Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Precedent
HHusky
Member Posts: 20,900
in Tug Tavern
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
The precedent likewise confirms that one can “engage” in insurrection without personally committing violent acts. Neither Kenneth Worthy nor Couy Griffin were accused of engaging in violence, yet both were ruled to be disqualified because they knowingly and voluntarily aided violent insurrections. These rulings are consistent with the views of Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who opined in 1867 that when a person has “incited others to engage in [insurrection or] rebellion, he must come under the disqualification.” President Andrew Johnson and his Cabinet approved that interpretation, and Johnson directed officers commanding the Southern military districts to follow it.
Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
The precedent likewise confirms that one can “engage” in insurrection without personally committing violent acts. Neither Kenneth Worthy nor Couy Griffin were accused of engaging in violence, yet both were ruled to be disqualified because they knowingly and voluntarily aided violent insurrections. These rulings are consistent with the views of Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who opined in 1867 that when a person has “incited others to engage in [insurrection or] rebellion, he must come under the disqualification.” President Andrew Johnson and his Cabinet approved that interpretation, and Johnson directed officers commanding the Southern military districts to follow it.
Comments
Wow
You got him this time
Your dime store cut and paste is a pathetic failure
Dishonest hack to his core
Anyway, CREW is either correct about the precedent or it is not. Feel free to show their error.
You won't, of course.
Article 17 of the constitution
Everyone gets it
Almost
I already told you gals you probably have nothing to worry about.
I think Ray Epps would not get this treatment he's the only one besides actual FBI agents inciting anything but then he was working for them!
Have any of the precedent cases mentioned made it to the bigger biased Supreme Court?
I heard that the Colorado GOP is going to have caucuses and not do an election, not sure what effect that will have on the federal election.
To all our investigative poasters, has there ever been a state Supreme Court ruling that included its own stay? First tim I have heard of that happening
Game set match
They might get 9-0 if they duck the merits. I doubt very much they'll get a 9-0 vote on the merits.