Precedent
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
-
A few dudes from the democrats confederate army
Wow
You got him this time
Your dime store cut and paste is a pathetic failure -
And the cut is from Crew who brought the lawsuit
Dishonest hack to his core -
I'd ignore the GOP participants in these lawsuits too if I were you.
Anyway, CREW is either correct about the precedent or it is not. Feel free to show their error.
You won't, of course. -
Way to narrow it down. SCOTUS will take it from here, kidHHusky said:I'd ignore the GOP participants in these lawsuits too if I were you.
Anyway, CREW is either correct about the precedent or it is not. Feel free to show their error.
You won't, of course. -
I'd ignore that the "violent insurrection" was the Confederate Army attacking the US army with submarines, ships, cannons, mortars, bayonets, rifles, pistols etc, with a Union death toll of over 300,000. Pretty much January 6 in a nutshell without any submarines, ships, cannons, mortars, bayonets, rifles, pistols etc. Only shot fired was at an unarmed protestor.HHusky said:I'd ignore the GOP participants in these lawsuits too if I were you.
Anyway, CREW is either correct about the precedent or it is not. Feel free to show their error.
You won't, of course. -
Yes the GOP participantsHHusky said:I'd ignore the GOP participants in these lawsuits too if I were you.
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 -
We've shown the error
Everyone gets it
Almost -
I would never underestimate the partisan cowardice of this Supreme Court.Sources said:
Way to narrow it down. SCOTUS will take it from here, kidHHusky said:I'd ignore the GOP participants in these lawsuits too if I were you.
Anyway, CREW is either correct about the precedent or it is not. Feel free to show their error.
You won't, of course.
I already told you gals you probably have nothing to worry about. -
Yet they cited NOTHING concerning what Trump did or said. He never told people to attack the capitol and now with the J6 tapes out we know that none of them did.
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! -
How does one differentiate partisan cowardice between the national court and the Colorado court?HHusky said:
I would never underestimate the partisan cowardice of this Supreme Court.Sources said:
Way to narrow it down. SCOTUS will take it from here, kidHHusky said:I'd ignore the GOP participants in these lawsuits too if I were you.
Anyway, CREW is either correct about the precedent or it is not. Feel free to show their error.
You won't, of course.
I already told you gals you probably have nothing to worry about.
