politics

Don't make this into a liberal BS. The GOP scholars were the first one to bring this up. This title is BS.

Traitors who don't believe in our democracy and try to stop the will of the people who voted, should not be allowed in our government. They can't be trusted to keep their oath to the constitution if they broke that oath before.

Text of the relevant section of the 14th Amendment:

Section 3.
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.

Edit:
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

The article should say Americans not a liberals want to stop that treasonous bastard.

are republicans libs now?

This is the best summary I could come up with:

A growing number of legal scholars say the post-Civil War clause applies to Trump after his role in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and encouraging his backers to storm the U.S. Capitol.

“There’s a very real prospect these cases will be active during the primaries,” said Gerard Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University, warning that there could be different outcomes in different states before the Supreme Court makes a final decision.

That section bars anyone from Congress, the military, and federal and state offices if they previously took an oath to support the Constitution and “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Trump argues that any effort to prevent him from appearing on a state’s ballot amounts to “election interference” — the same way he is characterizing the criminal charges filed against him in New York and Atlanta and by federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., and Florida.

On Wednesday, a long-shot Republican presidential candidate, John Anthony Castro, of Texas, filed a complaint in a New Hampshire court contending the 14th Amendment barred Trump from that state’s ballot.

Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment helped ensure civil rights for freed slaves — and eventually for all people in the U.S. — but also was used to prevent former Confederate officials from becoming members of Congress and taking over the government they had just rebelled against.

The original article contains 1,376 words, the summary contains 238 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

It’ll be interesting to see how the courts play this out. Usually the determination of whether someone did or did not engage in an illegal activity is upon conviction by a jury - innocent until proven guilty. Consequences cannot be rendered until that point.

Trump hasn’t (yet) been charged with insurrection specifically, so a conviction on the existing charges likely wouldn’t trigger the 14th Amendments restriction.

“Giving aid or support” could be an interesting argument though, because a few of the J6 participants have been convicted of “seditious conspiracy”, which could maybe fall under the definition of rebellion, and Trump has certainly spoken spoken in support of the participants in general.

I look forward to reading some riveting decisions over the next year.

Block that whiny bitch out!

Ban the lame bastard from earth.