Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

So, Curt, can you still say that there's "NO EVIDENCE" that Joe was involved in the Crime Family?
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:33 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (1 comments) [19 views]


The Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court Hold the Record as the World's Most Expensive Whores...
Crime by Ponderer     February 29, 2024 10:35 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (5 comments) [47 views]


RFK Jr. Backs Sen. Rand Paul to Succeed McConnell...
Politics by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:15 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [4 views]


Oversight and Judiciary Committees Release Hunter Biden Transcript
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 5:51 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (4 comments) [40 views]


Rep. Lauren Boebert's son Tyler allegedly made a sex tape with co-defendant
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 11:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (9 comments) [151 views]


Holy FrigginFreakinEFFIN Cow! Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump immunity claim!
Crime by HatetheSwamp     February 28, 2024 2:54 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (15 comments) [107 views]


9 Surprising Findings From Joe Biden's Physical
Medical by HatetheSwamp     February 29, 2024 9:51 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [19 views]


Is Trump going broke? Is he bringing the GOP down with him?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 5:46 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (4 comments) [92 views]


Mitch McConnell to step down from GOP leadership position in the
Government by HatetheSwamp     February 28, 2024 9:42 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [50 views]


"Where's Hunter?" He is in the capitol building kicking Republican ass!
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 12:02 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (14 comments) [125 views]


History selectors, pages, etc.
Contemporary congressional arguments drafting the 14th Amendment. Due process for the first to be barred from office.
By Curt_Anderson
December 31, 2023 9:15 pm
Category: History

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868. The following quotes are examples of the congressional thinking and debates regarding the third section of the 14th at the time.

Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania attacked Section Three because he was against "to the infliction of punishment of any kind upon anybody unless by fair trial." A Congressman [Benjamin M. Boyer of Pennsylvania] added that Section Three was a criminal "bill of attainder or ex post facto law."

Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, though, rejected a punitive interpretation of Section Three: "[W]ho ever heard of such a proposition...that a bill excluding men from office is a bill of pains and penalties and punishment?" Senator Trumbull stated that the Constitution "declares that no one but a native-born citizen of the United States shall be President . . . Does, then, every person living in this land who does not happen to have been born within its jurisdiction undergo pains and penalties and punishment all his life, because by the Constitution he is ineligible to the Presidency?"

Former Confederates were barred from being seated in the US Congress
The 14th Amendment disqualified these and other former Confederates from elected office. The due process for these men was not a day in court to plead their case. The only process they were due was referring them to the third section of the 14th amendment. The Constitution and its amendments are the law in the land and they cannot be undone in a courtroom, although they are often interpreted.

After the Civil War, pro-Union members of Congress were appalled to find former Confederate officials being elected to federal office. Most egregiously, Georgia elected Alexander Stephens, the onetime vice president of the Confederacy, as a U.S. Senator in 1866. The Senate refused to seat him, and in 1868 Congress adopted Section 3 of the 14th Amendment regarding Disqualification from Holding Office:

Zebulon B. Vance a pre-Civil War Congressman from North Carolina. He served in Confederate army. He was also a North Carolina governor under Confederacy. After the war he was elected U.S. Senator by the North Carolina legislature. The US Congress refused to seat Vance.

Another southerner, John H. Christy, "[V]oluntarily giv[ing] aid, countenance, counsel, and encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility to the United States." was also elected to Congress. The Georgia Governor refused to commission him, and Congress refused to seat him. (Not long after in 1877, Christy died as a result of a railroad car running over his foot as he disembarked).









Cited and related links:

  1. constitutionalcommentary.lib.umn.edu
  2. senate.gov
  3. damemagazine.com
  4. dlg.galileo.usg.edu

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Contemporary congressional arguments drafting the 14th Amendment. Due process for the first to be barred from office.":

  1. by oldedude on January 1, 2024 1:03 am
    You're using cases with no standing in any recent court "decisions."

    1. The standing you're "assuming" is very different than trumpster in the courts. This is nothing more than a deflection from your "media" to show there is standing to allow the courts now to allow trumpster standing in present day courts. Which is false. And you look stupid. The courts changed in 1910 regarding insurrection. They moved from the last war, and allowed (via Grant) to forgive the "crimes of the past" for their deeds in the then "civil war." Including the Gray Ghost (John S. Mosby). We've talked about this before.

    2. So you agree that a person who lived in china. Went to Chinese schooling, and was a Chinese scholar assigned by the CCP to be the President should be "President?"

    3. All of these were officers in the Confederacy. Their crimes were that they carried arms and were active participants in the civil war from 1861-1865 (minus Mosby, who never surrendered and was pardoned (see #1). In your statement, you're saying that trumpster actually carried weapons and murdered US soldiers under this law. I'm thinking not. As of now, I'm well aware you are not concerned about the government overstep regarding this law. You're only concerned about trumpster being convicted. Tell me that isn't so. Because it's truly sad if it is.

    Honestly, you're making a fool out of yourself. You should have given thought to what I said earlier and matched dates. When you didn't, it made you look stupid to everyone that did read the text/ cites. This is really simple and I tried softly to tell you that you were wrong. That didn't work. Ergo, fuck you. You don't deserve any common ground at all. These were easy statements. You came back as a flaming confederate disproving your own "subjectivity" in the process. had you read the cites, you would have known all the answers to your stupid questions.

    You've carried this along only about trumpster long enough. If your phobia is so horrible by normal standards, you need professional help. and someone in Secret Service needs notified. I really don't care.


  2. by Curt_Anderson on January 1, 2024 8:23 am
    “In your statement, you're saying that trumpster actually carried weapons and murdered US soldiers under this law”. —OD

    Of course, I’ve never said any such thing. If you were looking for a historical analogy with Donald Trump, consider the confederate vice president, Alexander Stephens. Frail and sickly Stephens weighed about 100 pounds his entire adult life. He never fought in any Civil War battle. But he did not have to be a soldier to give aid and comfort not to mention encouragement to those who physically fought against the United States.

    Since you have seem to have missed it, the point of my article above was that the drafters put 14th amendment were well aware that it did not provide those people it disqualified from holding public office a courtroom remedy, which you think is the only due process.


  3. by Ponderer on January 1, 2024 8:42 am

    Curt's right. Disqualification is not punishment. They are in no way equitably comparable. Not that a conservative would understand that. A thirteen year old child is not being punished by not being qualified to have a drivers license. And they are certainly not being denied Life, Liberty, or Property by not meeting the qualifications for one.

    Boy, can od go off the deep end when he's shown to be wrong or what?




  4. by Curt_Anderson on January 1, 2024 9:16 am
    Ponderer,
    The good news is that given OD’s insistence that a person cannot be deemed a criminal, unless and until they have their due process in the form of a criminal trial, we won’t hear from him any loose talk about the “Biden crime family” or other scurrilous accusations about Joe or Hunter Biden.

    In fact, I expect lengthy and full throated defenses of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden from OD, with lots of constitutional references.


  5. by oldedude on January 1, 2024 9:43 am
    Disqualification is not punishment. They are in no way equitably comparable. Not that a conservative would understand that. A thirteen year old child is not being punished by not being qualified to have a drivers license. And they are certainly not being denied Life, Liberty, or Property by not meeting the qualifications for one.
    Bullshit. You are refusing a right otherwise given to a person, based on the "ASS sumption" of guilt. Yes, your post makes you both look like bigger asses than you are (and one of yours is huge already). That's the definition of wrongful due process.

    And pedojoe has NOT been charged, tried, and found guilty. curt's "nothing there" is also bullshit, and he uses the same defense of "boobgraze" sniff your hair pedophilejoe.

    As I've said before. If you can charge trumpster, you can charge pedojoe. Simple as that. Without due process, it's either both can be charged, or no one can be charged. Simple as that. Make your legal cases. NOT from your "heart" and what you "think." Neither will stand up in court without caselaw and facts.


  6. by oldedude on January 1, 2024 10:36 am
    You really needed to actually look at the background of what you post.

    1. Lincoln and Johnson "pardoned" confederate soldiers below the rank of Colonel with a few exceptions.

    2. Those above Colonel and ALL politicians were only granted pardons on a case by case basis.

    3. Mosby was the most notable that was pardoned, and he was pardoned by US Grant. He never surrendered his men to the Union Army. He was also charged with insurrection prior to that.

    So honestly, your "assumption" of this thread is based on bullshit.
    en.wikipedia.org


  7. by oldedude on January 1, 2024 10:37 am
    Since you have seem to have missed it, the point of my article above was that the drafters put 14th amendment were well aware that it did not provide those people it disqualified from holding public office a courtroom remedy, which you think is the only due process.

    I don't think "it is only about due process." As I've said multiple times (and you STILL just don't read), due process is qualifier for ALL US LAW (and commonlaw for wrongagain). I have agreed that IF you include due process, I am more than happy to have him barred. That's not wrong. I welcome it! and using civil war era arguments isn't "contemporary." (See above)


    My point, as it ALWAYS HAS BEEN, is that you and your other psychotic followers is to just follow the fucking law. That's all. It's as simple as that. You refuse to. Your move is Anti-constitutional at best. Your demand we violate the basic tenant of the law and constitution tells me you hate the laws we live in and you just wipe your arse with it. Man the fuck up and play by the same rules as everyone else. If you're not playing by the legal rules, then your Führer is ripe for charges. We need to start that immediately.


  8. by Curt_Anderson on January 1, 2024 12:13 pm
    “ Your demand we violate the basic tenant of the law and constitution tells me you hate the laws we live in and you just wipe your arse with it. Man the fuck up and play by the same rules as everyone else.” —OD

    Ok, you win. I have decided to allow Donald Trump’s name to remain on the ballots. However, I cannot promise what the courts will decide in light of the constitutional arguments against it.

    Do mind if I comment on the validity of those arguments?


  9. by islander on January 1, 2024 12:34 pm

    ”Then make it a legal case” ~ oldedude

    So you now seem to realize that this is not a criminal trial that we are conducting here but it’s up to Donald Trump (not us) to make it a legal case if he wants and I think he has already begun to appeal which he has every right to do and then ‘that’ would be a legal case.

    What we are doing here is justifying why we think Trump did or did not engage in insurrection and try to stop the vote count in order to turn over the valid results of our presidential election. And we are arguing whether or not the Secretary of States, by fulfilling their duty to determine whether or not a candidate qualifies to be on that state’s ballot is depriving Trump of his right to “due process under the law”.

    Trump is not being denied due process and we all have the right to conclude that he engaged in insurrection and tried to stop the vote count or that he didn’t.

    So far this is playing out exactly as it should under the law.













  10. by HatetheSwamp on January 1, 2024 1:06 pm

    The good news is that given OD’s insistence that a person cannot be deemed a criminal, unless and until they have their due process in the form of a criminal trial, we won’t hear from him any loose talk about the “Biden crime family” or other scurrilous accusations about Joe or Hunter Biden.

    OD has been arguing that "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" should be kept off the ballot because of Crime Family activities!!!!!?

    Do tell.


  11. by Ponderer on January 1, 2024 1:49 pm

    "You are refusing a right otherwise given to a person, based on the "ASS sumption" of guilt." -olde dude

    YES! In the case of a thirteen year old wanting a drivers license, the system most certainly does! A court trial with a guilty verdict is not required to deem them unqualified if they can't prove that they are at least sixteen years of age or whatever for that state.

    A thirteen year old child HAS NO "RIGHT" to have a state issued drivers license because they do not meet the qualifications to be granted one.

    Just as Donald Trump has no right to be on a ballot for, or serve in public office because his multiple and well established insurrectionist engagements disqualify him for the position. By blatant virtue of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.


    "1. Lincoln and Johnson "pardoned" confederate soldiers below the rank of Colonel with a few exceptions.

    2. Those above Colonel and ALL politicians were only granted pardons on a case by case basis.

    3. Mosby was the most notable that was pardoned, and he was pardoned by US Grant. He never surrendered his men to the Union Army. He was also charged with insurrection prior to that."
    -olde dude

    And you know what, od? That's all as may be. And yet Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, were it in place when these pardons were handed down, would still disqualify them from holding public office.

    Pardons, schmardons. All those do is get someone out of prison, or keep them from going there, for being convicted of crimes that they are still just as legally guilty of as when they were sentenced.


    You know, this is a great example of what I have been talking about. How you post irrelevant and non sequitur information that you believe somehow is proof of your side of an argument that no one but you is having. Such pardons as you presented are irrelevant to a discussion of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. You have proven nothing that refutes what we are and have been saying all this time, od.

    This is what I have been talking about. It makes discussing things with you so difficult.



  12. by Curt_Anderson on January 1, 2024 2:02 pm
    "1. Lincoln and Johnson "pardoned" confederate soldiers below the rank of Colonel with a few exceptions.“

    Lincoln never pardoned any confederate soldiers.


  13. by Ponderer on January 1, 2024 2:58 pm

    Oh! thanks, Curt. I didn't even realize that he was lying. I assumed, for some reason, that he knew what he was talking about. Silly me.



  14. by oldedude on January 1, 2024 4:26 pm
    po- Please correct your cranial/rectal inversion. It's really getting annoying.


  15. by Ponderer on January 2, 2024 6:44 am

    od, this one time I may have been lax in the consideration of your propensity to simply make bullshit up. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that I had my head up my ass about it. You are exaggerating. As usual.

    But you have a point. I'll take your suggestion to heart and from here on be more alert to the overwhelming likelihood of your dishonesty.


  16. by oldedude on January 2, 2024 7:22 am
    My claim has been supported by Cornell Law, SCOTUS decisions since 1900, and several other cites which you apparently haven't read. You have cited "your feelings." Period. End of story. That is the cranial/rectal inversion for you (all). Your "feelings" hold ZERO legal weight. Again, nobody cares about what you "feel" you know. It's the legal definitions that count.


  17. by oldedude on January 2, 2024 10:10 am
    Just as Donald Trump has no right to be on a ballot for, or serve in public office because his multiple and well established insurrectionist engagements disqualify him for the position. By blatant virtue of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
    Cite the case where he was found guilty. It really is that easy. You just said that trumpster can legally otherwise run for president if he didn't do the insurrection. All I'm asking for is the reference to the trial and charges. Otherwise, you're bullshit.


  18. by HatetheSwamp on January 2, 2024 10:15 am

    OD,

    The longer this goes on, the more obvious it becomes, to me, that po's argument is, "I EFFINd@ngwant Trump to have been involved in an insurrection. The truth be darned. I want what I want. AND, I center the universe."


  19. by oldedude on January 2, 2024 10:30 am
    Yeah, and curt's no better.😞


  20. by HatetheSwamp on January 2, 2024 10:40 am

    You're right about Curt. Still, part of me suspects... EFFINhopes... he's just imitating po...

    ...and, merely pretending to be a numbskull.


Go To Top

Comment on: "Contemporary congressional arguments drafting the 14th Amendment. Due process for the first to be barred from office."

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page