch of ****?

Like you do?

nod

We're done here.

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 11:07 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:07 am

you don't need to understand it for it to be so.

 

Apparently, you don't understand it.  I'm good.  You are just making **** up.  Lying.  

Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 11:09 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:09 am

Apparently, you don't understand it.  I'm good.  You are just making **** up.  Lying.

I do...that's why it is consistent with the conclusions of others....while yours relies on rebleating.

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 11:07 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:07 am

We're done here.

I take that as a yes.


 

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

05 Mar 2024, 11:11 am

I do...that's why it is consistent with the conclusions of others....while yours relies on rebleating.

 

By all means, post one of these conclusions with links, as a man would. 

Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 11:20 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:20 am

By all means, post one of these conclusions with links, as a man would.

I already have, being that I am a Man.



 

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:27 am

I already have, being that I am a Man.

LOL

You can put AJ back in the box now Rico.

I think he's all out of reddies for the day.

 

 

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

05 Mar 2024, 11:11 am

I do...that's why it is consistent with the conclusions of others....while yours relies on rebleating.

Those "others" you keep mentioning ......all suffer from the same mental illness you have .....

 

Majik » 05 Mar 2024, 11:34 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:34 am

Those "others" you keep mentioning ......all suffer from the same mental illness you have .....

What would that be?

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:27 am

I already have, being that I am a Man.

A post number would be nice.  But again, a judicial finding is not discussed.

Two constitutional powers also arguably authorize Congress to determine the occurrence of an insurrection by legislation: the Militia Clause and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Militia Clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 15) grants Congress the authority to call forth the militia to “suppress Insurrections.” Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides Congress “power to enforce [the Amendment] by appropriate legislation.” A legislative determination that an insurrection occurred pursuant to one of these constitutional authorities would likely at least be accorded judicial weight in the event of a prosecution for insurrection or any procedure Congress might put in place to determine disqualification under Section 3.

Once an insurrection is deemed to have occurred, the question becomes whether a specific person engaged in it. Section 3 does not establish a procedure for determining who is subject to the proscription on holding office, instead providing only a process by which the disability may be removed (i.e., by twothirds vote in both houses). Congress has also not set forth a procedure for determining who is subject to the disability imposed by Section 3. Although definitions of insurrection and rebellion for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment would not necessarily be confined by statute, it would appear that a criminal  conviction for insurrection or the “levying of war” prong of treason would provide sufficient proof, and each of them contains a bar on holding office. The insurrection statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2383, provides: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... %20Members.

 

RedheadedStranger » 05 Mar 2024, 11:34 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:34 am

LOL

You can put AJ back in the box now Rico.

I think he's all out of reddies for the day.

Haven't you done enough to demonstrate your witlessness this morning, Rippy?

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 11:37 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:37 am

What would that be?

Paranoid Government Disorder (PGD) is a collective mental disorder characterized by state paranoia and a pervasive, long-standing suspiciousness and generalized mistrust of civil society.

 Due to all of the criminal acts your party has committed against The American people .....

 

Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 11:38 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:38 am

A post number would be nice.  But again, a judicial finding is not discussed.

Two constitutional powers also arguably authorize Congress to determine the occurrence of an insurrection by legislation: the Militia Clause and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Militia Clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 15) grants Congress the authority to call forth the militia to “suppress Insurrections.” Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides Congress “power to enforce [the Amendment] by appropriate legislation.” A legislative determination that an insurrection occurred pursuant to one of these constitutional authorities would likely at least be accorded judicial weight in the event of a prosecution for insurrection or any procedure Congress might put in place to determine disqualification under Section 3.

Once an insurrection is deemed to have occurred, the question becomes whether a specific person engaged in it. Section 3 does not establish a procedure for determining who is subject to the proscription on holding office, instead providing only a process by which the disability may be removed (i.e., by twothirds vote in both houses). Congress has also not set forth a procedure for determining who is subject to the disability imposed by Section 3. Although definitions of insurrection and rebellion for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment would not necessarily be confined by statute, it would appear that a criminal  conviction for insurrection or the “levying of war” prong of treason would provide sufficient proof, and each of them contains a bar on holding office. The insurrection statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2383, provides: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... %20Members.

Are you at all familiar with your rule regarding repetition?

Majik » 05 Mar 2024, 11:47 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:47 am

Paranoid Government Disorder (PGD) is a collective mental disorder characterized by state paranoia and a pervasive, long-standing suspiciousness and generalized mistrust of civil society.

Isn't that YOUR problem?

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 11:38 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:38 am

Haven't you done enough to demonstrate your witlessness this morning, Rippy?

Witlessness?

I think my replies are rather full of wit and cattiness, thank you very much.