date
newest »

message 1:
by
Linda
(new)
Jun 10, 2022 10:41AM

reply
|
flag

It seems the AG and Biden are living in a different era with a bipartisan, gentlemanly approach, rather than borderline fascism.
When Biden was asked about using an Executive Order to enforce gun control, he said he was not going to do that, that he was going to "play it square." Whatever that means.
Presidents throughout history have used such orders for urgent matters. It's as if Biden does not understand the real threat here.


But as my post above yours indicates, there are other courses of action that could be pursued by the Demos, but aren't.

See below excerpt from: "Unpacking the theory that the 14th Amendment could keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office in 2024" by Louis Jacobson, in PolitiFact
While the 14th Amendment is best known for enabling African Americans to become citizens of the United States, Section 3 says that no person "shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military" who had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
The language was included "to prevent current and former U.S. military officers, federal officers and state officials who served the Confederacy from serving again in public office unless their disability was removed by at least a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress," wrote Gerard N. Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University.
The provision was most frequently applied in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, but in 1872, Congress granted amnesty to most officials covered by the section, and in 1898, another statute lifted the remaining prohibitions. The provision was rarely invoked in the 20th century.
Is the provision still relevant today?
Despite the long lapse in usage of Section 3, it could still carry weight, experts said.
"I think a court could find a person aided and participated in an attempt to overturn the result of a valid election," said Mark Graber, a University of Maryland law professor. "This is in theory no more difficult than proving persons aided and supported any illegal activity. And I think attempting to overturn an election by violence (qualifies as) an insurrection."
Despite this, the provision may have somewhat limited reach.
For starters, it only applies to former officials who swore an oath, meaning that any rank-and-file participant who stormed the Capitol and who didn’t have any previous government or military service wouldn’t be barred from serving in office.
"I suspect the number of likely candidates who could reasonably be affected by Section 3 is fairly small, though Donald Trump is potentially among them," said Keith Whittington, a Princeton University political scientist.
A potentially larger universe of candidates could be affected if a court construes "a judicial officer" to include lawyers, who are often referred to as "officers of the court" and who all take an oath to defend their state and the federal constitutions when sworn-in, said James Robenalt, lawyer at the firm Thompson Hine.
Another possible limiting factor is that the prospect of a court battle may not be enough to "deter the most ardent Trump supporters who wish to run for office," said Michael J. Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina. In fact, Trump allies may find that defending against such charges could be useful to demonstrate their loyalty to the party’s base.
What are the main challenges to leveraging the provision against Jan. 6 participants?
The biggest obstacle to using the Disqualification Clause against a potential candidate is the lack of a mechanism to implement it.
"It is unclear what is required to keep someone out of office," said Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University. "Some say that Congress would have to pass legislation declaring the insurrection to be covered under the amendment. Others say that a court could find the facts. Still others say that the last word would go to the House in voting whether or not to seat a winning candidate."
The most direct precedent comes from the post-Civil War period, when Congress passed an implementing law. But Republican resistance to labeling the events of Jan. 6 an insurrection could be a major obstacle to passing a new law; at the very least, a new law would be hard-pressed to meet the 60-vote threshold in the Senate to move to a final vote.
Leaving the decision to the courts could be an easier route, but that would take time. "It might take too long to resolve, after the inevitable appeals, to become decisive in the 2022 midterms," Kalt said.
Meanwhile, leaving it to Congress to expel someone would require a two-thirds vote, which is a heavy lift in these polarized times.
"If people were engaged in insurrection or rebellion, I think it much cleaner and better to charge them with federal crimes — especially the seditious conspiracy statute that I’d argue applies directly to Jan. 6," Robenalt said.
Would the events of Jan. 6 qualify as an insurrection?
Whether Jan. 6 qualifies as an insurrection is an open question.
Magliocca, a specialist in the matter, has written that the question of what constitutes an insurrection is "a point on which I have thus far been unable to find any particularly helpful authority. During the 1860s and 1870s, everyone understood that the insurrection in question was the Confederacy, and no thought was given to what other insurrections might look like."
The strongest argument for calling Jan. 6 an insurrection, Magliocca wrote, is that it "was not just a violent attack upon Congress, as bad as that would be. The mob was seeking to halt or overturn a core constitutional function at the seat of government, which can reasonably be described as an attempt to replace law with force."
Still, to prove in court that Jan. 6 amounted to an insurrection "would be a tough row to hoe," said Frank O. Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor.

As you probably know, the Federalist Society was founded in 1982 and it seems, with the current SCOTUS, that it got the court it wanted.
And in different ways, it was aided and abetted by the Koch Brothers, among others....
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
Clearly the Democratic Party has been out-maneuvered by the GOP

As you probably know, the Federalist Society was fo..."
Definitely. and now the question is: has the "sleeping giant" awakened too late?


One problem is that the Democrats are corporatists. They prefer to expand their wealth and privilege over helping the people. I was amazed when I found out that members of Congress can engage in insider trading. No way that should be allowed.
Sinema was supposed to represent the working class, but she takes big donations from Big Pharma and banks to make sure she votes like a GOP. There's no integrity.
The level of cowardice among the pols is disgusting.
The late Roman Republic had an hourglass shaped class system. We are well on the way to that, if not already there.

On that note, I've been revisiting my favorite book in the Bible, Ecclesiastes (Kohelth)