(04-21-2022 06:02 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 03:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 02:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 11:03 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How to save Democracy

At first I noticed this because of the reference to MTG, who recently has been mentioned here.

But after reading, now I understand why it is so important to the Democrats (not every single blessed Democrat, mind you, but to the movers and shakers) to label the events of jan.6 an insurrection, not a riot or even a mostly peaceful protest. There are political goals that can be more easily met if certain people can be be barred from participation.

Reading the article, it appears the Democrats (not every single blessed one of them) are relying on an outmoded and canceled piece of legislation.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not an outmoded and canceled piece of legislation.

[Some] Democrats are using the 14th amendment in an amoral and self-serving way, but the amendment says what it says - an insurrectionist is barred from office. Hence, [some] Democrats' efforts to broaden the definition of insurrectionist to include anyone who disagrees with them.

Quote:"Congress later passed the Amnesty Act of 1872, which overrode the Disqualification Clause except for “Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses.”

As per the 14th amendment, an act of Congress regarding persons disqualified by the 14th Amendment is specific to those persons, which in context were the post-Civil-War former Confederates, so the judge in Cawthorne's case erred (IMO- but ultimately up to the appeals courts) in applying it to him.

I am not a lawyer, but if subsequent legislation 'overrode" the Disqualification clause that is what the Dems are relying on, are they not relying on a canceled piece of legislation?

lawyers, please explain where I am going wrong, if indeed I have it wrong.

I think Turley isnt on point with that cite.

First, you have the 14th Amendment Disqualification Clause -- that cannot be overridden by Congress. Full stop.

But to head into it, I would surmise that there must be a conviction of 'insurrection' as a condition precedent.

SCOTUS ruled in the 1870's that the body that can preclude people is only Congress, since the 14th Amendment in its whole states that only Congress "shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

So, only the Congress can pass enabling legislation to bar someone under the 14th of being a congress person under the 14th Amendment.

Congress, in 1872, then passed an Act that waived the application of the Act to all of the participants in the war between the North and South, but did not do so for people who participated in the 38th and 39th Congresses.

Problem is the Act that was passed was, well, lets say -- somewhat broad and not necessarily constrained to the participants in the 1861-1865 conflict.

Quote:Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.

In the NC case which Cawthorn filed against the state elections board, a federal judge agreed that the 'blanket provision' was valid, and ruled against the elections board disqualifying Cawthorn based on progressive complainant's challenges in front of that board.

On top of that, the progressives in that case cannot appeal the judge's ruling --- they arent parties to the case. But, leave it to the progressives to try and make up a new rule to get their way and assert they have standing to appeal. So, an appeal to the 4th Circuit is underway with the challengers screaming and shouting that 'they have standing' to pursue this.

They also argue that the blanket language used really isnt blanket language. And honestly, there is a point to that.

And on top of that they pretty much totally ignore the base issue that it will take enabling legislation from Congress to open the doors to their substantive claim. I guess it is only in a progressive's mind that a Constitutional provision stating that only Congress can provide enabling legislation to move forward really isnt a provision stating that only Congress can provide enabling legislation to move forward. Oh, and top of that they scream and cry that state law should be the prevailing authority on 'insurrection'.

A classic textbook case of progressive use of the court system for the last half century.

Interesting questions (to me at least) as to whether an enabling statute that effectively disables the amendment it's supposed to implement is constitutional under the enabling clause of that amendment.

In general, courts do not like to construct a law in a manner that renders an key provision nugatory. On the other hand, it's fun to say "rendered nugatory."

It might be a settled issue, and specifically the courts might have settled on the conclusion that it's a political question, but I have no idea.

SCOTUS already opined that Congress is the one to act on this. 1869.

Cant really argue it.

The Disqualification Provision is 14th Amendment, Section 3.

14th Amendment, Section 5 --- "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Only Congress can enforce this section. No other body is mentioned that can enforce this. Or, if we think like a progressive, we just sue to grab that power, or place that power, to where we think fit.

It doesnt render the power nugatory -- it simply places the power to enforce with a specific 'actor'. And the actor that has the power chose to blanket forego it.

Kind of like the Travis County DA with respect to most crime -- the power is placed in the DA's hands to prosecute individuals. DA Garza simply forgoes prosecuting all misdemeanors, even violent assaults. And he has chosen to not prosecute any non-violent felony less than a Class 2 felony.

-------------------

The interesting part to me is "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,"

So the sole body to have power to disqualify due to insurrection is Congress, and it can reach into a sovereign state and remove a state official or state officer on its own power. Kind of a wild thought that a Federal body can 'remove' any state official. Talk about the biggest power grab against state sovereignty I can think of.