By Ponderer January 3, 2024 7:26 am Category: History (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Okay. So if Congress has the power to enforce a law,


...Does that mean that they can simply blow off and ignore the law if it is politically expedient for them to...? That they can refuse to enforce a law they were charged and empowered with enforcing?


Does being empowered to and specifically charged with "enforcing" a law legally mean that Congress doesn't have to enforce it if they don't want to? Even though they are expressly empowered by the law specifically and for the sole purpose of enforcing it?

Seems to me that if they were empowered to do something and they don't, they have abused the power they were given. I know that happens a lot in lots of state cases. This certainly wouldn't be the first time that Congress or any governing body in this country has ignored their sworn duty to enforce a federal law and done whatever they wanted. But what I am getting at is this question:


Is the freedom to not enforce the law they were charged with enforcing included in the powers granted to Congress to enforce it?


I mean, 'cuz if so... what's the fuckingpoint?


?

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on January 3, 2024 7:56 am Actually, po, that's a very good question. And, excuse me for suggesting that it indicates your essential Big Brother-ism. Congress is free to do nuthin. My understanding is that, ultimately, it became unnecessary Congress to exercise its authority, that it will only do so in response to a specific challenge. And, doggonit, the thing is, Congress members could be proposing ways to enforce it right now. That no Dem is, is significant. Or that "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap's" string pullers ain't also is meaningful to me. After all, Dems run the Senate. The Doddering Old Fool could propose a law...as The ONE did with OCare...and promise to sign it...or something close to it...if Congress passes it, Chuck You Schumer could pull out all the stops to get it through the Senate and put pressure on HouseGOPs to pass it, ... or else. by oldedude on January 3, 2024 9:07 am "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Okay. So if Congress has the power to enforce a law, ...Does that mean that they can simply blow off and ignore the law if it is politically expedient for them to...? That they can refuse to enforce a law they were charged and empowered with enforcing? Again, you only read part of the clause. What you missed is "BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION. So if congress feels there is need to change something in the Amendment that needs to be covered, they can. This is why Title IX has changed so many times. It started out as "Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance. Programs that receive Federal funds cannot distinguish among individuals on the basis of race, color or national origin, either directly or indirectly, in the types, quantity, quality or timeliness of program services, aids or benefits that they provide or the manner in which they provide them." It now lists a plethora of things we now think of as "fair" in the workforce and government. I would think you would appreciate the changes. hhs.gov by Curt_Anderson on January 3, 2024 11:20 am Ponderer, Below are a couple of links to scholarly answers to your question. My non-legal, non-academic take on it is that the enforcement clause permits rather than mandates Congress to enforce the provisions of the 14th, especially the civil rights of former slaves. In other words, it's a discretionary power. I suspect that it's not unlike police having the power to enforce highway speeding laws, but they are not obligated to stop every driver doing over 65 mph. constitutioncenter.org constitution.findlaw.com by HatetheSwamp on January 3, 2024 12:08 pm Hey, Curt. FYI, pb's Legal Goober #3'll be on with that gay Guy you never heard of today at 2:05 PDT. Fox News Radio. If you're interested in truth, check im out. by HatetheSwamp on January 3, 2024 12:09 pm Sorry. PST. by Curt_Anderson on January 3, 2024 12:20 pm You wonder why I rarely look at (or listen to) your links that allegedly support your claims here. I am not going to listen to FOX radio or TV show. I am not going watch a lengthy YouTube video to hear paid pundit say something that you probably misconstrued. If you have link to an article with the pertinent sentence(s) quoted, I will look at that, in fact I have in the past. by HatetheSwamp on January 3, 2024 12:42 pm You wonder why I rarely look at (or listen to) your links that allegedly support your claims here. I am not going to listen to FOX radio or TV show. Hence your ignorance. I subscribe to MSNBC on YouTube because I don't fear anyone's truth. And, c'mon man. Gimme a break. Classic lib Alan Dershowitz a paid conservative political pundit. Keehee hoo. Please. Tell me you're joshin. Please! by Curt_Anderson on January 3, 2024 1:30 pm Dershowitz is certainly paid as a legal pundit. You don't think these people appear on TV for free do you?! If they are promoting their book or something, they might not get paid. Dershowitz is the classic devil's advocate. He likes making the legally dubious often unique argument whether it supports the right or left side. by HatetheSwamp on January 3, 2024 2:03 pm Obviously, you don't informed yourself with Dershowitz' wisdom. He always holds up a copy of one of his recent books... or both. And, he appears on multiple networks. But, he does have a record of accurately analyzing how cases will be adjudicated. by Ponderer on January 3, 2024 2:16 pm Thanks, Curt! by Ponderer on January 3, 2024 2:28 pm So I guess if I'm understanding this right, it's basically that Congress is empowered to enforce these laws, which were designed to keep an insurrectionist enemy of the country from taking public office, but Congress can, at its discretion, completely ignore these laws if enough of 'em want to allow an insurrectionist enemy of the country to take the highest office in the land. Well. Okay. 😢 As long as the original intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment has been honored, I suppose I can live with it. by Curt_Anderson on January 3, 2024 2:38 pm Ponderer, Except the congressional power to enforce was to protect former slaves’ civil rights. by HatetheSwamp on January 3, 2024 2:42 pm Curt, Your gay Guy just finished the #3 interview. Good stuff. You can still look up the podcast at your convenience. Andy McCarthy is a GOP but, more than that, a federal prosecutor of decades. He's very professorial. He's far from partisan...and, absolutely, ain't MAGA. And, the gay Guy reeeeeeeally ain't MAGA. pb notes that he seeks sources of information that counterbalance the preferences and prejudices that he brings with him to every moment of his life. He recommends that you do the same. As I listen, it strikes me that you'd be well off to check out the GOPs who ain't MAGA. When they talk Trump, you'd groove. Anyway, good stuff. Your loss. by Indy! on January 3, 2024 6:42 pm by Curt_Anderson on January 3, 2024 11:20 am Ponderer, Below are a couple of links to scholarly answers to your question. My non-legal, non-academic take on it is that the enforcement clause permits rather than mandates Congress to enforce the provisions of the 14th, especially the civil rights of former slaves. In other words, it's a discretionary power. I suspect that it's not unlike police having the power to enforce highway speeding laws, but they are not obligated to stop every driver doing over 65 mph. Thank god for that. Down here they don't care if you're doing 85 on the highway as long as you're not being an idiot about it. They're speeding too. by Ponderer on January 4, 2024 6:22 am Yeah. I think I get it. It's like how the police who responded to the Uvalde school shooting were only exercising their discretion to fulfill their obligation to protect those children and teachers or not. They didn't really even have to bother showing up if they didn't want to. Or how a cop can come upon a mugging taking place twenty feet away from him and doesn't have to do anything about it if he doesn't want to. He can fulfill his obligation and sworn duty to his job or not. At his discretion. Either way, he has enforced the law as he is charged to do. Especially if the mugger happens to be a golfing buddy of his and the old lady getting mugged was his landlord who he thinks cheated him years ago. That'll teach the old bitty. Yeah I get it now. 👍 by Ponderer on January 4, 2024 6:35 am Apparently, and I have heard this from cops before, when a cop pulls over another cop for a traffic infraction, they will not give them a ticket once they realize the driver is another cop. It's like a brotherhood thing that cops will not give other cops a ticket even when they were blatantly breaking the law. So does this situation fall under normal allowed discretion in enforcing the law as they are sworn to do? Or is it an unspoken institutional abuse of power? By what stretch of a sane imagination are such cops enforcing the law as they are charged to by allowing certain people they like to break the law with impunity? Thoughts...? Anyone...? by Ponderer on January 4, 2024 6:47 am "I suspect that it's not unlike police having the power to enforce highway speeding laws, but they are not obligated to stop every driver doing over 65 mph." -Curt I am afraid that your analogy is way too simplistic for this issue, Curt. We aren't talking about a situation where so many crimes are going on that the cops can't go after all of them and have to use discretion. We're talking about a completely different situation here. Where a cop pulls someone over for speeding and then lets them go because it's some friend of theirs. And THAT is not unlike the situation we have here with the Republicans in Congress, where they are obligated and sworn to enforce the laws of the Constitution, including Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, allowing a known and proven insurrectionist to become president, which the Constitution expressly forbids, because the insurrectionist is a friend of theirs. by oldedude on January 4, 2024 6:58 am Again, indy is 40 years behind the times. Now days, if a cop is pulled over for a DUI, the shift supervisor is called to affect the arrest. The reason for that? Favoritism is an ethics violation on the force, and the officer releasing a drunk on the road is an IA complaint. The non-arresting officer would be put on leave during the investigation, then usually fired. This IS a big change. Did it happen before? all the time. There have been cases where the officer was let go, or actually driven back to their house and released. It doesn't bode will for the court of public opinion or the trust of the department. There are also legal issues about the safety of the public. This same issue goes with domestic violence charges. Even though a guilty verdict will end an officer's career (by law). Anymore, cops don't even take a "free" meal. If it's "free" the tip is worth the meal and a good tip so there's no question of impropriety. And I will say there are some jurisdictions (generally larger cities) that may look at this differently, but it's become a standard with most local jurisdictions, and all federal agencies. by Ponderer on January 4, 2024 9:09 am So olde dude, it seems that you think then that it would at least be an ethics violation for Republicans in Congress to try to ignore their enforcement of the Constitution and facilitate the sitting of a known insurrectionist to the position of president just because they want him there. That's something at least I suppose. by HatetheSwamp on January 4, 2024 9:51 am So olde dude, it seems that you think then that it would at least be an ethics violation for Republicans in Congress to try to ignore their enforcement of the Constitution and facilitate the sitting of a known insurrectionist to the position of president... I think that goes without saying. by oldedude on January 4, 2024 9:58 am As long as it's done LEGALLY. I know the left doesn't believe in due process, just just like the "Kim's" of DPRK, China since the "Cultural Revolution," Iran murdering protestors by the hundreds or thousands in some cases, etcetcetc. AND I FULLY SUPPORT IT. I honestly think the requirements are too lax, although obviously sedition, treason, insurrection, etc should be at the top of the list. Po? I still haven't seen from anyone that has actually charged trumpster with any of those. But I guess you'd just let it sit and wait for me to forget it since you don't have anything. by oldedude on January 4, 2024 10:16 am Curt- Reference #3. Congress adopted the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, five years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. While the previous amendment ended slavery in the United States, the Fourteenth ensured all people were treated equally under the law. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from passing laws that disadvantaged people who were formerly enslaved. And as we see in the "enforcement clause," the amendment also grants the federal government the power to enforce it. First, the Emancipation Proclamation, only freed slaves in the South, not the US. The northern rich wouldn't agree to letting their slaves go. "the announcement made by President Lincoln during the Civil War on September 22, 1862, emancipating all slaves in states still engaged in rebellion against the Union. Although implementation was strictly beyond Lincoln's powers, the declaration turned the war into a crusade against slavery. It went into effect on January 1, 1863." The second part is NOT discretionary. take on it is that the enforcement clause permits rather than mandates Congress to enforce the provisions of the 14th, especially the civil rights of former slaves. In other words, it's a discretionary power. Any time you see MANDATES, it's required. If they say "may" it's discretionary. mandatory adjective man·​da·​to·​ry ˈman-də-ˌtȯr-ē : containing or constituting a command : being obligatory Can and may are most frequently interchangeable in uses denoting possibility; because the possibility of one's doing something may depend on another's acquiescence, they have also become interchangeable in the sense denoting permission. bing.com merriam-webster.com merriam-webster.com by Ponderer on January 5, 2024 7:58 am "As long as it's done LEGALLY." -olde dude I see. So if they can legally shirk their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States in order to install their party's insurrectionist dictator into the White House, that's just peachy keen with you. I see. No harm, no foul, right? If America is to be destroyed, you simply want to make sure that it's done within the confines of the law and the Constitution. The same law and Constitution that Donald Trump has vociferously stated his every intention of shitcanning at his earliest possible presidential convenience. I see. by Ponderer on January 5, 2024 8:00 am "Po? I still haven't seen from anyone that has actually charged trumpster with any of those." -olde dude I'm not sure what you are talking about there. Those what? by HatetheSwamp on January 5, 2024 8:10 am I see. So if they can legally shirk their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States in order to install their party's insurrectionist dictator into the White House, that's just peachy keen with you. I see. I see, OD. You do still beat your wife. Baha. Keehee, ha! by oldedude on January 5, 2024 1:41 pm "As long as it's done LEGALLY." -olde dude So if they can legally shirk their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States in order to install their party's insurrectionist dictator into the White House, that's just peachy keen with you. I see. No harm, no foul, right? If America is to be destroyed, you simply want to make sure that it's done within the confines of the law and the Constitution. I'm sorry! I just "assumed" you knew an insurrection was illegal also! Apparently you don't!🤣 Although that should come as no surprise, with you wanting to burn down buildings and all.🤔 by Ponderer on January 5, 2024 1:52 pm See? This is why I am essentially forced to call you morons morons. You can't even answer a simple question. But don't worry though. I got my answer. The way you evaded the question made it loud and clear where you stand on the subject of the country being handed over to an insurrectionist Republican dictator. by HatetheSwamp on January 5, 2024 2:03 pm po, I think OD'd be groovy if I admit that, when we whisper between ourselves, we openly wish we were smart enuff to be you... and we do try... flailingly. by oldedude on January 5, 2024 7:49 pm "So if they can legally shirk their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States in order to install their party's insurrectionist dictator into the White House, that's just peachy keen with you. I see. No harm, no foul, right? If America is to be destroyed, you simply want to make sure that it's done within the confines of the law and the Constitution." I'm sorry, it was just too funny... So let's take a look at the 14th Amendment like we've been doing for over a week. It starts out with saying the amendment covers all persons, and is mandated to the states (so they have to conform to this also). It also says that "due process" is ALWAYS a necessary part of the law (no exceptions). Then it goes in to what you're talking about. You're missing the FIRST section completely. It says trumpster (or anyone for that matter) must have a trial first. Welcome to due process. You CAN'T proceed to section three without going to section ONE first. IF they have a trial and he's found guilty, I agree he should be kept from the ballot. If they have a trial and he's found NOT GUILTY, he's free to campaign for the position. Not that I like that, but that's the way life goes. I know this doesn't make any sense to you, as you skip the due process part. That's a psychological thing and has nothing to do with the law. Again. It's been awhile we've talked about this and you still don't get one of the fundamental rights we have. If he is OTHERWISE ELIGABLE to run, and this is the reason you're not allowing him to do something he is OTHERWISE ELIGABLE to do, you are denying him of his rights. If you use curt's stupid "comparison"🙄, obomber is not OTHERWISE ELIGABLE because he's already had two terms. I think you understand my first answer better. This one include legal language😱 by Curt_Anderson on January 5, 2024 8:10 pm You seem to think Section 1 provides Trump a trial and a good defense. But I don’t see anybody, not even Trump’s lawyers bringing that up. by Ponderer on January 5, 2024 8:12 pm Yeah, but then there's still the issue of him having engaged in insurrection. State supreme court judges in the position of making the decision have already examined the evidence and come to the conclusion that he engaged in insurrection, which disqualifies him from being on their states' ballots. There's plenty of due process going on if you want some. What... you aren't actually expecting a jury trial for this are you...? by oldedude on January 5, 2024 9:59 pm You seem to think Section 1 provides Trump a trial and a good defense. I already went through EXACTLY THIS twice now. Although I went in to more detail because I thought by taking it down a couple of notches, you'd understand this really easy concept. This is all I'm going to waste my time with. The amendment is on a 2nd grade level. Figure it out. You can fucking google it and actually learn something. To quote the 14th Amendment, section one. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." po. you're a total lost fucking cause. There are only THESE THINGS The U.S. Constitution states that the president must: Be a natural-born citizen of the United States Be at least 35 years old Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years Anyone who meets these requirements can declare their candidacy for president. Once a candidate raises or spends more than $5,000 for their campaign, they must register with the Federal Election Commission. That includes naming a principal campaign committee to raise and spend campaign funds. That seems pretty EFFING clear to me. po- You're putting the cart before the horse. HE MEETS ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. end of story. Then you flip over to the 14th Amendment. NOW you have to read that regarding "INSURRECTION." So I have ALWAYS been saying before you take his rights from him, you have to charge him. Then find him guilty. THAT'S THE LAW. law.justia.com by Curt_Anderson on January 5, 2024 10:15 pm OD, Interesting legal explanation. Why aren't Trump's legal team making that case? They are using every other ludicrous argument. by oldedude on January 6, 2024 5:16 am I dunno. They're two separate things. Although there are a couple of more issues you don't bring up that may have those in them. Such as the AG having TDS. If they show his lack of due process was from that, he also discredits her as someone that can't make any logical choice in "equal justice under the law." And how can she be an AG with another primary principal in the US and a pillar in the legal system. by Ponderer on January 6, 2024 6:48 am "po- You're putting the cart before the horse. HE MEETS ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. end of story." -olde dude Except for the part of the story in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States where it declares him disqualified to hold the office of president for having engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution and gave aid and comfort to enemies thereof. The thing that you are apparently totally oblivious to, or simply refuse to acknowledge, about the 14th Amendment is that it is a thing known as an "amendment". Here... maybe this will help you... amendment [ uh-mend-muhnt ] noun 1. the act of amending or the state of being amended. 2. an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc. 3. a change made by correction, addition, or deletion: The editors made few amendments to the manuscript. See, there have been several of these "amendments" to the Constitution over the decades. That's where changes, additions, or deletions have been implemented to it by following a very strict procedure with minimum requirements that must legally be met to "amend" it. I am even pretty sure that linguistically, it's why they call them "amendments". Your opinion and focus on the original requirements in the Constitution for holding the office of president seem to be impervious to any later amendment (see definition above) to it. As if subsequent amendments to the Constitution are absolutely irrelevant and meaningless as far as you are concerned. Unfortunately, that is just not a sustainable or supportable legal opinion, I am sorry to tell you. You're just wrong. So anyway... Suffice to say, as of this date, the constitutional requirements that a candidate must meet to hold the office of president are: • Be a natural-born citizen of the United States • Be at least 35 years old • Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years • Shall not have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. See, that last one is there now because of that section of that amendment I was just talking about. You don't get to pretend that it's 1860 or any time before the Amendment was added. It's now just as much a part of the Constitution and the legal requirements to hold the office of president as the original articles of it are. You don't get to blow off that last bullet point just because it was added well after the original drafting of the Constitution. It is a legitimate and legal amendment. "To quote the 14th Amendment, section one. 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'" -olde dude 😲 OH!!! So NOW you want to recognize and cite an amendment to the Constitution...! Section one of the 14th amendment has tremendously sacred meaning to you, is undeniable in it's simple wording, and is to be taken absolutely literally in your book. But Section three of the 14th Amendment...? Well fuckTHATshit! The monumentally vast degree of flailing wild unbridled hypocrisy coming from you on this is utterly flabbergasting, od. And the truly funny part about all this is that Section 1 of the 14th in no way at all applies in any way whatsoever to negating Section 3 of the 14th... Donald Trump has not been abridged of any privileges or immunities, nor is he being deprived any life, liberty, or property in any conceivable way by having chosen to take actions that disqualify him from holding the office of president. In fact, he is just as disqualified as any otherwise qualified candidate for the office would be had they also engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution and given aid and comfort to enemies of thereof. I hope I cleared this all up for you, od. by HatetheSwamp on January 6, 2024 7:35 am That's okay, OD. We know it cleared nuthin up. But, I hope there's someone nearby who can drive you to the ER...if you read all of the circular logic in po's whole post. Your head must be spinning! Reminds me of Vezini's rant on iocane powder in The Princess Bride. If you did, bless you. And, bless you, po, for invoking the memory of Vezini. Baha baha ha! View Video by oldedude on January 6, 2024 7:53 am po- no, you're still way confused. For about the 20th time, You are negating his right, under the Constitution, to run for president, which he is otherwise entitled to do. Therefore, you MUST, BY LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION, PROVE HE IS GUILTY FIRST. I'm done with you if you can't understand it by now, you need to go back and actually read the legal explanations of why this is the CORRECT PROCESS ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION AND OUR LAWS, which you are using to wipe your ass with. This would be funny if it weren't so sad that you know so little about our laws.😞 curt- it dawned on me that trumpsters lawsuit is the SECOND suit in the case. The CO GOP was the first. They brought up the due process issue and is the main thrust of their suit. It's an automatic disqualifier for the state. trumpsters lawyers don't want to say what has already been said. They want to hammer the CO AG as hard as possible. Destroy her career if possible. I'm kind of with you on these, but I don't know what's going on behind the scenes. As long as the outcome were not for CO, he could claim that "he" won the case and the evil empire is broken. Mz Vader has been beaten. All to the cheering crowd. You can't have legal evidence without a trial and it being admitted in court. So none of the "facts" you all watched are "legal evidence" at this point (legal being the operative word). I know it's a technicality, but a big one. The 14th amendment isn't used for trial. It's the result of a trial, and something affects all the others "convicted" of insurrection. For what it's worth, same thing could happen to them (if found guilty of "insurrection" per se, or (I would guess) anything associated with it (treason, sedition, etc). So far, no one has charged him with any of those. So all of these come into play. And the saga continues... by Ponderer on January 6, 2024 8:54 am "You are negating his right, under the Constitution, to run for president, which he is otherwise entitled to do." -olde dude ...Except that he is disqualified from exercising that right by virtue of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment declaring him so because he engaged in insurrection. I am negating nothing. You are negating what is clearly defined in Sec 3 of the 14th. Sec 1 of the 14th does not apply in any way to this situation. Here... Prove it to yourself. Take each of these bullet points from Sec 1 of the 14th and try to explain how any of them are relevant to this situation and you will discover that in fact they are not: • What privilege or immunity has Donald Trump had abridged by his actions having disqualified him from holding the office of president according to Sec 1 of the 14th? • How is Donald Trump being deprived of life by his actions having disqualified him from being president according to Sec 1 of the 14th? • How is Donald Trump being deprived of liberty by his actions having disqualified him from being president according to Sec 1 of the 14th? • How is Donald Trump being deprived of property by his actions having disqualified him from being president according to Sec 1 of the 14th? See? See how stupid your position is? How can you seriously assert that someone who does not meet the constitutional qualifications for holding the office of president still has the "privilege" of holding that office anyway? by Ponderer on January 6, 2024 8:58 am And you know what, od? If you started spouting quotes from the 2nd or 8th or 19th Amendments as justification for your position in this discussion, I would not be "negating" those amendments just because they are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. by HatetheSwamp on January 6, 2024 9:06 am ...Except that he is disqualified from exercising that right by virtue of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment declaring him so because he engaged in insurrection. According to whom, po? by oldedude on January 6, 2024 11:55 am And you know what, od? If you started spouting quotes from the 2nd or 8th or 19th Amendments as justification for your position in this discussion, I would not be "negating" those amendments just because they are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. I've stayed on track. You're only reading "part" of the amendment and taking your "selected" portions without realizing ALL of the law is relevent. So your "beliefs" are based on partial data. You have to read the whole thing. Section One is actually the most important. Section three narrows the reference. And you MUST fulfill section one to get to section three. That's how law is made. I've discussed it. please go back and read my posts. by Ponderer on January 6, 2024 1:00 pm "You have to read the whole thing. Section One is actually the most important. Section three narrows the reference. And you MUST fulfill section one to get to section three. That's how law is made." -olde dude Okay................ So... having read the whole thing... how can you possibly come to the conclusion that Sec 3 doesn't matter a damn? That Sec 1 negates Sec 3 for anyone who that section specifically bars from holding the office? Why would they make a Section 3 that was negated by Section 1? by oldedude on January 6, 2024 4:50 pm Nothing is negated🙄. Section one is the SCOPE of the law. Who is affected and must abide. Section three is a specific point in that law. Like I said thrice today (at least). 1. IF a person is otherwise able to have a freedom or right prior to this law. THEN if they violate section three (in this case) the government must comply with these things in section one to satisfy the law. yetagain..... By the Constitution of who can be president in the US. Trump met all that criteria. DONE. We know that he falls under section one. DONE and the government is REQUIRED to give him DUE PROCESS (just for indy😱). If the government can satisfy that requirement with a conviction, that makes him ineligible to hold the office. It's that easy. If the government cannot prove he violated the law in court, he can run. If they can prove it or not is immaterial. Those are the steps the government must go through to ensure his rights are protected. We had to do the same thing with Alfonso Capone, Dahlmer, OJ, etcetcetc. They would also have to protect your rights if you were arrested. Ask Gainer what's it's like not to have those "rights." Everyone gets them here. You want equal justice under the law? This is the flip side of it. by HatetheSwamp on January 7, 2024 3:16 am po, There's no issue with an insurrectionist being prohibited from EFFINserving as President, among us here at least. What's clear is that it's not up to state judges, nor state bureaucrats, to decide that. This is an issue for the federal government to regulate...through legislation passed by the US Congress. Period. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page