Allegations of Capitol ‘reconnaissance’ tours

[kccd]

After conviction. You realize you have to convict first, right?

Only if impeachment is the route taken.

If instead, the 14th amendment is used, that is unrelated to impeachment, and would only require a simple majority vote.

Here is the relevant section of that amendment:

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.

[CivilDiscourse]

Only if impeachment is the route taken.

If instead, the 14th amendment is used, that is unrelated to impeachment, and would only require a simple majority vote.

Here is the relevant section of that amendment:

So, then, the GOP could do the same thing to a disliked democratic opponent. Simply declare that they feel that they participated in an insurrection and are therefore ineligible? You support that precedent?

Say, for example, declaring that AOC supported insurrection (aid and comfort) during the summer riots and is therefore ineligible for holding office?

[Cow Poke]

So, then, the GOP could do the same thing to a disliked democratic opponent. Simply declare that they feel that they participated in an insurrection and are therefore ineligible? You support that precedent?

Say, for example, declaring that AOC supported insurrection (aid and comfort) during the summer riots and is therefore ineligible for holding office?

The problem there, of course, is that you have to get the mainstream media on your side, along with big tech and big business, most of whom seem to be in the back pocket of the Democrats.

[CivilDiscourse]

The problem there, of course, is that you have to get the mainstream media on your side, along with big tech and big business, most of whom seem to be in the back pocket of the Democrats.

Not really, KCCD is saying all that has to happen is that congress has to declare, through simple majority, that a candidate can't hold office, provided they previously held office. All they have to do is claim that SOMETHING was an insurrection.

[Cow Poke]

Not really, KCCD is saying all that has to happen is that congress has to declare, through simple majority, that a candidate can't hold office, provided they previously held office. All they have to do is claim that SOMETHING was an insurrection.

I simply don't trust Congress to do what's right - for the most part, it's every man or woman for themselves, advancing their own careers, and grabbing power wherever they can.

[Zara]

Not really, KCCD is saying all that has to happen is that congress has to declare, through simple majority, that a candidate can't hold office, provided they previously held office. All they have to do is claim that SOMETHING was an insurrection.

Apparently all Trump had to do is claim that the election was "stolen" for the Constitutional right to overturn the election on the basis of "defending it", he stated that on multiple occasions without providing any proof sufficient to his claims. His followers took it upon themselves to defend their president and "stop the steal". Every institution empowered to judge his claims disagreed with his allegations. He continued to make those claims even after his legal avenues were exhausted. This isn't someone on the street, it is the holder of the highest office in the land and the full authority it provides making those false claims, undermining the authority of the institutions he is sworn to protect.

[CivilDiscourse]

Apparently all Trump had to do is claim that the election was "stolen" for the Constitutional right to overturn the election on the basis of "defending it", he stated that on multiple occasions without providing any proof sufficient to his claims. His followers took it upon themselves to defend their president and "stop the steal". Every institution empowered to judge his claims disagreed with his allegations. He continued to make those claims even after his legal avenues were exhausted. This isn't someone on the street, it is the holder of the highest office in the land and the full authority it provides making those false claims, undermining the authority of the institutions he is sworn to protect.

Very good, Louis. Short, but pointless

[Zara]

Very good, Louis. Short, but pointless

You mean, like your point which was, what was it again? That the reason it would be used is because people "dislike" Trump?

Trump is using his authority to undermine the US government. It is as clear as day. Maybe your 'like' for Trump is the issue.

[CivilDiscourse]

You mean, like your point which was, what was it again? That the reason it would be used is because people "dislike" Trump?

Trump is using his authority to undermine the US government. It is as clear as day. Maybe your 'like' for Trump is the issue.

No. I'm pointing out that a simple resolution declaring Trump is ineligible for office is a bad idea. After all, a GOP congress could follow that precedent and make up an insurrection claim.

(Plus I guess I should point out that it would also be a bill of Attainder)

[Zara]

No. I'm pointing out that a simple resolution declaring Trump is ineligible for office is a bad idea. After all, a GOP congress could follow that precedent and make up an insurrection claim.

(Plus I guess I should point out that it would also be a bill of Attainder)

Trump has brought the US to its knees. He needs to declare that he lost a free and fair election. If he later comes up with evidence that he won, then good for him. Until then, he lost and he needs to make it clear to his supporters, who continue to believe his status as a legitimate pretender, that he lost.

The amendment exists for a reason. Maybe it is time to decide if this is it.

[CivilDiscourse]

Trump has brought the US to its knees. He needs to declare that he lost a free and fair election. If he later comes up with evidence that he won, then good for him. Until then, he lost and he needs to make it clear to his supporters, who continue to believe his status as a legitimate pretender, that he lost.

The amendment exists for a reason. Maybe it is time to decide if this is it.

If congress tries to use this via a Bill of Attainder, it will likely end up before the courts, and there's a decent chance it'll be ruled unconstitutional.

[Zara]

If congress tries to use this via a Bill of Attainder, it will likely end up before the courts, and there's a decent chance it'll be ruled unconstitutional.

Congress has its experts to decide if the framers intended the amendment for use in this situation and whether it would inflame tensions further. Trump has managed to convince a large portion of the populace of the "steal", a grave threat to democracy.

[CivilDiscourse]

Congress has its experts to decide if the framers intended the amendment for use in this situation and whether it would inflame tensions further. Trump has managed to convince a large portion of the populace of the "steal", a grave threat to democracy.

The intention was to bar confederates from congress. It was so poorly written and thought out that they had to issue a waiver.

Having said that, congress trying to do this would be a bill of attainder, which is a sticking point.

[Zara]

The intention was to bar confederates from congress. It was so poorly written and thought out that they had to issue a waiver.

Having said that, congress trying to do this would be a bill of attainder, which is a sticking point.

Congress has its experts. It clearly isn't up to my judgement.

[CivilDiscourse]

Congress has its experts. It clearly isn't up to my judgement.

Yes. And it's experts have proven their worth by never once passing an unconstitutional law.