MORE DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA THIS WEEK!!
Its a fucking media lie that a candidate in the last 125 years can be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
ITS A FUCKING MEDIA LIE!
Congress voted to remove the disqualification twice. The Amnesty Act of 1872 stated that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of the 36th and 37th Congresses and certain other military and foreign officials. Note that there is no time limit in this language.
Congress even got rid of these remaining exceptions in the Amnesty Act of 1898, which stated that “the disability imposed by section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States heretofore incurred is hereby removed.”
There was no language preserving any of the disqualifications for future cases.
ITS ALL A FUCKING MEDIA LIE! There is no CURRENT legal means to ever stop President Trump this month.
Why am I seemingly the only person left on this web site that knows these solid facts?
Makes sense for it to expire -- it was about the Civil War.
Can an Act of Congress remove a Constitutional provision?
Can Congress make a law impeding the 2nd amendment, or the first amendment, or establish a religion?
Of course they CAN, but it would be unconstitutional, as an amendment to the Constitution is needed to remove an amendment.
Example:
18th Amendment instituted a Prohibition on the People. The 21th removed that unconstitutional amendment.
Hence, the disability by section 3 of the 14th remains in tact. Can Congress commute such a disability by making a law? They can with 2/3 of the vote.
However, such a provision can only be instituted IF the actions of a covered person ARE established to be an insurrection or rebellion against the United States. If the United States fails to execute the trust-laws to which it is bound, i.e. the Constitution, and is faced with a demonstration of a group of people demanding it follows the Constitution by holding and executing a transparent and correct election and consequent certification, and not negating the power of the Vice-President in this regard, then how is that an insurrection or rebellion against the United States?
Just because Democrats claim J6 was an insurrection for political purposes does not make it so. Rather, the shoe is on the other foot. By Subverting the process and protecting those who subverted, they instigated an insurrection or rebellion against the United States.
I smell boomerang if the D's maintain such a claim.
No one, including Trump, has been convicted of insurrection. Why this is even a talking point I cannot figure out. Democrats can cry all they want, it doesn't change reality.
I have been asking THIS for a while!!! They are attempting to put the cart before the horse i.e. punish him before ever trying and convicting him of the crime. Anyone can label anything they choose but it doesn't make it so.
Bullshit. Constitution cannot be ignored via some new law.
The constitution itself needs to be changed if parts are to be taken out.
This. This is pretty low effort
Yeah, yawn, some of us know a whole lot but, unless asked, we're not shouting. Been "here" here since 12/24/20 when VOAT shut us down. You're cute.
Think we have close to the same join date. Trying to locate my date…hmm. Profile? I’m on a phone so I wonder if I’m unable to see some options.
Was talking to the post originator
Oh I know. I was just curious as to how long I’ve been here myself. It’s around the same times you posted. Was wondering how people can find that information. Like date joined or something.
I never tried doing that. Sorry. I'm no help.
No profile
How can Congress nullify an Amendment? An Amendment is part of the Constitution, and laws contrary to the Constitution are repugnant and null.
Sorry OP but your point is moot because the 14th Amendment has never applied to the president. It applies to members of Congress, and officers (both civil and military) of the Executive. The president is not an officer, he is the sovereign representative of We the People. The individuals he appoints to specific offices are "Officers of the United States." The president does not require the approval of Congress to take office and if he did he wouldn't be the president.
This strategy of the Dems never had a leg to stand on.
Its not gone, but nobody seems to note that Amendment 14 has 5 sections and the 5th section controls, not the third. Dont waste time debating section 3, its irrelevant behind section 5.
You are not the only one here.
But it may feel like that IRL?
Can an act of congress truly abrogate any part of the Constitution? I thought that was what the amendment process was for.
You’ve only been here 194 days. What makes you think that this information wasn’t posted before you joined?
I've heard Juan O Savin say something similar. Yours is more detailed though, which I appreciate.
Ofcourse they are lying. The msm job now is the fuel the fire the dems are planning once trump gets into office. They just need leftists to have hope that trump may still not get it, then take away that hope. Then jan 10 will be the next hope that trump will be in prison only to have that taken away. Then maybe jan 20th.
Dont sweat any of it. Keep stress levels low. Stay healthy and relaxed. This train is on cruise control and their aint no brakes on this bitch.
Because maybe those enactments were unconstitutional. The only way the Constitution can be changed is by formal amendment. No act of Congress can supersede the Constitution's language. It is not wise to take refuge in violations of the Constitution.