(06-17-2022 09:16 AM)B_Hawk06 Wrote: (06-17-2022 08:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: (06-16-2022 03:55 PM)bobdizole Wrote: This would be completely off the wall insane, but the dems are fully capable of off the wall insane. There are only 7 ways a US citizen can lose their citizenship to the US. Care to guess what number 7 is? Treason
From 8 US Code 1481
Quote:(7)committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Maybe they are pushing heavy on the insurrection and overthrow the government narrative so they could try to strip his citizenship, therefor blocking him from running for president again amongst other things.
There's NO need to strip citizenship.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment would likely cover it:
Quote: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.
Good luck with that 2/3 vote.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
What Tom is talking about wouldn't require any votes in Congress. We're not talking impeachment anymore, that fell short of 2/3 at 57-43 in the Senate, and Congress has no authority to charge and try crimes aside from impeachment. The 2/3 vote in his quote refers to Congress removing the prohibition against holding future office from someone who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion, which would stand no more chance of happening than impeachment did.
Treason or rebellion/insurrection would have to be charged by the DOJ and Trump convicted in the courts for the provisions of the 14th Amendment barring him from future office to come into play. There seems to be some confusion regarding the the Committee referring charges to DOJ, but that essentially has no meaning. Even when the charge is for defying a Congressional subpoena, it's still up to the DOJ whether or not to act on the charges (as shown by Steven Bannon & Peter Navarro being indicted, while Mark Meadows hasn't been thus far). Congress making a referral might be helpful if it was some obscure matter not on the DOJ's radar they had uncovered, but that certainly isn't the case here as AG Garland and the 1/6 prosecutors are well aware of what happened and are watching all of the hearings.
Even if the DOJ ultimately brings charges against Trump, I think seditious conspiracy would be more likely than treason or rebellion/insurrection. And it doesn't carry the prohibition on holding future office that the other two charges do -
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000;
and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
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.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
So the ship likely sailed on barring Trump from holding future federal office when the Senate failed to convict him on the articles of impeachment. I suppose some court could rule that he had engaged in insurrection/rebellion under the 14th Amendment and was barred from office, but absent a conviction they'd be out on a limb and I expect the Supreme Court would ultimately reverse that. As we've seen already with the suits against members of Congress like Madison Cawthorn & MTG, it isn't easy to bar someone from running for office based upon crimes that have a specific legal meaning if they haven't been convicted of that crime.
