Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) vs. the 14th Amendment.

[Flash]

I don't believe that Cawthorn, or anyone else in office for that matter, has been tried and convicted of insurrection yet, so all of this is nothing but grandstanding by political entities as they keep striving to divide us

Agreed. The House or Senate would have to vote by a 2/3 margin to expel a member. There has to be some type of action to determine the person "engaged in insurrection or rebellion." We cannot just declare they are not eligible. The Constitution is not self-enforcing.

The provision of the 14th was written to apply to former members who had joined the Confederacy. It could be easily determined if a the person was a member of the Confederate army or government. Congress has only expelled 20 members and 14 of these were for being part of the Confederacy.

I think many JPP posters are overly optimistic about actions to "get" Democrats or Republicans whether it applies to insurrection, Hunter Biden, etc.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

A Constitutionalist understands the 9th and 10th Amendments. You're effectively advocating to overrule those Amendments to impose your autocracy.

Translation: Yes, I advocate murdering children because the US accidentally participated in killing children at Waco.

You are free to use that excuse to murder kids, but you won't get any sympathy from a jury at your trial.

eh, most of you were completely wrong about rittenhouse, so most of you are completely wrong about this..........

 

[Jarod]

I don't believe that Cawthorn, or anyone else in office for that matter, has been tried and convicted of insurrection yet, so all of this is nothing but grandstanding by political entities as they keep striving to divide us

Does the 14th say one must be convicted? Were the Civil War actors who were excluded tired and convicted?

 

[Flash]

Agreed. It may have to go to SCOTUS, but it does look like he's disqualified if North Carolina says he is.

Only if he does not meet the constitutional qualifications of the position. He might not qualify to run in a particular party's primary.

 

[Flash]

Does the 14th say one must be convicted? Were the Civil War actors who were excluded tired and convicted?

Not a criminal conviction but by action of the House or Senate who have the power to expel their own members.

 

[Flash]

As I stated, there was no insurrection and Trump didn't lead one.

Several of the terrorists are being charged with "seditious conspiracy" because they have their communications that involved advanced planning (including weapons). If convicted, that makes those (Proud Boys) guilty of participating in an insurrection or sedition.

 

[Flash]

You need a conviction to go to prison, but office can be denied on a much lower level of proof.

Who determines that proof?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

eh, most of you were completely wrong about rittenhouse, so most of you are completely wrong about this..........

Since you support killing kids in the name of overthrowing the US Constitution, your veracity is in doubt.

 

[Truth Detector]

Several of the terrorists are being charged with "seditious conspiracy" because they have their communications that involved advanced planning (including weapons). If convicted, that makes those (Proud Boys) guilty of participating in an insurrection or sedition.

There were no "terrorists". The only people who died that day were unarmed protestors. Seditious Conspiracy will be nearly impossible to prove. In fact, it is borderline lunacy to make such a charge,

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them

sedition
noun

se·​di·​tion | \ si-ˈdi-shən \
Definition of sedition
: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority

insurrection
noun

in·​sur·​rec·​tion | \ ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən \
Essential Meaning of insurrection
: a usually violent attempt to take control of a government

No such acts occurred on January 6th. There were protests and a few people got out of control. No property was destroyed. Nothing was burned. There were no weapons.

 

[Sailor]

Who determines that proof?

A bunch of nitwits on an obscure political site......

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Cawthorn could claim that the failed insurrectionists were just non-violent elderly people who went to the Capitol to take selfies. That should do it.

Added:
"We saw what happened. It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a legitimately certified election from one administration to the next" - Mitch McConnell.

But what does he know - he's only the Senate Republican leader.

He can claim all he likes but my understanding is that there's clear evidence he was part of the planning team.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Only if he does not meet the constitutional qualifications of the position. He might not qualify to run in a particular party's primary.

Only in North Carolina?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You need a conviction to go to prison, but office can be denied on a much lower level of proof.

Not a lawyer but the articles all seem to indicate the evidence is sufficient to deny him reelection.

 

[Flash]

There were no "terrorists". The only people who died that day were unarmed protestors. Seditious Conspiracy will be nearly impossible to prove. In fact, it is borderline lunacy to make such a charge,

No such acts occurred on January 6th. There were protests and a few people got out of control. No property was destroyed. Nothing was burned. There were no weapons.

Terrorism=political violence.

I chose to use the Ted Cruz term since "riot" does not necessarily involve political goals and insurrection requires proof of intent. Only the Oath Keepers were charged with sedition conspiracy because prosecutors have gathered a lot of their communications (online and during the violence) indicating their intent and preparation. But, you are right in that those charges are difficult to prove. Things like threats, incitement, etc. are all difficult because a history of court decisions requires more than the simple wording of the law.

There was $30 million in property damage. The 769 people being charged with crimes is more than a "few" who got out of hand. Nothing has to get burned to try to disrupt finalizing the electoral votes.

There were weapons involved. One veteran plead guilty to possessing Molotov cocktails, unregistered firearms, a crossbow. Weapons used against the police officers included the barriers, fire extinguisher, stolen police shield, baseball bat, hockey stick, a rebar, a flag pole, pepper spray and bear spray, and stun gun. Over a dozen police officers went to the hospital with injuries like concussions and bone fractures. There were several charged with carrying firearms on Capitol grounds including an off-duty DEA agent.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Who determines that proof?

North Carolina State Board of Elections

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/politics/cawthorn-legal-challenge-january-6/index.html
Cawthorn asked a federal court on Monday to block the North Carolina State Board of Elections from hearing a recently filed challenge to his candidacy. The challenge revolves around the little-used "disqualification clause" of the US Constitution, which was ratified after the Civil War to prevent Confederate officials and those who supported "insurrection" from returning to office.

The disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment bans from future office any American elected official who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution but then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

The provision has rarely been utilized, and there are plenty of open legal questions about how it applies today. Cawthorn has denied any wrongdoing regarding January 6.

 

[Flash]

Only in North Carolina?

Yes. I'm not sure NC can prohibit him from running. A few years ago some states passed congressional term limits and claimed that since states determine who qualifies for the ballot the state could limit candidates to number of terms.

The Supreme Court struck down those laws and said states cannot add qualifications to those in the Constitution. A party primary is a different matter since parties are private and not governmental. But some states used to limit primaries to white voters and the court ruled since the Democratic primary was the only way to win office in the South it effectively prevented black voters from having a voice in the election.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Terrorism=political violence.

I chose to use the Ted Cruz term since "riot" does not necessarily involve political goals and insurrection requires proof of intent. Only the Oath Keepers were charged with sedition conspiracy because prosecutors have gathered a lot of their communications (online and during the violence) indicating their intent and preparation. But, you are right in that those charges are difficult to prove. Things like threats, incitement, etc. are all difficult because a history of court decisions requires more than the simple wording of the law.

There was $30 million in property damage. The 769 people being charged with crimes is more than a "few" who got out of hand. Nothing has to get burned to try to disrupt finalizing the electoral votes.

There were weapons involved. One veteran plead guilty to possessing Molotov cocktails, unregistered firearms, a crossbow. Weapons used against the police officers included the barriers, fire extinguisher, stolen police shield, baseball bat, hockey stick, a rebar, a flag pole, pepper spray and bear spray, and stun gun. Over a dozen police officers went to the hospital with injuries like concussions and bone fractures. There were several charged with carrying firearms on Capitol grounds including an off-duty DEA agent.

Per the FBI; terrorism = "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social goals."

Furthermore, those who have sworn an oath to the Constitution and then warred against it such as an attempted coup, are guilty of treason. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S3-C1-1-2/ALDE_00001226/

I'm curious if they will go after the vets and former elected officials who involved. AFAIK, it's never been tested in court, but the Oath to the Constitution is forever.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes. I'm not sure NC can prohibit him from running. A few years ago some states passed congressional term limits and claimed that since states determine who qualifies for the ballot the state could limit candidates to number of terms.

The Supreme Court struck down those laws and said states cannot add qualifications to those in the Constitution. A party primary is a different matter since parties are private and not governmental. But some states used to limit primaries to white voters and the court ruled since the Democratic primary was the only way to win office in the South it effectively prevented black voters from having a voice in the election.

It'll be fun to see how it plays out.

We're watching history in the making; will We, the People give up on democracy in favor of authoritarianism or not?

 

[Flash]

North Carolina State Board of Elections

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/politics/cawthorn-legal-challenge-january-6/index.html
Cawthorn asked a federal court on Monday to block the North Carolina State Board of Elections from hearing a recently filed challenge to his candidacy. The challenge revolves around the little-used "disqualification clause" of the US Constitution, which was ratified after the Civil War to prevent Confederate officials and those who supported "insurrection" from returning to office.

The disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment bans from future office any American elected official who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution but then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

The provision has rarely been utilized, and there are plenty of open legal questions about how it applies today. Cawthorn has denied any wrongdoing regarding January 6.

Unless Cawthorn was involved in planning violent actions I doubt he was guilty of anything. All those people devising legal strategies like getting Pence to deny certification was not insurrection.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Unless Cawthorn was involved in planning violent actions I doubt he was guilty of anything. All those people devising legal strategies like getting Pence to deny certification was not insurrection.

I'm not a fucking lawyer, but it will be lawyers and judges who determine if we can keep our Republic or give it up to power and bullshit.

"A Republic if you can keep it."
Although there is no proof positive, the response came from Mrs. Elizabeth Willing Powell's question, "Well, Doctor. What have we got? A Republic or monarchy?" Mrs Powell was the wife of Philadelphia Mayor Samuel Powel and both a prominent social figure, but also a friend of Franklin.

Flash forward over 230 years and the question remains the same "Well, Doctor, what have we got? A Republic or a monarchy?" The answer also remains the same: "A Republic if you can keep it."

TBH, I'm not sure we can. If the lies and bullshit keep being given a pass, there will be a lot of dead Americans before we can see peace again.

In some ways that'll be good because it will mostly be the violent, stupid one who die, but like COVID, a lot of innocents die too. Sad