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?
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.