Liberal Forum

RedheadedStranger » 05 Mar 2024, 11:49 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:49 am

Witlessness?

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

By your standards, perhaps.

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.

you are not dealing with a man
 

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 11:48 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:48 am

Isn't that YOUR problem?

No, It's not my party that is afraid of losing power and doesn't trust civil society .....
That would be you and The Dems ....
 

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 11:47 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:47 am

Are you at all familiar with your rule regarding repetition?

 

I have never posted that/  But, since it destroys your unfounded argument you would line thru it.

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.

Says nothing of a court finding.  You are gaslighting.  The reason being is you are hanging your hat on the CO Supreme court finding.  Which does not apply federal elections and offices. 

Majik » 05 Mar 2024, 11:53 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:53 am

No, It's not my party that is afraid of losing power and doesn't trust civil society .....
That would be you and The Dems ....

 

POM » 05 Mar 2024, 11:51 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:51 am

you are not dealing with a man
 



 

THat has been apparent for oh, about 7 years.  
 
 

Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 11:54 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:54 am

I have never posted that/  But, since it destroys your unfounded argument you would line thru it.

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.

Says nothing of a court finding.  You are gaslighting.  The reason being is you are hanging your hat on the CO Supreme court finding.  Which does not apply federal elections and offices.

A) you're lying
B) you don't understand your citation, again.

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 11:54 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:54 am

Thank-You for providing this pic of a protest against the rigged 2020 election .....
which your party rigged because they don't trust civil society and sees the electorate as the greatest threat to their power .....
 

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 11:55 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:55 am

A) you're lying
B) you don't understand your citation, again.

Then show where a court finding is needed.   As a man would.  

You have been defeated.  Again.

Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 12:00 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 12:00 pm

Then show where a court finding is needed.   As a man would.  

You have been defeated.  Again.

You can't be made to grasp the idea that Courts are arbiters of Fact.

That isn't my problem.


What you fail to demonstrate is that Congress needs to do anything for Sec. 3 to "execute"....In fact Section 3 details EXACTLY what role Congress plays in the process....and it is only to remove the disability - given a very high bar.




 

Majik » 05 Mar 2024, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 11:59 am

Thank-You for providing this pic of a protest against the rigged 2020 election .....
which your party rigged because they don't trust civil society and sees the electorate as the greatest threat to their power .....

Civil society understands that talk of a rigged election is crap.

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

05 Mar 2024, 11:27 am

I already have, being that I am a Man.



 

You are a male reproduction, man is just a role in defining who's who here now. You have been a male every phase of evolving since conceived. your mind is just a construct of maybes used throughout history fabricating ideas life isn't self evident.

that is what the matrix theme was all about in all 4 movies.

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 12:07 pm

Civil society understands that talk of a rigged election is crap.

Your party is terrified of a Trump win in November .....and terrified that their false narrative of Insurrection has crumbled ....
If your party actually trusted the electorate which it doesn't .....your party would not be engaged in election interference to the extent it now is .....
fact.

 

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 12:06 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 12:06 pm

You can't be made to grasp the idea that Courts are arbiters of Fact.

That isn't my problem.

What you fail to demonstrate is that Congress needs to do anything for Sec. 3 to "execute"....In fact Section 3 details EXACTLY what role Congress plays in the process....and it is only to remove the disability - given a very high bar.

Calm down, Mary. 

At the federal level congress does need to do something.  And no court finding is required.  Unless you can post otherwise.  


Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

• Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
• 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.

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, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 12:07 pm

Civil society understands that talk of a rigged election is crap.

 

It doesn't make it an insurrection.  

Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 12:22 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 12:22 pm

It doesn't make it an insurrection.

That is a fact, established by a court.

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 12:26 pm

That is a fact, established by a court.

Doesn't matter because only Congress can decide what to do about concerning a federal election, Mary. 

Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 12:21 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 12:21 pm

Calm down, Mary. 

At the federal level congress does need to do something.  And no court finding is required.  Unless you can post otherwise.  

Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

• Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
• 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.

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.

This endless repetition is a certain Meltdown precursor..

But if you want to make disqualification under Section 3 subject to nothing more than Assertion, that's ok....you run with that.

As for the rest, you don't understand that either.

Huey » 05 Mar 2024, 12:28 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 12:28 pm

Doesn't matter because only Congress can decide what to do about concerning a federal election, Mary.

It matters with respect to making it fact.

R.Suave » 05 Mar 2024, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 12:31 pm

This endless repetition is a certain Meltdown precursor..

But if you want to make disqualification under Section 3 subject to nothing more than Assertion, that's ok....you run with that.

As for the rest, you don't understand that either.

 

When you show that a court finding is needed you can make that statement.

At the federal level Congress sets the rules.  Remember, moron, you thought you would see them invoke the 14th following the clown show hearings.  WIth NO court finding.  

And reposting something once is no endless repetition.  It is either due to your ignorant use of strike thru OR you telling a lie.  But now I know it puts you in Meltdown Mary mode I will keep that tactic in my back pocket.