Reply to Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]What's interesting is that the unanimously have agreed there was no insurrection, it sounds like a legal argument for the Democrats to stop saying there was one. [/quote]

It absolutely was an insurrection.  This SCOTUS is getting farther and farther off the rails with every comment and decision to come out of it.[/quote]

No one on Jan 6th has been charged or convicted of insurrection.[/quote]

What do you think seditious conspiracy is?  It's insurrection.  [/quote]

Quite literally not the same thing which is why they are separate charges.

NYT:  “While they clearly overlap, “sedition” centers more on plotting and incitement, whereas “insurrection” is generally understood to mean the actual violent acts of an uprising aimed at overthrowing the government.”  Seditious conspiracy “is a federal crime found in Section 2384 of Title 18 of the United States code. That law makes it a crime for two or more people to actively plot to overthrow by force the federal government, to levy war against it, to unlawfully seize federal property or “by force to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States.”… Insurrection charges are considered difficult to prove and are exceedingly rare. While many people have called the events of Jan. 6 an “insurrection,” the Justice Department has not charged any rioters with that crime.”[/quote]

Yeah, the Fourteenth Amendment is expansive, it refers to being engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.  Seditious conspiracy counts too.

The Supreme Court didn't touch insurrection because Trump will lose under that.  They need some other technicality.[/quote]

It’s not a technicality to not allow the states to independently disqualify someone who hasn’t even been charged with the act in question.[/quote]

States aren't in charge of their own ballots?

SMH [/quote]

But wait, aren't Republican all about "states' rights" and against "federal overreach"?   :thumbup:  :thumbup:  :thumbup: [/quote]

The president is a federal not state office.  We can’t have one state banning Trump off the ballot and another banning Biden.  Makes no sense.[/quote]

The President only comes to hold a federal office through the States and only has power because it is given by the people of these United States.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics