The President’s speech did not contain any surprises, but was an apt warning.
What is more disturbing, and indicative of things to come, is the arrogance the Trump nominees have displayed thus far during their confirmation hearings. The disingenuous smiles, the smirks, the confidently evasive non-answers, t…
The President’s speech did not contain any surprises, but was an apt warning.
What is more disturbing, and indicative of things to come, is the arrogance the Trump nominees have displayed thus far during their confirmation hearings. The disingenuous smiles, the smirks, the confidently evasive non-answers, the continuing denial to confirm the outcome of the 2020 Election.
The only confirmation taking place is that of the neutering of the United States Senate – a neutering in which the Majority party is complicit: They are collaborators, with all the evil that term conjures.
Until about a month ago they controlled the U.S. Senate. If they'd called a vote, they could have ruled the orange felon legally disqualified from ever again holding any public office. The Constitution is most explicit on that.
Article 14, Section Three says a vote on disqualification may free from it anyone who gets 2/3 of both houses of Congress voting for that freedom. If either house votes but does not reach the 2/3 for that freedom (in this case, simply the U.S. Senate), that person, by that vote, remains legally disqualified.
Yes, R Dooley, the current majority party "is complicit," as you say.
But by their failure to affirm disqualification per Article 14, Section Three, Dems, too, "are collaborators, with all the evil that term conjures."
What happens when a Democratic President, working for the greater good of the people goes against the Silicon Valley Oligarchs? His nomination is rescinded. His accomplishments and achievements are tarnished and buried under lies. There is a delicate dance of complex forces necessary to win and then more to sustain the reality. To say Dems are Culpable of over supporting business into oligarchy is true but it’s also oversimplifying.
Ted, here's a brief grammar lesson. In English, we have nouns (person/place/thing) and adjectives (modifiers of nouns). A Democrat usually espouses democratic values, but anyone who believes in democracy, regardless of party affiliation, can self-identify as a democrat rather than as an autocrat.
Not sure you got my point but caught a typo. Biden got hosed because he stood up to Elon and the Zuck to protect the average citizen. Thus became the victim of a $250 million plus disinformation and influence campaign about the economy and identity politics issues. Oligarchs wielding that much power, Democrats are outgunned, out financed, and democracy is in existential peril. ( I’m less worried about my grammar, but sure, thanks for the lesson)
Apparently, disqualification via section 3 of 14th amendment can only be imposed if the person has been found guilty of insurrection. Because Trumps case was never brought to trial, and those who were sentenced for Jan 6th crimes, were not charged with insurrection, it could not be held as a precedent.
The video below outlines this in more detail - you can skip the history lesson and jump ahead 10mins to how it applies to Trump.
Phil, I spent a lot of time researching that. The language of the 14th and the definition of the word "insurrection" do not mention any formal adjudication for insurrection. I suspect that there is a procedural way for a finding of conduct that supports the action of insurrection, and I firmly believe that the lack of any adjudication is what the sticking point is with any findings of insurrection or conduct of insurrection.
The text of the 14th Amendment is very clear, and I firmly believe that a final decision on defining the conduct of January 6 would have to be made by the $upreme Court.
Both houses need to give 2/3 approval to free an insurrectionist of disqualification. Any one house of Congress that denies that 2/3 vote thereby leaves that insurrectionist disqualified from public office.
Supreme Court -- clearly per Article 14, Section Three -- has nothing to do with it.
Phil, I think the sticking point lies in what is insurrectionist conduct and how the conduct is “proved” to be that of insurrectionist behavior.
We get muddled up with definitions, and who decides what constitutes insurrection. In my opinion, what I saw on January 6th was 100% an attempted insurrection. I think this topic is worthy of further study and perhaps establishing some guidelines for identifying such conduct.
The problem with this response is that it utterly ignores the two Supreme Court decisions that disallowed the use of Article Fourteen, section 3 to take Trump off the stage for good. Absent those decisions, we very likley wouldn’t be in this destructive place.
The U.S. Senate, James, could have, should have voted.
Article 14, Section Three vests all power in the houses of Congress finally to decide disqualification. Nobody else. The language is precisely clear. The Supreme Court must honor such expressly clear language. Not even the corrupt Clarence Court can arrogate itself above the highest law of the land.
The d's are complicit through their fears and their inability to actually see what has been going on for 45 years! And if they did see it they were and are completely paralyzed to do anything even when they had the opportunity and the power. Clinton was all in on courting the corporations for money - and the beat goes on and regular people pay and suffer and decline...the next four years will be a living hell for poor people, women, LGBTQ folks and the middle class, not to mention the environment and all the creatures of the Earth.
I appreciate Biden and I think he did a decent job, but let’s face it. The guy is kind of milk toast. He’s old-school. Trying to reconcile with the unreconcilable. we need to go after these people they’re criminals they’re corrupt. And the corruption starts at the head and it’s rotten and it stinks and it needs to be said over and over and over again by every single person who can speak or write.
Unfortunately not only those who hold powerful offices within our government but so-called good religious folk have in my opinion "mysteriously" fallen under the spell of Trump.....or have been terrified at the loss of their jobs or of their life or of having unsavory secrets revealed...if they oppose him.
These are strange times. I have always believed that amongst the hoards of humanity in the USA, we had heroes.
When my little brother and I played "cowboys" we each took turns at being "the bad guy" or " the good guy." The bad guy was always to be defeated....neither of us wanted to play "the bad guy". In today's society...standards have switched!!!!
Rather, Pax, it did not have the 2/3 to convict impeachment.
Article 14, Section Three does not say 2/3 are necessary to prove disqualification. It says, instead, anyone wanting release from disqualification needs 2/3 to release (from both houses of Congress).
Article 14, Section Three was written at a time when everyone knew who Lee was, and Longstreet, and the other Confederate generals.
In our time we all know who the Proud Boys were, and the other "Christian nationalists, and fascist knaves. We all know what the orange felon spent all his time doing prior to Jan. 6. We all know what he did (and didn't do) that day.
The 14th amendment need not specify jury trial or any other normal legal means to designate these in our time insurrectionists. It need not do that. Does not do that. It only provides remedy for anyone wishing release from disqualification. And -- clearly -- anyone getting voted on for such release, and failing to reach the 2/3 constitutionally stipulated for release, remains disqualified.
Phil, the one dream I have is that the people wake up and see that the R’s and the D’s both have major issues. Pointing out that D’s missed the boat on many issues that they could have acted on and didn’t makes me want to create a brand new party. I would call it the Peoples’ Party.
No, John, read it. Read Article 14, Section Three.
The 2/3 vote is required to free one from disqualification. It is not required to disqualify.
Were any insurrectionist innocent of insurrection, a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress could confirm innocence.
Either house voting less than 2/3 on one's wish to be freed of disqualification legally imputes that person as remaining disqualified from any public office.
Read the actual words, John. It's law. The highest law of the land.
Phil, I feel your frustration in trying to explain this. It seems so clear, but the problem is that the mainstream media countered what is true, stating it was impossible to use the 14th amendment, section 3 to disqualify Trump, purposely misleading people. And most people are going with that argument, even though it doesn't hold water. What bothers me is how the Congress did not do their job on January 6th, when this simple act could have saved us all from Trump. And the fact that they chose not to only reinforces what people believe.
''Until about a month ago they controlled the U.S. Senate. If they'd called a vote, they could have ruled the orange felon legally disqualified from ever again holding any public office. The Constitution is most explicit on that.''
To which provision of the Constitution are you referring?
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
No need for conviction, just “engagement” is sufficient to deny holding office to participants in rebellion.
My question is what explicit language in the Constitution states that the Senate has the power sua sponte to make a ruling under the 14th amendment or any other provision of the Constitution.
That is the statement to which I was referring. It is the statement I quoted above my question.
I see what you are saying. The 14th just addresses the removal of a disqualification by 2/3 vote. I’m not a lawyer, but the 14th doesn’t say a conviction is needed for insurrection or giving aid and comfort to the insurgents to be a disqualifying issue.
SCOTUS would need to clarify. To me, the “defendant” would possibly have recourse through the Court after being disqualified by the 14th. Yet, that ruling could nullify the Amendment itself.
Remember the fight over whether the wording applied to the President or just every other office holder other than him.
I wonder why we can’t prevent Trump from holding office. The 14th doesn’t refer to election, just holding. But then we would have a major Constitutional crisis and probably major violence.
Section 3 contains two sentences, the last of which states: ''But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.''
It says nothing about the Senate having the power, sua sponte, to remove anyone from office. The last sentence speaks only to removing the disability, not the process for effectuating the disability described in the first sentence.
As Rick Wilson has Brilliantly put it.... 'Everything That Trump Touches Dies'... DJT has Broken the 'Rule-Of-Law', Torched The Constitution. the 'Checks & Balances', and the USG....
I also saw the evidence that the nominees displayed an arrogance unlike I have ever seen before. The hearings were rigged to only allow one 7 minute question period without additional turns. So, as per the Trump legal strategy, they ran out the clock with non-answers and irrelevant talking points. These candidates were obviously told to “entertain” the base and Trump will ensure their appointments.
tRump never wins unless it is rigged. He cannot win in court unless he has a judge that is corrupt- Cannon - SCOTUS. When faced with a judge that actually upholds the law and or a jury of his peers - HE LOSES. Smith's report proved that.
“… only confirmation taking place is that of the neutering of the United States Senate,” thanks for aptly describing what was happening in the confirmation hearings, they were nauseating to watch.
With the exception of Rubio’s, the hearings were like witnessing a real time meltdown of any remaining bits of character or integrity. As hard as I tried to hear a legitimate Republican question or response, there was not a single one.
The absolute fury Sen. Duckworth must have felt when questioning Hegseth is unimaginable, someone who gave so much (and continues to serve with such honor) for someone who deserves so little (and has no honor).
Charlottesville, New Orleans, Las Vegas, any given school shooting. We are already at war. Myanmar is a good place to look how fast things can deteriorate.
Inequality is a choice and it is determined by our elected officials. I think the unhealthy state of the US economy resides with the Republican party - it undermines the power of workers and eviscerates regulation, which effects health and safety. How to govern the oligarchs and their monopolies so they don't continue to be exploitative, and which have no application to the practical life of normal Americans.
It’s remarkable to me how easily Americans are manipulated by Trump’s lies. Musk has caught on and is likewise spreading lies and misinformation to his vast X following. Zuckerberg allowing lies to spread on FB, Bezos, Murdoch, et al, buying up media and controlling the narrative and info we receive. In spite of our robust economy, thanks to Joe Biden, the media told us that we’re broke because of inflation, but like a miracle, the day after the election. now everyone was feeling much better financially.
I’m still stunned that he was elected president again after literally trying to steal the 2020 election and found guilt of sexual assault and a convicted felon, oh and let’s not forget the two impeachments. He lies as easily as he breathes. WTF?? Everyone lives in their media bubble, but there is zero critical thinking going on right now in our country. That’s where we lose our democracy. I guess our country as we know it has 3 days left.
What i have seen is a bunch of nominees who have been unfairly attacked by lying liberals like Adam Schiff yet have held their composure and clearly indicated that they are ready to start fixing the mess that Biden and company have made.
I do as well Daniel.....shrinking of the federal government, end to lawfare, securing the border, lower inflation, higher real wages, the end of identity politics and dei, return of law and order and the most kick arse military in the history of the world. How can any of that be bad for the lawful citizens of the USA?
I'm not sure in a theoretical sense many if not most would agree. Few want government to over-reach, as when government dictates what health care is available to women. Few want lawfare, from either side, but the creation of a "blacklist" of political enemies has never ended well. The rest? OK let's agree on those, DEI went too far (not all white people are evil), identity politics has a negative side (math is not inherently racist), and the world needs us to have an effective military. But what makes you think Trump is the one to do these things? Why didn't he do these in his first term? What is bothersome is the man has no principles, no ethical grounding, no credibility.
I do believe that Trump has the absolute best chance of accomplishing these things of the 2 candidates. Do you believe Kamala Harris recognizes that dei went too far taking into consideration the fact that she wanted to offer incentives to black people only to start businesses? I use that just as an example. I'm not saying he is perfect but I do believe he loves this country.
I do believe that Trump has the absolute best chance of accomplishing these things of the 2 candidates. Do you believe Kamala Harris recognizes that dei went too far taking into consideration the fact that she wanted to offer incentives to black people only to start businesses? I use that just as an example. I'm not saying he is perfect but I do believe he loves this country.
Yes, I believe Harris was better equipped and more capable to address the issues. Listening to her acceptance speech and interviews it was clear she was a moderate on cultural issues and better on economic ones. we are doing well economically, better than most. Let me know what specific program you are referring to? I am a70 year old white middle class man retired after 30 years of service in law enforcement, the son of white collar middle class WWII combat veteran. And I recognize that I had advantages others did not. I will not say I am privileged as it makes me cringe being a term often misused by those who don't understand the difference between advantage and privilege. Yet, I recognize in a nation dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal, we should do what we can to live up to what we say we are. Details would help, but generally I have no problem with programs intended to further our American Ideal. I suffer no guilt nor am not slighted when others are helped.
I could get into a 'discussion' with you, theff, but I have a treatment to attend to right now. I'll just say, you show signs of possibly emerging from the cult, and I pray you can. The inversion of your above statements is what we'd like for you to look closely at, and then apply them to the real world of today. The hoped-for epiphany may be the final lever to release you from the hold the cult still has on you. Should you agree to accept this self examination, that is. Best of luck.
I hope your treatment goes well Daniel....I say that with all the sincerity in the world as my wife went through dozens of treatments this past year that unfortunately stopped in Sept at age 52. I will pray for your health sir....
Thank you kindly, theff. And my heartfelt condolences. Mine is controllable, as long as I can continue receiving my health care. Sadly, in today's America, that is not guaranteed, particularly beginning next week. For what it's worth, I have a dear friend who leads a wonderful group, and you may be interested. Here's the link: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=9633896239972157&set=g.570328579738314
I hope that will take you to the correct page; I'm a bit of a techno-idiot!
Susan to answer your question I am a hard working middle class American who is hopeful that this nation can become great again. I know you must hate trump but surely you would like to see the bloated federal bureaucracy reduced.....surely you want at least some of the things I mentioned to happen....right?
I'm curious what bloat do you see in the federal government? What specific programs or services would you cut? I am of the mind that we should always be frugal when it comes to government spending and everything can be reformed, updated, or examined to determine if it is relevant, effective and efficacious. It's why we have a OGA. I ask because we have heard this from politicians from every side, but the devil is in the details. We agree no one wants bloat, waste or fraud. But how can one argue we need to cut 2/5 ths of the budget without having a plan?
Gary I do agree that the devil is in the details and it seems like have 2 very successful businessmen who's success can be attributed at least to some extent to controlling and where appropriate eliminating cost to specifically look at cutting costs is a good idea. As for me I would cut any expenses that have to do with diversity, equity and inclusion for starters.
Now since I have addressed your question can you address this....do you believe that the federal government is run efficiently?
Do I believe the federal government is run efficiently? Overall, yes. Consider the administrative costs of the VA and Medicare to those of private health plans. Could we do better? Probably. The problem is people confuse improving efficiency with conceding there is bloat or fraud, or that improving efficiency means the system is inefficient as it exists. Because I want to make a car faster doesn't mean it's slow. So, Why would one think being a successful businessman makes for a good government leader? They are very different entities with very different goals. How is creating DOGE efficient? Creating a commission to do what is already being done. Kind of like creating a Space Force to do what the USAF already did. No, I am not interested in a self serving businessman being the leader of a government meant to serve the people.
Thank you, Professor Richardson.
The President’s speech did not contain any surprises, but was an apt warning.
What is more disturbing, and indicative of things to come, is the arrogance the Trump nominees have displayed thus far during their confirmation hearings. The disingenuous smiles, the smirks, the confidently evasive non-answers, the continuing denial to confirm the outcome of the 2020 Election.
The only confirmation taking place is that of the neutering of the United States Senate – a neutering in which the Majority party is complicit: They are collaborators, with all the evil that term conjures.
Don't let Dems so easily off the hook, R Dooley.
Until about a month ago they controlled the U.S. Senate. If they'd called a vote, they could have ruled the orange felon legally disqualified from ever again holding any public office. The Constitution is most explicit on that.
Article 14, Section Three says a vote on disqualification may free from it anyone who gets 2/3 of both houses of Congress voting for that freedom. If either house votes but does not reach the 2/3 for that freedom (in this case, simply the U.S. Senate), that person, by that vote, remains legally disqualified.
Yes, R Dooley, the current majority party "is complicit," as you say.
But by their failure to affirm disqualification per Article 14, Section Three, Dems, too, "are collaborators, with all the evil that term conjures."
In fact, when you understand how the corporate Dems undermined and marginalized Bernie Sanders, the complicity is clear.
What happens when a Democratic President, working for the greater good of the people goes against the Silicon Valley Oligarchs? His nomination is rescinded. His accomplishments and achievements are tarnished and buried under lies. There is a delicate dance of complex forces necessary to win and then more to sustain the reality. To say Dems are Culpable of over supporting business into oligarchy is true but it’s also oversimplifying.
Ted, here's a brief grammar lesson. In English, we have nouns (person/place/thing) and adjectives (modifiers of nouns). A Democrat usually espouses democratic values, but anyone who believes in democracy, regardless of party affiliation, can self-identify as a democrat rather than as an autocrat.
Not sure you got my point but caught a typo. Biden got hosed because he stood up to Elon and the Zuck to protect the average citizen. Thus became the victim of a $250 million plus disinformation and influence campaign about the economy and identity politics issues. Oligarchs wielding that much power, Democrats are outgunned, out financed, and democracy is in existential peril. ( I’m less worried about my grammar, but sure, thanks for the lesson)
Apparently, disqualification via section 3 of 14th amendment can only be imposed if the person has been found guilty of insurrection. Because Trumps case was never brought to trial, and those who were sentenced for Jan 6th crimes, were not charged with insurrection, it could not be held as a precedent.
The video below outlines this in more detail - you can skip the history lesson and jump ahead 10mins to how it applies to Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykPx58YK-tY
Article 14, Section Three does not say the things you claim it says, Kazz.
Phil, I spent a lot of time researching that. The language of the 14th and the definition of the word "insurrection" do not mention any formal adjudication for insurrection. I suspect that there is a procedural way for a finding of conduct that supports the action of insurrection, and I firmly believe that the lack of any adjudication is what the sticking point is with any findings of insurrection or conduct of insurrection.
The text of the 14th Amendment is very clear, and I firmly believe that a final decision on defining the conduct of January 6 would have to be made by the $upreme Court.
Ally, its text clearly leaves it to Congress.
Both houses need to give 2/3 approval to free an insurrectionist of disqualification. Any one house of Congress that denies that 2/3 vote thereby leaves that insurrectionist disqualified from public office.
Supreme Court -- clearly per Article 14, Section Three -- has nothing to do with it.
Yes, I believe that that should have taken place at the impeachment trial, precluding Trump from ever again holding office.
Phil, I think the sticking point lies in what is insurrectionist conduct and how the conduct is “proved” to be that of insurrectionist behavior.
We get muddled up with definitions, and who decides what constitutes insurrection. In my opinion, what I saw on January 6th was 100% an attempted insurrection. I think this topic is worthy of further study and perhaps establishing some guidelines for identifying such conduct.
I’m only going by the video, is that what you’re referring to Phil.
Phill Balla: I gather you have not heard the breaking news: Trump has the SCOTUS in his pockets.
Not exactly "breaking" news, Veronica.
More so slithering, putrescent oozing, multiply-perjured, stewing corrupt.
I wonder how many legislators of all types come home after work and declare to their families, “Why didn’t we impeach him??”
The problem with this response is that it utterly ignores the two Supreme Court decisions that disallowed the use of Article Fourteen, section 3 to take Trump off the stage for good. Absent those decisions, we very likley wouldn’t be in this destructive place.
The seditionists on the sc are criminals.
The U.S. Senate, James, could have, should have voted.
Article 14, Section Three vests all power in the houses of Congress finally to decide disqualification. Nobody else. The language is precisely clear. The Supreme Court must honor such expressly clear language. Not even the corrupt Clarence Court can arrogate itself above the highest law of the land.
You seem to have missed the meaning of Marbury v Madison.
sounds simple, but it is not that simple. They did not control the senate as you had Sinema and MAnchin who would have sided with the repubs.
No need to control the Senate, Rickey.
Add up all the Republicans, throw in Sinema and Manchin, and there's still not the 2/3 necessary to free the orange felon from disqualification.
Good point, Rickey.
The d's are complicit through their fears and their inability to actually see what has been going on for 45 years! And if they did see it they were and are completely paralyzed to do anything even when they had the opportunity and the power. Clinton was all in on courting the corporations for money - and the beat goes on and regular people pay and suffer and decline...the next four years will be a living hell for poor people, women, LGBTQ folks and the middle class, not to mention the environment and all the creatures of the Earth.
except for Biden, as HCR's column today, and many other days, points out.
I appreciate Biden and I think he did a decent job, but let’s face it. The guy is kind of milk toast. He’s old-school. Trying to reconcile with the unreconcilable. we need to go after these people they’re criminals they’re corrupt. And the corruption starts at the head and it’s rotten and it stinks and it needs to be said over and over and over again by every single person who can speak or write.
Phil Balla,
Unfortunately not only those who hold powerful offices within our government but so-called good religious folk have in my opinion "mysteriously" fallen under the spell of Trump.....or have been terrified at the loss of their jobs or of their life or of having unsavory secrets revealed...if they oppose him.
These are strange times. I have always believed that amongst the hoards of humanity in the USA, we had heroes.
When my little brother and I played "cowboys" we each took turns at being "the bad guy" or " the good guy." The bad guy was always to be defeated....neither of us wanted to play "the bad guy". In today's society...standards have switched!!!!
Religion is just a tool of oppression and control, esp of women and our reproductive system, but also of the mass of ignorant people.
An impeachment hearing already acquitted the man of insurrection.
Rather, Pax, it did not have the 2/3 to convict impeachment.
Article 14, Section Three does not say 2/3 are necessary to prove disqualification. It says, instead, anyone wanting release from disqualification needs 2/3 to release (from both houses of Congress).
Article 14, Section Three was written at a time when everyone knew who Lee was, and Longstreet, and the other Confederate generals.
In our time we all know who the Proud Boys were, and the other "Christian nationalists, and fascist knaves. We all know what the orange felon spent all his time doing prior to Jan. 6. We all know what he did (and didn't do) that day.
The 14th amendment need not specify jury trial or any other normal legal means to designate these in our time insurrectionists. It need not do that. Does not do that. It only provides remedy for anyone wishing release from disqualification. And -- clearly -- anyone getting voted on for such release, and failing to reach the 2/3 constitutionally stipulated for release, remains disqualified.
Weren't there confederates who were reelected after the Civil War? Did they have to apply for release from disqualification?
Phil, the one dream I have is that the people wake up and see that the R’s and the D’s both have major issues. Pointing out that D’s missed the boat on many issues that they could have acted on and didn’t makes me want to create a brand new party. I would call it the Peoples’ Party.
and the chances of a 2/3 vote in the Senate disqualifying Trump were ... how great, again?
That’s right. He WAS impeached twice and republicants — eye witnesses to the insurrection—failed to do the right thing.
No, John, read it. Read Article 14, Section Three.
The 2/3 vote is required to free one from disqualification. It is not required to disqualify.
Were any insurrectionist innocent of insurrection, a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress could confirm innocence.
Either house voting less than 2/3 on one's wish to be freed of disqualification legally imputes that person as remaining disqualified from any public office.
Read the actual words, John. It's law. The highest law of the land.
Phil, I feel your frustration in trying to explain this. It seems so clear, but the problem is that the mainstream media countered what is true, stating it was impossible to use the 14th amendment, section 3 to disqualify Trump, purposely misleading people. And most people are going with that argument, even though it doesn't hold water. What bothers me is how the Congress did not do their job on January 6th, when this simple act could have saved us all from Trump. And the fact that they chose not to only reinforces what people believe.
No, John.
The 14th Amendment, Section Three, does not require a 2/3 vote to disqualify.
It requires a 2/3 vote to free an insurrectionist from disqualification.
If Dems any time had held a vote, that would have legally sealed Trump's fate.
''Until about a month ago they controlled the U.S. Senate. If they'd called a vote, they could have ruled the orange felon legally disqualified from ever again holding any public office. The Constitution is most explicit on that.''
To which provision of the Constitution are you referring?
14th Amendment, Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
No need for conviction, just “engagement” is sufficient to deny holding office to participants in rebellion.
I am familiar with the 14th Amendment.
My question is what explicit language in the Constitution states that the Senate has the power sua sponte to make a ruling under the 14th amendment or any other provision of the Constitution.
That is the statement to which I was referring. It is the statement I quoted above my question.
I see what you are saying. The 14th just addresses the removal of a disqualification by 2/3 vote. I’m not a lawyer, but the 14th doesn’t say a conviction is needed for insurrection or giving aid and comfort to the insurgents to be a disqualifying issue.
SCOTUS would need to clarify. To me, the “defendant” would possibly have recourse through the Court after being disqualified by the 14th. Yet, that ruling could nullify the Amendment itself.
Remember the fight over whether the wording applied to the President or just every other office holder other than him.
I wonder why we can’t prevent Trump from holding office. The 14th doesn’t refer to election, just holding. But then we would have a major Constitutional crisis and probably major violence.
Interesting times.
It is a tangled and thorny issue indeed. You might find this article interesting:
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/can-congress-disqualify-trump-after-the-supreme-court-s-section-3-ruling
Article 14, Section Three, R Dooley.
Read its last lines particularly.
Section 3 contains two sentences, the last of which states: ''But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.''
It says nothing about the Senate having the power, sua sponte, to remove anyone from office. The last sentence speaks only to removing the disability, not the process for effectuating the disability described in the first sentence.
Sadly, R Dooley, correct you are.
Article 14, Section Three "says nothing about the Senate having the power . . . to remove anyone from office."
Dems had their chance. Blew it.
And now the phalanx of U.S. billionaires presents itself to crush the rest of us, and ally with the world's worst dictators, autocrats, oligarchs.
We lost a major battle, Phil, but we have not conceded the war.
We live to fight another day.
As Rick Wilson has Brilliantly put it.... 'Everything That Trump Touches Dies'... DJT has Broken the 'Rule-Of-Law', Torched The Constitution. the 'Checks & Balances', and the USG....
Our country will be another thing Trump wrecks for his convenience. Rick Wilson is right about Trump destroying everything he touches.
I also saw the evidence that the nominees displayed an arrogance unlike I have ever seen before. The hearings were rigged to only allow one 7 minute question period without additional turns. So, as per the Trump legal strategy, they ran out the clock with non-answers and irrelevant talking points. These candidates were obviously told to “entertain” the base and Trump will ensure their appointments.
tRump never wins unless it is rigged. He cannot win in court unless he has a judge that is corrupt- Cannon - SCOTUS. When faced with a judge that actually upholds the law and or a jury of his peers - HE LOSES. Smith's report proved that.
100%
“… only confirmation taking place is that of the neutering of the United States Senate,” thanks for aptly describing what was happening in the confirmation hearings, they were nauseating to watch.
With the exception of Rubio’s, the hearings were like witnessing a real time meltdown of any remaining bits of character or integrity. As hard as I tried to hear a legitimate Republican question or response, there was not a single one.
The absolute fury Sen. Duckworth must have felt when questioning Hegseth is unimaginable, someone who gave so much (and continues to serve with such honor) for someone who deserves so little (and has no honor).
That is when I realized...we, as a nation, are so, so screwed. I believe we will see war on our soil.
Charlottesville, New Orleans, Las Vegas, any given school shooting. We are already at war. Myanmar is a good place to look how fast things can deteriorate.
That thought has crossed my mind, I hope not!
With a foreign nation.
You hit the nail right on the head.
The pain is soul-crushing! If only those aliens who were expected at Rancho Santa Fe could really pick us up...
Nooo! I like life here on Earth!
Those aliens can pick TRUMP up instead - with their probes and suckers, they might be able to work out what is REALLY wrong with him. . .
Inequality is a choice and it is determined by our elected officials. I think the unhealthy state of the US economy resides with the Republican party - it undermines the power of workers and eviscerates regulation, which effects health and safety. How to govern the oligarchs and their monopolies so they don't continue to be exploitative, and which have no application to the practical life of normal Americans.
It’s remarkable to me how easily Americans are manipulated by Trump’s lies. Musk has caught on and is likewise spreading lies and misinformation to his vast X following. Zuckerberg allowing lies to spread on FB, Bezos, Murdoch, et al, buying up media and controlling the narrative and info we receive. In spite of our robust economy, thanks to Joe Biden, the media told us that we’re broke because of inflation, but like a miracle, the day after the election. now everyone was feeling much better financially.
I’m still stunned that he was elected president again after literally trying to steal the 2020 election and found guilt of sexual assault and a convicted felon, oh and let’s not forget the two impeachments. He lies as easily as he breathes. WTF?? Everyone lives in their media bubble, but there is zero critical thinking going on right now in our country. That’s where we lose our democracy. I guess our country as we know it has 3 days left.
What i have seen is a bunch of nominees who have been unfairly attacked by lying liberals like Adam Schiff yet have held their composure and clearly indicated that they are ready to start fixing the mess that Biden and company have made.
I hope, theff, you get everything you voted for.
I do as well Daniel.....shrinking of the federal government, end to lawfare, securing the border, lower inflation, higher real wages, the end of identity politics and dei, return of law and order and the most kick arse military in the history of the world. How can any of that be bad for the lawful citizens of the USA?
I'm not sure in a theoretical sense many if not most would agree. Few want government to over-reach, as when government dictates what health care is available to women. Few want lawfare, from either side, but the creation of a "blacklist" of political enemies has never ended well. The rest? OK let's agree on those, DEI went too far (not all white people are evil), identity politics has a negative side (math is not inherently racist), and the world needs us to have an effective military. But what makes you think Trump is the one to do these things? Why didn't he do these in his first term? What is bothersome is the man has no principles, no ethical grounding, no credibility.
I do believe that Trump has the absolute best chance of accomplishing these things of the 2 candidates. Do you believe Kamala Harris recognizes that dei went too far taking into consideration the fact that she wanted to offer incentives to black people only to start businesses? I use that just as an example. I'm not saying he is perfect but I do believe he loves this country.
I do believe that Trump has the absolute best chance of accomplishing these things of the 2 candidates. Do you believe Kamala Harris recognizes that dei went too far taking into consideration the fact that she wanted to offer incentives to black people only to start businesses? I use that just as an example. I'm not saying he is perfect but I do believe he loves this country.
Yes, I believe Harris was better equipped and more capable to address the issues. Listening to her acceptance speech and interviews it was clear she was a moderate on cultural issues and better on economic ones. we are doing well economically, better than most. Let me know what specific program you are referring to? I am a70 year old white middle class man retired after 30 years of service in law enforcement, the son of white collar middle class WWII combat veteran. And I recognize that I had advantages others did not. I will not say I am privileged as it makes me cringe being a term often misused by those who don't understand the difference between advantage and privilege. Yet, I recognize in a nation dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal, we should do what we can to live up to what we say we are. Details would help, but generally I have no problem with programs intended to further our American Ideal. I suffer no guilt nor am not slighted when others are helped.
I could get into a 'discussion' with you, theff, but I have a treatment to attend to right now. I'll just say, you show signs of possibly emerging from the cult, and I pray you can. The inversion of your above statements is what we'd like for you to look closely at, and then apply them to the real world of today. The hoped-for epiphany may be the final lever to release you from the hold the cult still has on you. Should you agree to accept this self examination, that is. Best of luck.
I hope your treatment goes well Daniel....I say that with all the sincerity in the world as my wife went through dozens of treatments this past year that unfortunately stopped in Sept at age 52. I will pray for your health sir....
Thank you kindly, theff. And my heartfelt condolences. Mine is controllable, as long as I can continue receiving my health care. Sadly, in today's America, that is not guaranteed, particularly beginning next week. For what it's worth, I have a dear friend who leads a wonderful group, and you may be interested. Here's the link: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=9633896239972157&set=g.570328579738314
I hope that will take you to the correct page; I'm a bit of a techno-idiot!
Are you a Russian, Chinese, or North Korean troll?
Susan to answer your question I am a hard working middle class American who is hopeful that this nation can become great again. I know you must hate trump but surely you would like to see the bloated federal bureaucracy reduced.....surely you want at least some of the things I mentioned to happen....right?
I'm curious what bloat do you see in the federal government? What specific programs or services would you cut? I am of the mind that we should always be frugal when it comes to government spending and everything can be reformed, updated, or examined to determine if it is relevant, effective and efficacious. It's why we have a OGA. I ask because we have heard this from politicians from every side, but the devil is in the details. We agree no one wants bloat, waste or fraud. But how can one argue we need to cut 2/5 ths of the budget without having a plan?
Gary I do agree that the devil is in the details and it seems like have 2 very successful businessmen who's success can be attributed at least to some extent to controlling and where appropriate eliminating cost to specifically look at cutting costs is a good idea. As for me I would cut any expenses that have to do with diversity, equity and inclusion for starters.
Now since I have addressed your question can you address this....do you believe that the federal government is run efficiently?
Do I believe the federal government is run efficiently? Overall, yes. Consider the administrative costs of the VA and Medicare to those of private health plans. Could we do better? Probably. The problem is people confuse improving efficiency with conceding there is bloat or fraud, or that improving efficiency means the system is inefficient as it exists. Because I want to make a car faster doesn't mean it's slow. So, Why would one think being a successful businessman makes for a good government leader? They are very different entities with very different goals. How is creating DOGE efficient? Creating a commission to do what is already being done. Kind of like creating a Space Force to do what the USAF already did. No, I am not interested in a self serving businessman being the leader of a government meant to serve the people.