The Sweep and Force of Section Three 172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three. First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Where's the evidence Trump did any of those things? Post it up consuelo.
The Sweep and Force of Section Three 172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three. First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.
Good luck with that theory of the case.
CamelToe actually funded legal support for actual insurrectionists of BLM/antifa who clearly were rioting against constitutional order. And yet she remains as the dazzler's vice-president. Go figure.
Great theory.
Back it up.
But you won’t.
It was really nothing more than your reflexive “whataboutism”, as anyone who’s ever read your stuff knows.
So, an actual insurrection against constitutional order is "whataboutism" which had the support of local Seattle authorities, through the Washington governor's office through almost every dem congressman during the summer of love but Trump asking for a peaceful protest is the real problem. You think that "due process" and free speech is superseded by Section 3 and that a political hack like yourself is all that is necessary to disqualify someone who challenges an election like almost any major dem politician has?
Remember when the dementia patient supported Bush's 2000 election?
Al Gore speaking recently in Nashville In some ways, the dispute over the 2000 presidential election will never end.
Witness Vice President Biden's comments Wednesday about predecessor Al Gore.
"This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended. "No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation."
George W. Bush was declared the winner in the deciding state of Florida in 2000 after an (obviously) still-disputed ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that essentially stopped a recount in the Sunshine State.
The Sweep and Force of Section Three 172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three. First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Where's the evidence Trump did any of those things? Post it up consuelo.
The Sweep and Force of Section Three 172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three. First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.
Good luck with that theory of the case.
CamelToe actually funded legal support for actual insurrectionists of BLM/antifa who clearly were rioting against constitutional order. And yet she remains as the dazzler's vice-president. Go figure.
Great theory.
Back it up.
But you won’t.
It was really nothing more than your reflexive “whataboutism”, as anyone who’s ever read your stuff knows.
So, an actual insurrection against constitutional order is "whataboutism" which had the support of local Seattle authorities, through the Washington governor's office through almost every dem congressman during the summer of love but Trump asking for a peaceful protest is the real problem. You think that "due process" and free speech is superseded by Section 3 and that a political hack like yourself is all that is necessary to disqualify someone who challenges an election like almost any major dem politician has?
Remember when the dementia patient supported Bush's 2000 election?
Al Gore speaking recently in Nashville In some ways, the dispute over the 2000 presidential election will never end.
Witness Vice President Biden's comments Wednesday about predecessor Al Gore.
"This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended. "No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation."
George W. Bush was declared the winner in the deciding state of Florida in 2000 after an (obviously) still-disputed ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that essentially stopped a recount in the Sunshine State.
Yeah, this is exactly like directing an armed and violent mob to the Capitol to interrupt certification. Strong work, Gasbag!
The Sweep and Force of Section Three 172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three. First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Where's the evidence Trump did any of those things? Post it up consuelo.
The Sweep and Force of Section Three 172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three. First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.
Good luck with that theory of the case.
CamelToe actually funded legal support for actual insurrectionists of BLM/antifa who clearly were rioting against constitutional order. And yet she remains as the dazzler's vice-president. Go figure.
Great theory.
Back it up.
But you won’t.
It was really nothing more than your reflexive “whataboutism”, as anyone who’s ever read your stuff knows.
So, an actual insurrection against constitutional order is "whataboutism" which had the support of local Seattle authorities, through the Washington governor's office through almost every dem congressman during the summer of love but Trump asking for a peaceful protest is the real problem. You think that "due process" and free speech is superseded by Section 3 and that a political hack like yourself is all that is necessary to disqualify someone who challenges an election like almost any major dem politician has?
Remember when the dementia patient supported Bush's 2000 election?
Al Gore speaking recently in Nashville In some ways, the dispute over the 2000 presidential election will never end.
Witness Vice President Biden's comments Wednesday about predecessor Al Gore.
"This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended. "No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation."
George W. Bush was declared the winner in the deciding state of Florida in 2000 after an (obviously) still-disputed ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that essentially stopped a recount in the Sunshine State.
Yeah, this is exactly like directing an armed and violent mob to the Capitol to interrupt certification. Strong work, Gasbag!
The Sweep and Force of Section Three 172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three. First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.
Good luck with that theory of the case.
CamelToe actually funded legal support for actual insurrectionists of BLM/antifa who clearly were rioting against constitutional order. And yet she remains as the dazzler's vice-president. Go figure.
Great theory.
Back it up.
But you won’t.
It was really nothing more than your reflexive “whataboutism”, as anyone who’s ever read your stuff knows.
So, an actual insurrection against constitutional order is "whataboutism" which had the support of local Seattle authorities, through the Washington governor's office through almost every dem congressman during the summer of love but Trump asking for a peaceful protest is the real problem. You think that "due process" and free speech is superseded by Section 3 and that a political hack like yourself is all that is necessary to disqualify someone who challenges an election like almost any major dem politician has?
Remember when the dementia patient supported Bush's 2000 election?
Al Gore speaking recently in Nashville In some ways, the dispute over the 2000 presidential election will never end.
Witness Vice President Biden's comments Wednesday about predecessor Al Gore.
"This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended. "No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation."
George W. Bush was declared the winner in the deciding state of Florida in 2000 after an (obviously) still-disputed ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that essentially stopped a recount in the Sunshine State.
Yeah, this is exactly like directing an armed and violent mob to the Capitol to interrupt certification. Strong work, Gasbag!
The Sweep and Force of Section Three 172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three. First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.
Good luck with that theory of the case.
CamelToe actually funded legal support for actual insurrectionists of BLM/antifa who clearly were rioting against constitutional order. And yet she remains as the dazzler's vice-president. Go figure.
Great theory.
Back it up.
But you won’t.
It was really nothing more than your reflexive “whataboutism”, as anyone who’s ever read your stuff knows.
So, an actual insurrection against constitutional order is "whataboutism" which had the support of local Seattle authorities, through the Washington governor's office through almost every dem congressman during the summer of love but Trump asking for a peaceful protest is the real problem. You think that "due process" and free speech is superseded by Section 3 and that a political hack like yourself is all that is necessary to disqualify someone who challenges an election like almost any major dem politician has?
Remember when the dementia patient supported Bush's 2000 election?
Al Gore speaking recently in Nashville In some ways, the dispute over the 2000 presidential election will never end.
Witness Vice President Biden's comments Wednesday about predecessor Al Gore.
"This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended. "No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation."
George W. Bush was declared the winner in the deciding state of Florida in 2000 after an (obviously) still-disputed ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that essentially stopped a recount in the Sunshine State.
Yeah, this is exactly like directing an armed and violent mob to the Capitol to interrupt certification. Strong work, Gasbag!
Your delusions are grand.
Armed - Ever heard of the 2nd Amendment?
Violent? Like the FBI informants and Capitol Hill undercover stooges?
Or violent like your hero Liz Cheney's Dad's Wars?
The Sweep and Force of Section Three 172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three. First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.
Good luck with that theory of the case.
CamelToe actually funded legal support for actual insurrectionists of BLM/antifa who clearly were rioting against constitutional order. And yet she remains as the dazzler's vice-president. Go figure.
Great theory.
Back it up.
But you won’t.
It was really nothing more than your reflexive “whataboutism”, as anyone who’s ever read your stuff knows.
So, an actual insurrection against constitutional order is "whataboutism" which had the support of local Seattle authorities, through the Washington governor's office through almost every dem congressman during the summer of love but Trump asking for a peaceful protest is the real problem. You think that "due process" and free speech is superseded by Section 3 and that a political hack like yourself is all that is necessary to disqualify someone who challenges an election like almost any major dem politician has?
Remember when the dementia patient supported Bush's 2000 election?
Al Gore speaking recently in Nashville In some ways, the dispute over the 2000 presidential election will never end.
Witness Vice President Biden's comments Wednesday about predecessor Al Gore.
"This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended. "No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation."
George W. Bush was declared the winner in the deciding state of Florida in 2000 after an (obviously) still-disputed ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that essentially stopped a recount in the Sunshine State.
Yeah, this is exactly like directing an armed and violent mob to the Capitol to interrupt certification. Strong work, Gasbag!
Your delusions are grand.
Armed - Ever heard of the 2nd Amendment?
Violent? Like the FBI informants and Capitol Hill undercover stooges?
Or violent like your hero Liz Cheney's Dad's Wars?
It’s apparently dawned on Shit that the original denial the mob was armed was a lie.
The Sweep and Force of Section Three 172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three. First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Where's the evidence Trump did any of those things? Post it up consuelo.
“What January 6 hearings?”potd.
Odd no charges. J6 hearings were a total sham. Remember Buffalo boy. Super violent killer stalking the halls of congress. Until the video came out and he was miraculously released a couple days later since everything J6 said was a lie. Charges against Trump? Been a while. no indictment for J 6? Strange isn't it?
The Sweep and Force of Section Three 172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three. First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Where's the evidence Trump did any of those things? Post it up consuelo.
“What January 6 hearings?”potd.
Odd no charges. J6 hearings were a total sham. Remember Buffalo boy. Super violent killer stalking the halls of congress. Until the video came out and he was miraculously released a couple days later since everything J6 said was a lie. Charges against Trump? Been a while. no indictment for J 6? Strange isn't it?
Newz a little late arriving at your bunker in Bumfuck?
The Sweep and Force of Section Three 172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three. First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Where's the evidence Trump did any of those things? Post it up consuelo.
“What January 6 hearings?”potd.
Odd no charges. J6 hearings were a total sham. Remember Buffalo boy. Super violent killer stalking the halls of congress. Until the video came out and he was miraculously released a couple days later since everything J6 said was a lie. Charges against Trump? Been a while. no indictment for J 6? Strange isn't it?
I get it. It’s been a rough couple weeks for you with these J6 folks getting 15-20 year sentences.
Looks like the “find out” phase is complete for them.
The Sweep and Force of Section Three 172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three. First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.
Good luck with that theory of the case.
CamelToe actually funded legal support for actual insurrectionists of BLM/antifa who clearly were rioting against constitutional order. And yet she remains as the dazzler's vice-president. Go figure.
Great theory.
Back it up.
But you won’t.
It was really nothing more than your reflexive “whataboutism”, as anyone who’s ever read your stuff knows.
So, an actual insurrection against constitutional order is "whataboutism" which had the support of local Seattle authorities, through the Washington governor's office through almost every dem congressman during the summer of love but Trump asking for a peaceful protest is the real problem. You think that "due process" and free speech is superseded by Section 3 and that a political hack like yourself is all that is necessary to disqualify someone who challenges an election like almost any major dem politician has?
Remember when the dementia patient supported Bush's 2000 election?
Al Gore speaking recently in Nashville In some ways, the dispute over the 2000 presidential election will never end.
Witness Vice President Biden's comments Wednesday about predecessor Al Gore.
"This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended. "No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation."
George W. Bush was declared the winner in the deciding state of Florida in 2000 after an (obviously) still-disputed ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that essentially stopped a recount in the Sunshine State.
Yeah, this is exactly like directing an armed and violent mob to the Capitol to interrupt certification. Strong work, Gasbag!
Animal Kingdom gave us one of the best gifs/weapons against shit posting in the history of the internet.
The Sweep and Force of Section Three 172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three. First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.
Good luck with that theory of the case.
CamelToe actually funded legal support for actual insurrectionists of BLM/antifa who clearly were rioting against constitutional order. And yet she remains as the dazzler's vice-president. Go figure.
Great theory.
Back it up.
But you won’t.
It was really nothing more than your reflexive “whataboutism”, as anyone who’s ever read your stuff knows.
So, an actual insurrection against constitutional order is "whataboutism" which had the support of local Seattle authorities, through the Washington governor's office through almost every dem congressman during the summer of love but Trump asking for a peaceful protest is the real problem. You think that "due process" and free speech is superseded by Section 3 and that a political hack like yourself is all that is necessary to disqualify someone who challenges an election like almost any major dem politician has?
Remember when the dementia patient supported Bush's 2000 election?
Al Gore speaking recently in Nashville In some ways, the dispute over the 2000 presidential election will never end.
Witness Vice President Biden's comments Wednesday about predecessor Al Gore.
"This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended. "No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation."
George W. Bush was declared the winner in the deciding state of Florida in 2000 after an (obviously) still-disputed ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that essentially stopped a recount in the Sunshine State.
Yeah, this is exactly like directing an armed and violent mob to the Capitol to interrupt certification. Strong work, Gasbag!
Your delusions are grand.
Armed - Ever heard of the 2nd Amendment?
Violent? Like the FBI informants and Capitol Hill undercover stooges?
Or violent like your hero Liz Cheney's Dad's Wars?
It’s apparently dawned on Shit that the original denial the mob was armed was a lie.
The Sweep and Force of Section Three 172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024) William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen
Abstract: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by for- mer office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal conse- quences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three. First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, super- sedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participa- tion or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over- throw of the 2020 presidential election.
That yearning for “honest discussion” seems to have been short-lived in Daddy’s flock.
Telling a group to protest peacefully and patrioticly isn't an insurrection, Turbo.
Good luck with that theory of the case.
CamelToe actually funded legal support for actual insurrectionists of BLM/antifa who clearly were rioting against constitutional order. And yet she remains as the dazzler's vice-president. Go figure.
Great theory.
Back it up.
But you won’t.
It was really nothing more than your reflexive “whataboutism”, as anyone who’s ever read your stuff knows.
So, an actual insurrection against constitutional order is "whataboutism" which had the support of local Seattle authorities, through the Washington governor's office through almost every dem congressman during the summer of love but Trump asking for a peaceful protest is the real problem. You think that "due process" and free speech is superseded by Section 3 and that a political hack like yourself is all that is necessary to disqualify someone who challenges an election like almost any major dem politician has?
Remember when the dementia patient supported Bush's 2000 election?
Al Gore speaking recently in Nashville In some ways, the dispute over the 2000 presidential election will never end.
Witness Vice President Biden's comments Wednesday about predecessor Al Gore.
"This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended. "No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation."
George W. Bush was declared the winner in the deciding state of Florida in 2000 after an (obviously) still-disputed ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that essentially stopped a recount in the Sunshine State.
Yeah, this is exactly like directing an armed and violent mob to the Capitol to interrupt certification. Strong work, Gasbag!
Your delusions are grand.
Armed - Ever heard of the 2nd Amendment?
Violent? Like the FBI informants and Capitol Hill undercover stooges?
Or violent like your hero Liz Cheney's Dad's Wars?
It’s apparently dawned on Shit that the original denial the mob was armed was a lie.
Comments
Remember when the dementia patient supported Bush's 2000 election?
Al Gore speaking recently in Nashville
In some ways, the dispute over the 2000 presidential election will never end.
Witness Vice President Biden's comments Wednesday about predecessor Al Gore.
"This man was elected president of the United States of America," Biden said at a fundraiser that Gore also attended. "No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation."
George W. Bush was declared the winner in the deciding state of Florida in 2000 after an (obviously) still-disputed ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that essentially stopped a recount in the Sunshine State.
No evidence
Armed - Ever heard of the 2nd Amendment?
Violent? Like the FBI informants and Capitol Hill undercover stooges?
Or violent like your hero Liz Cheney's Dad's Wars?
Progress!
Looks like the “find out” phase is complete for them.
That was one the best seasons too.
I'll wait.
Eight others facing civil disorder or property destruction charges also were charged with possessing weapons, according to the database.
Those weapons included baseball bats, chemical sprays, a captured police officer’s riot shield, a crowbar, fire extinguishers and a metal flagpole.
We'll overthrow the government with fire extinguishers! Attack!
Grow a Dick, @MelloDawg. It's far too late for your buddy @HHusky.