Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows lost another attempt to force review of her disqualification “decision” before the United States Supreme Court hears arguments on the issue on Feb. 8th. The Maine Supreme Court declined to review the matter. With other states like Massachusetts ruling this week against disqualification, Colorado will remain the outlier as the only state supreme court willing to embrace this dangerous and anti-democratic theory.
I have previously written about my criticism of this unfounded theory. Advocates have been rejected in a dozen states, but have continued to seek judges willing to accept this novel argument. They knew that they had Bellows at hello given her prior public comments.
Bellows previously declared that “the Jan. 6 insurrection was an unlawful attempt to overthrow the results of a free and fair election…The insurrectionists failed, and democracy prevailed.” A year after the riot, Bellows was still denouncing the “violent insurrection.”
The decision is poorly written and conclusory in virtually every respect. A couple weeks ago, Maine Superior Court Justice Michaela Murphy deferred judgment in the case given the upcoming argument over the Colorado decision.
Bellows appealed but the justices noted that Murphy had only deferred judgment. He had not ruled. Thus, “because the appeal is not from a final judgment, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory and not justiciable.”
So the Maine event will not happen.
That leaves Colorado where, on a court entirely composed of Democratically appointed justices, advocates could only secure a 4-3 ruling with a vigorous dissent. Courts in ultra liberal states like Massachusetts and Michigan have ruled against disqualification.
In the meantime, over half of the states have now filed to denounce this theory and ask the Supreme Court to reverse Colorado.
The hypocrisy of the Democrats is beyond belief. They claim they are trying to “save Democracy” while they scheme to remove the front runner GOP candidate from state ballots – denying Trump’s supporters a chance to vote for the candidate of their choice. Also included in their phony campaign to “save democracy” was using the FBI to spy on Trump 4 years ago, and now we have local prosecutors – at the behest of the White House – filing these fake criminal charges to keep Trump from being re-elected, which completely violation the will of the people. I voted Democratic most of my life, the Democrats have gone into the toilet politically – they are the party of dirty tricks and corruption, corruption at a level I have never seen before ( see millions of dollars flowing to Biden family, or Pelosi making hundreds of millions trading stocks while Speaker). I do not recognize the Democratic party anymore, it used to be the party of reform, the party that advocated for regular working people; Democrats are now the party of the elites, the CEO’s, the high tech titans, the cable news stations, the big DC lobbyists and the big time – do no real work but peddle influence -Washington lawyers, the people that fly around on private jets. The party is in the toilet – it is a vessel of corruption now, like a Banana Republic political party (arrest your top political rival!), a total vessel of corruption.
Except that: Democrats are NOT “scheming to remove” Trump–he’s in legal hot water for his own onduct. I’ve asked this question before and I ask it again: is the State of NY supposed to let Trump get away with falsifying loan applications and tax documents by misrepresenting the size and value of his assets? If so, then can any NY citizen to likewise with impunity, or only those running for office? How about in the State of Georgia? Is the fact that he tried to bully the SOS to “find” him enough votes to win, even though he lost, supposed to be overlooked and ignored, along with the people who falsified Electoral College documents that falsely claimed he won, knowing that he didn’t? If so, then why shouldn’t every election loser just do the same thing, if it’s OK to try to “win” by cheating in his manner? Elections would become meaningless. How about stealing classified documents, refusing polite requests to return them, storing them where anyone could gain access, and who know who has gotten and/or copied them, lying about “declassifying” them, lying about returning all of them and flashing them around to show off? This conduct should just go unpunished, too because Trump is running for office? And, where’s the proof that the White House is directing or has any involvement in any of these criminal prosecutions? There isn’t any. None of these charges are “fake”–there’s solid proof behind each of them. You speak of “dirty tricks and corruption”–what are you talking about? You have picked up on the Republican tactic of projection. Where is there any proof that JOE Biden got any of the alleged “millions of dollars flowing to the Biden family”? Every effort by Comer to prove this has flopped badly, and you know it, so why do you believe this, other than the fact that Republicans keep lying about this and the lie is constantly repeated on alt-right media, especially by Mark Levin, who keeps referring to the “Biden Crime Family”? You want to speak of corruption–how about Republicans falsely accusing JOE Biden of corruption without anything resembling proof? How about refusing to pass the bipartisan border security bill, which, before Trump demanded that it be scuttled, was set to pass on a bipartisan basis? Why are Republicans doing this other than to score points with clueless people they think will blame Joe Biden, who is actively working towards a solution. Here’s a big kicker: how about Trump hoping that the economy will tank because he thinks it will benefit him politically? Have you ever heard of such a thing by a presidential candidate?
“Don’t believe your lying eyes.”
ChatGigi
If trump misrepresented the value of his real estate should he get a tax refund?
Blind Assertions.
No Entity or person has claimed Fraud. No aggrieved parties. Except biased democrat prosecutors.
No Insurrection…All Jan. 6 protestors were unarmed. Except, perhaps by imbedded Federal agents and Antifa.
Oh, the Bribem Crime Family is Real.
OK – We started this conversation off in regards to the treatment of the Electoral College, and hve drifted into the division of States and their Constitutional Representative structures (Senate & Representatives).
I still maintain the the Electoral College is an antiquated vestige of our Constitution.
Per the National Archives:
The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The Founding Fathers established it in the Constitution, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. …
Who selects the electors?
Choosing each State’s electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties in each State choose slates of potential electors sometime before the general election. Second, during the general election, the voters in each State select their State’s electors by casting their ballots.
The first part of the process is controlled by the political parties in each State and varies from State to State. Generally, the parties either nominate slates of potential electors at their State party conventions or they chose them by a vote of the party’s central committee. This happens in each State for each party by whatever rules the State party and (sometimes) the national party have for the process. This first part of the process results in each Presidential candidate having their own unique slate of potential electors.
Political parties often choose individuals for the slate to recognize their service and dedication to that political party. They may be State elected officials, State party leaders, or people in the State who have a personal or political affiliation with their party’s Presidential candidate. (For specific information about how slates of potential electors are chosen, contact the political parties in each State.)
The second part of the process happens during the general election. When the voters in each State cast votes for the Presidential candidate of their choice they are voting to select their State’s electors. The potential electors’ names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the Presidential candidates, depending on election procedures and ballot formats in each State.
The winning Presidential candidate’s slate of potential electors are appointed as the State’s electors—except in Nebraska and Maine, which have proportional distribution of the electors. In Nebraska and Maine, the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors#selection
SO if the Name of a Presidential Candidate is Prohibited or Omitted by some reason (such as whats going on in Colorado, The winning Presidential candidate receives the appointments for the State’s Electors, The Candidate whom is Prohibited or Omitted receives nothing. So there you have the ‘hack’, the gaming of the Electoral system, which denies a portion of People inclusion in the Popular Vote.
Gaming the Electoral College on the National scale, it has been a well establish method of winning the Presidency by winning the States that deliver enough Electoral votes to win the Election. There are currently 538 electors in all, It takes 270 to Win. Win the Key States (Large Electoral States) you will the Election. That’s another game in play.
These ‘moves’ are real, I don’t need to tell you about How many times and Who cried about winning the Popular Vote but not the Electoral College. The problem here having the Electoral College to begin with. I fully understand your ‘Big State-Small State’ equalization argument. However the Forefathers did not recognize that the system would reduce itself to two parties and they would Game-the-System around the Electoral College. They held Us to a Higher Standard of which We obviously failed to reach.
So, do we get rid of States and the Senate or not? If yes, how do you justify retaining those?
If you do not like the electoral college – change the constitution.
The national archives is responsible to protect our founding documents.
No one authorized it to tell us what the constitution means.
Nearly all of us can read the constitution.
And the Supreme court is constitutionally authorized to resolve disputes in the understanding of the constitution.
I would further note the National Archives is in error.
The constitution dictates that state legislatures select the electors.
The constitution also dictates that the rules for elections are set by state legislatures and in the case of senators and representatives by congress.
The “Process” that NARA cites does not exist int he constitution and is individually set by each state as it wishes.
Most states have relatively similar election laws and processes – but there is lots of variation.
Any generalizations about elections are false – because there is a great deal of freedom for states to do as they please.
I have frequently spoken of the requirement for Secret Ballot Elections – 38 State constitutions require that – 12 DO NOT.
I beleive that is a mistake – but that does not change the fact that secret ballots are not required in 12 states.
49 states have made ballot harvesting a crime – In California Ballot harvesting is legal.
That is incredibly stupid. But it is the law in California. Democrats and republicans are both free to engage in ballot harvesting in CA.
But do so in GA and if you are caught – you SHOULD go to jail.
Wait, John Say, did a light finally come on?
That’s precisely what Lincoln did; he changed the Constitution with absolutely no power or authority other than that of a rogue tyrant and dictator. Secession was/is not delegated to the U.S. and is not prohibited to the States, ergo, secession is reserved to the States, or to the people, as they say. He also unconstitutionally imposed martial law, voided freedom of speech and press, summarily imprisoned political opponents, commenced an unconstitutional war of aggression with a sovereign foreign nation, suspended habeas corpus, issued a “proclamation,” confiscated private property which was legally sold with receipts issued and deeds recorded, violated extant immigration law, ensconced a 4-million-man foreign standing army on U.S. soil, etc.
Lincoln must have obeyed statutory and fundamental law in the American society of laws. Lincoln comprehensively, arbitrarily, and dictatorially extirpated the Constitution and Bill of Rights. America remains without the Constitution to this day because of Lincoln, and “Lincoln” must be corrected retroactively, just as abortion was corrected retroactively, in order for the America of its Founders and Constitution to go forward in any rational mode or method. America is a rudderless apocalypse being eaten alive by unrelated masses of insatiable, writhing, invading foreign leeches, parasites, grubs, and dipterous larvae.
Not to put too fine a point on it.
I still maintain the the Electoral College is an antiquated vestige of our Constitution.
Whatever that means, isn’t it true of everything in the Constitution?
WE are only focusing on the part of the Constitution regarding the Electoral College, maintain your argument inside those lines.
Your steadfast on keeping the Electoral College intact, My position is to eliminate the Electoral College.
It boils down to:
Keeping the Electoral College with its ‘flaws’ so that those that manipulate the Electoral College can keep their control over the Vote of Population at Large.
Eliminating the Electoral College removes the ‘flaws’ and restore the premise of the original basis of Equality and Neutrality in the Vote of Population at Large.
Take away the Game – and you have raw Vote of Population at Large.
OK lets try another approach.
What would happen if the Supreme Court majority opinion decided that the Because of the Colorado Opinion the Electoral College tally would result in a group of disenfranchised Citizens because their Candidate was disqualified/omitted/banned from the process, and that in turn created Inequality and violated Neutrality in the National Voting System.
Wherefore, It is the Opinion of the SCOTUS that the Electoral College of the2024 Presidential Election shall be Suspended until Congress addresses the situation. The Presidential Election shall proceed upon the One-to-One basis (One Person – One Vote) in the Vote of Population at Large.
[Joy Reid: O.M.G. We have No GAME!!!]
What will happen? Another Insurrection? ATM’s will no longer spit our fiat cash? the Street lights will go dark? -NO-
IMO: I think you Guys want the Game to continue on Flawed, for whatever the reason you benefit.
Equality and Neutrality in the Vote of Population at Large can be restored – and the SCOTUS is in a position to do just that in this Case.
Now, What are we going to do about Joy Reid’s Big Mouth?
. . . maintain your argument inside those lines.
I am keeping my argument about the EC. You said the EC was an “antiquated vestige of our Constitution.” I’m not sure what you mean by that. More specifically, I’m not sure how that description differentiates the EC from everything else in the Constitution? To me that sounds like a pejorative. But again, are you basically saying the whole Constitution is an antiquated vestige of 18th Century thinking and thus should be disfavored?
In my view, the Supreme Court would never take the action you describe. They are aware that their job is to interpret and apply the Constitution and acts of Congress that are consistent with the Constitution. They know that their job is not to act as some kind of super-Congress that makes legislative decisions on how to proceed with a presidential election.
Eliminating the Electoral College removes the ‘flaws’ and restore the premise of the original basis of Equality and Neutrality in the Vote of Population at Large.
The EC is part of the Constitution, regardless of whether any person considers it flawed. The Founders had their reasons for wanting presidential elections to be conducted that way, and that includes that they didn’t want POTUS and VP to be elected by popular vote. Any present disagreement with the Founders’ design has no relevance outside of an effort to amend the Constitution. I personally believe those reasons were valid and they continue to be good policy, but I recognize you probably disagree with that. My point is that only a constitutional amendment can cause us not to use the EC in a particular election.
Maintaining my position. The Constitution [K] in the whole was designed to be modified as time progresses, and the process of modifying it is set forth within the Constitution.
Where does it prohibit the Judaical Branch from making Modifications to the Constitution, wherein the Constitution specifically established the SCOTUS as the ‘Rule of Law’? -No- it doesn’t, in fact the [K] proclaims the SCOTUS to be the SUPREME Law of the Land (Supreme Rule of Law). It was meant to pass judgement upon the other two Branches.
Respectfully Sir, If the SCOTUS can “Constitutionally” pass a Ruling upon the Executive Office of the United States (The Executive Branch selection as in the Presidential Candidate in Colorado, an ex-President), then I proclaim the it can also “Constitutionally” pass a Ruling upon the Electoral College that prohibits it from issuing the prospected outcome of the National Vote (as previously described – suspend the EC until Congress eliminates it or finds a better way). Further that it can declare the race to be determined strictly by Popular Vote.
The remainder of the [K] stays intact.
[Sidebar IMO: I feel the SCOTUS can ‘Cherry Pick’ this issue in the present matter if it chooses to do so (and I hope Thomas is the one that does)]
We are in agreement that the Congressional Branch has the authority to write an ‘amendment or dissolve’ the EC.
Sidebar: When you see what’s happening here (Colorado et.al. and the race to 270), do you honestly feel that this is the Original Intent of the Constitution [K]?
You have the facts all wrong
You need to examine Chesterton’s Fence.
Constructing the “union” was not a forgone conclusion. There was a lot of opposition. The States were very Tribal. Unsure of a larger State bullying them. For positive the small states were sure the large states would end up with all the power, and favor from a Federal govt, run by a popular vote of the the whole, new union.
That attitude must be considered When considering the construction of Constituion, and the reasons to things like ALL states get the same representation in the Senate. Why the electoral college exixts.
Those consideration were required to get the buy in of ALL that states. And on this item, the agreement MUST be unanimous.
Trump Wants To Kill Emerging Border Deal
Former President Trump’s push to kill the border deal in order to deny President Biden a legislative win is upsetting members on both sides of the aisle as negotiators hope to wrap up work on an agreement within days.
Border negotiations have been ongoing since before Thanksgiving, but they hit high gear in mid-December once the White House and Biden administration officials got involved, something Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) publicly asked for earlier.
With the bill on the verge of completion and Trump on the verge of defeating former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R), his the former president’s conservative allies in the Senate are effectively attempting to kill the border package, which would also seriously endanger any future aid for Ukraine.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4430186-trump-push-to-deny-biden-victory-aggravates-lawmakers/
………………………………………….
Suddenly Donald Trump is ‘not’ so keen to secure the border. Trump has decided he would like the border crisis to continue until ‘he’ takes office. This has has greatly frustrated Republican Senators who wanted a border deal and aid to Ukraine.
Yet Trump fears that if the border crisis subsides, he may have nothing to run on since the economy won’t be an issue.
The border crisis will “subside” when Biden decides to enforce immigration laws. It should not be necessary to try to persuade him to do so. It is his Constitutional duty.
There is no “emerging border deal” – From the very begining House Republicans have said HR2 is the ONLY thing on the table.
Senate Republicans hand some democrats have been working on something else – but without the support of the house.
At various times they appeared to be approaching a deal – but without including House republicans – that Deal would have been DOA.
At the moment it is not making progress.
I think that the polls from NH that showed immigration as the Top election issue – runnign 10pts ahead of the economy and foriegn wars
shocked both democrats and republicans – NH is NOT a border state.
The results of that poll have encouraged ALL republicans to stand firm. They have a MAJOR issue that Democrats have handled Abysmally.
There is no reason for Republicans to make a deal.
You can spray democrat talking points all you want – ordinary people KNOW the disaster on the southern border can be resolved quickly.
House republicans have announced there will be a vote to impeach Mayokas next Week.
That allows Republicans to put the issue of the border squarely in front of the public with a televised impeachment Trial.
We separately have a standoff between the Biden WH and TX. Oddly TX and the CBP were actually working together on this – until the WH stepped in to thwart cooperation.
TX won an injuction in the 5th circuit, but the Biden Admin got SCOTUS to terminate the TRO pending a full decision by the 5th Circuit.
Regardless, the SCOTUS decision does NOT preclude TX from putting up more razor wire. It just allows CBP to remove the Razor Wire in emergency circumstances.
It is Likely that atleast in the short run in the courts that TX will lose – but even Prof. Derschowitz indicated that the TX constitutional argument has actual merit and may prevail in SCOTUS
Abbott has cited two clauses in the Constitution – one is a constitutional commitment to the states that the federal government must secure the borders to protect states from crime and invasion. Abbot is using the other clause to justify
TX stepping in if the federal government fails.
I suspect based on the Supreme court vacating the TRO that for the moment TX will not get what it wants from the court quickly.
At the same time There is no court order requiring TX to stand down and 25 states have already agreed to stand beside TX.
With more coming.
You can claim this situation was manufactured by Republicans – to some extent it is. But it was also manufactured by Democrats.
Biden was free to follow existing immigration law and avoid this problem.
Regardless, there is a very strong potential for a very rapid escalation of this in a fashion that will blow up in Democrats face.
Biden has been threatening TX demanding they back down – they have refused.
Biden has two choices – to nationalize the TX national guard – that is an incredibly dangerous move on his part that in this case could rapidly lead to impeachment. It is not an accident that the House has sped up the impeachment of Mayorkas – they are intending on keeping this issue front and center.
Lets assume that somehow Biden “gets his way” because atleast temporarily the courts are not blocking Biden (though they are also not blocking TX either).
There will be some kind of confrontation – which TX will likely back down and some Federal forces will come in and start cutting out Razor wire and opening Eagle Pass to a flood of illegal immigrants.
All this will be done in front of cameras with the entire country watching. There will be Video footage of The Biden administration doing exactly the opposite of what immigration law requires – instead of using force to keep illegal immigrants out, they will be using force to let illegal immigrants in.
That video will be front and center in GOP campaign adds for the next 10 months.
It also will be featured in the impending impeachment of Mayorkas. It will be the spotlight illuminating the entire purpose of the Mayorkas impeachment. And the Mayorkas impeachment will likely be followed quickly with an impeachment of President Biden.
The alternate choice that Biden has is to BACK DOWN – and that will be a massive victory for republicans. It would likely be quickly followed by just about all borders states rushing to run razor wire at their border. Even Democrats states would likely act.
It would also likely terrify House and Senate Democrats into passing HR2.
Regardless, it will be very hard for this to play out badly for Republicans.
The NH – NOT TX exit polls found that the Border was almost 10 times as important an issue – including to democrats as abortion.
This is a massively stupid self inflicted wound by Democrats.
You seem to beleive that Trump controls:
The republican party,
The Border
Biden.
“Trump Fears …”
Presuming you are correct – Biden can make Trump’s worst fears come true in a heart beat.
Almost the entire country knows that Biden can secure the border anytime he wants – Unilaterally.
And there is nothing Trump or republicans can do to prevent having the biggest issue of the 2024 election taken from them.
Republicans and Trump are counting on Biden to continue to double down on Stupid – and they are likely correct.
Here is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
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.
Even if we assume that Trump engaged in, or urged, an insurrection or rebellion against the U.S, why does that justify any state removing his name from the ballot? If he not elected in November, the issue is moot and if he is elected, Congress would have ample time before the inauguration to vote to (1) find that he engaged in an insurrection, and, if so, (2) to allow him to take office. By not allowing him to be on the ballot at all, it seems to me that the Supreme Court and the applicable state would effectively usurp the power of Congress set forth in the 14th Amendment. (If Trump is elected and cannot legally hold office, the 20th Amendment provides that the VP elect will become the new president.)
I think that that is how the Court will see it.
“The Court is accustomed to defendants who refuse to accept they did anything wrong, but in my 37 years on the bench, I cannot recall a time when such meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream.” – Judge Royce Lamberth (Reagan appointee) today on J6 revisionism.
If Ol’ Judge Lambeth hates those defendants he shoulda seen Nathan Hale. Hale’s judge is burning in Hell right now after Hale uttered his famous remark lamenting only one life to lose to the Deep State of his day. A British officer in attendance, Frederick McKenzie, who wrote in his journal:
“He behaved with great composure and resolution, saying he thought it the duty of every good officer, to obey any orders given him by his commander in chief; and desired the spectators to be at all times prepared to meet death in whatever shape it might appear.”
“I have been shocked to watch some public figures try to rewrite history … martyrizing convicted January 6 defendants as ‘political prisoners’ or even, incredibly, ‘hostages.’ That is all preposterous.”
“I have been dismayed to see distortions and outright falsehoods seep into the public consciousness… The Court fears that such destructive, misguided rhetoric could presage further danger to our country.”
“On January 6, 2021, a mob of people invaded and occupied the United States Capitol, using force to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power mandated by the Constitution and our republican heritage.” “The rioters interfered with a necessary step in the constitutional process, disrupted the lawful transfer of power, and thus jeopardized the American constitutional order. … This was not patriotism; it was the antithesis of patriotism.”
The author of these remarks is Royce Lamberth. It should be recalled that he sentenced the harmless QAnon Shaman to 41 MONTHS in a federal penitentiary because he “made himself the center of the riot” apparently by wearing a funny outfit. If someone stays long enough in DC, he will be captured by DC.
Yes, I know who I was quoting. I posted it in response to my original quote, to add some more of what Judge Lamberth said.
And Lamberth sentenced Chansley to 41 months for obstructing the government. You can read the actual charge and plea documents here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/defendants/chansley-jacob-anthony
We can also see the video of what Chansley actually did on J6 – which was harmless.
Please do share a video showing his entire time in the Capitol.
So you have demonstrated that a Reagan appointed Federal Judge is completely clueless regarding the ACTUAL facts,
and that unlike the majority of people continues to trust democrats, the media, the left, which have all be caught repeatedly in a long list of lies that they have frequently taken advantage of trusting courts to advance.
Lambeth apparently missed the Collusion Delusion hoax perpetrated on the courts.
Or the abuse of the courts to spy on political enemies, congressmen, the press, and even ordinary citizens.
The judges opinion you quote is all extra judicial, it is not law.
Duh.
Lamberth is unfamiliar with the FACT that the Left wing nut J6 narative is collapsing.
There is no meritless justification of criminality gone mainstream.
There is a growing realization that Democrats and the Media have lied repeatedly about J6.
There are many factors driving this – including the fact that Democrats and the media have been caught lying with regard to this repeatedly.
But this is compounded by the long string of lies by democrats, the media and the left that has destroyed their credibility.
All things being equal when in doubt people in the past have tended to trust the media.
That is because the media strove to protect a reputation for credibility.
Over the past decade the media, the left and democrats have squandered that reputation.
And increasingly people do not believe them.
There is a separate but related issue regarding regarding the credibility of the courts.
With the same problem – increasingly people do not believe courts that have lied and produced politically biased decisions.
You only have yourselves to blame.
For those who are interested in reading some of the briefs in the SCOTUS case, here’s the case docket:
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-anderson/
“Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Thursday, January 18, 2024. Respondents’ briefs on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, January 31, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, February 5 2024.”
Texas Gov Greg Abbott is citing James Madison in his defiance of the recent SCOTUS order siding with Biden’s Admin regarding the US Border razor wire. Given that Professor Turley has some expertise on Madison, perhaps he will address the Texas Governor standoff with apparently 25 State Governors supporting him.
Hope all of the Texas blog commenters are safe, e.g. Cindy, HonestLawyerMostly, et al
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Doubles Down On Dangerous Claim that Immigration is “Invasion”
Abbott and his lawyers would do well to stop citing James Madison to buttress their invasion argument. As I explained in a previous piece on this issue, Madison specifically rejected the idea that immigration qualifies as invasion
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/25/texas-gov-greg-abbott-doubles-down-on-dangerous-claim-that-immigration-is-invasion/
Meanwhile, Biden is facing continued calls for him to federalize the TX National Guard.
Whatever the outcome – this is BAD for Biden and democrats.
If Biden backs down – that is not just a major victory for republicans, but would likely result in AZ, NM and possibly CA following suit immediately.
But lets say Biden prevails – the means does not matter. The results will be news video on all networks of Eitehr soldiers or BP cutting through a wall of concertina wire at eagle pass and then inviting tens of thousands of illegal immigrants into the country.
Republicans are already fast tracking the impeachment of Mayorkas. And Biden could follow quickly.
There is no good way out for democrats – even winning is losing.
I beleive that Republicans were caught be surprise at the significance of the border in NH exit polls.
It ranked 10pts above the economy
I lived less than two miles from the Mexican border in Del Rio (30K) in the late 1970s and into 1980. I have also been to numerous Mexican towns up and down the border throughout the mid 1990s. The border in those days was relatively quiet and it was easy for Mexican citizens to travel to the U.S. on a daily basis with no problems. We often parked on the U.S. side and walked to Crosby’s in Ciudad Acuña for the evening and back across in the evening with no fear.
To put the Texas border into perspective, the border of Texas to Mexico is approximately the distance from New York to Kansas City. It is an overwhelming mess on the border at this time. This is not “normal” immigration. There is not order on the border nor is there any enforcement with the criminals who have crossed. I spent most of my life living in a border state. I love the Mexicans and the Mexican culture. As a general rule, they are very hard working people, family oriented, religious, and wish that their children do well in school and life. The current state of confusion on the border is chaos. The federal government and the Biden administration thwart current laws in what seems to be an orchestrated objective. The mayor of New York is winning about a few thousand migrants and Texas is taking them by the millions.
I wish the governor and the 25 supporting him success in making a point that we do not have the infrastructure in this country to process this many people and that this administration is hell bent to create chaos.
It is not Mexicans crossing and has not been for a very long time. NAFTA raised the standard of living in Mexico sufficiently to virtually end illegal immigration from Mexico. There are serious problems in Mexico – but illegal immigration from mexico is not one of those.
Abbott is NOT defying a SCOTUS order. SCOTUS did not order TX do to anything. What SCOTUS did was vacate a TRO prohibitting the Biden administration from taking down TX concertina wire.
Regardless, it is highly unlikely this issue is going to be decided in court.
But I would note that Megyn Kelly had Derschowitz on, regarding this issue and Alan said that vacating the TRO is a temporary respoite for the Biden administration – It does NOT preclude the administration from losing the case in the 5th circuit, and it does not mean that if they do that SCOTUS will reverse when the issue gets to them.
Derschowitz thought that TX’s actual argument might well get a 6-3 majority on the court when it is heard on the merits.
It appears that the critical vote is Barrett. If she flips Roberts will likely go with her. As Derschowitz noted Roberts consistently provides the 5th vote to preserve the status quo – whether the status quo is left or right. But the moment that a decision is already 5-3 – Roberts will make it 6-3.
TX is citing two provisions in the constitution – one of which is a guaranteed in the constittion that the Federal govenrment will provide protection to the states.
Contra the headline of your article – the claim is NOT that illegal immigration constitutes and invasion.
Abbotts argument is based on facts such as that we now have armed Cartel groups escorting immigrants right up to CBP agents and turning them over. It is based on the massive amounts of crime that are being introuducd, it is about the fact that large numbers of terrorists are known to have crossed. It is about the dramatic increase in drugs that has resulted.
I doubt Derschowitz would vote in favor of Abbott if he was on SCOTUS, But I suspect Derschowitz is correct – that when the issue is before them on the merrits – it could be a 6-3 decision FOR TX.
Ignoring the constitutional issues – we have many other factors driving a perfect storm into Democrats.
The credibility of the media, the left, Democrats, Biden and even the courts is shot.
This is a self inflicted wound so no sympathy is needed.
SCOTUS is not oblivious to that and it is going to be critical for SCOTUS to re-establish the credibility of the courts.
That is an important factor that is likely to result in Big supreme court decisions, that reign in both government and the courts.
Roberts is a huge institutionalist – NORMALLY that means you can count on him to protect the status quo.
But ultimately that means protecting the courts.
The courts have LOST credibility restoring credibility requires putting a STOP to a slew of actions by courts that are reading as highly partizan. That means big bright line decisions.
This radically increases the odds that SCOTUS is going to toss the 1512C J6 convictions.
That is an excellent case to use to start bringing things under control.
That allows the court to hold that NO lower courts and prosecutors can not get away with stretching the law into a pretzel.
That it can hold – no you can not criminalize First amendment conduct.
And will it is not likely to hold that the message also will be NO you can not politically weaponize law enforcement.
OT, exit polling suggest that absent Dem voters in the NH primary, Trump beat Haley by 61 percentage points (79% – 18%).
https://twitter.com/TruthHammer4EVA/status/1750039692844659167
No, that’s not what the exit polling shows, as “TruthHammer4EVA” totally ignores that the vast majority of the non-Republican voters in the Republican primary were Independents or “other,” not Democrats: 6% were Democrats and 44% were Independents. 58% of those who voted for Haley were Independents; only 39% of Trump’s voters were Independents (data from https://abcnews.go.com/Elections/new-hampshire-exit-polls-2024-primary-election-results-analysis ). He’ll need Independents in the general election, but exit polls indicate that many who voted for Haley will not vote for Trump if he’s the nominee (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/poll-nearly-half-haleys-iowa-backers-say-ll-vote-biden-trump-rcna133821).
It’s pretty funny that you’d trust a pseudonymous “TruthHammer4EVA” to be accurate instead of looking up the data from a reliable source.
So what are you saying? If only Republicans voted in the primary, what would the results have been?
And more generally, why should non-Republicans vote in a Republican primary? That obviously invites gamesmanship, and distorts the choice of the very party that is choosing a nominee, wouldn’t you agree?
The claim wasn’t about “only Republicans.”
The claim — “exit polling suggest that absent Dem voters in the NH primary, Trump beat Haley by 61 percentage points (79% – 18%)” — is false.
Not sure why you had a hard time understanding the difference.
You didn’t answer my question. If you don’t know the answer, it’s fine to say “I don’t know.” But if you do know it, I’d be interested to hear it.
This comment ignores the fact that Independents can be officially unaligned but still generally support one party or the other. The commentary I heard from an ABC correspondent suggested that many of the Haley voters were Demo leaning Independents
It is certain that some who voted for Halley will not vote for Trump.
It is also certain that they will not vote for Biden.
And in point of Fact they DID NOT vote for Biden in NH – because they chose to vote for Halley in the Republican primary.
You can conclude from NH that Halley did better then she would in a closed primary against Trump.
But you can not conclude what that means in a Trump Biden race.
Trump’s negatives are high and ALOT of people will not vote for him.
Biden’s negatives are higher and ALOT of people will not vote for him.
The 2024 election is turning into an unpopularity contest.
What is Certain is that Trump’s base is HUGE and Loyal, and that Biden’s is not.
Just as in 2020 almost no one will be voting FOR Joe Biden. Biden voters are almost exclusively people voting AGAINST Trump.
But Democrats are in trouble because in 2020 the Voting AGAINST Biden cohort was small – now it is larger than the Against Trump cohort.
Right now polls have Trump up by 2pts among voters – that is a 6pt change since 2020 and a sure Trump win.
Enthusiasm favors Trump.
The addition of third parties SLIGHTLY favors Trump.
There is a very easy test of YOUR poll results – how well do the analysis of YOUR exit polls align with national and state polls.
The answer is they don’t Trump will run away with IOWA.
Biden will likely win in NH by a small margin, but NH is actually in play.
If the election were held today Trump would likely win the popular vote by about 3,000,000 votes.
BTW, not-the-truth-Hammer is also not using the final vote counts; s/he’s off by tens of thousands of votes.
Another day, another legally superficial column from JT.
Mr. Turley. Could you talk about the Supreme Court decision that sided with Biden on the border issue? That seems like a real powder keg and could lead to Civil War 2. Why did the court side with Biden? Does not a state have the power to protect itself if the Feds do not do it? What is Texas supposed to do?
I would really like to see a legal analysis of this situation and the court ruling. I can not even seem to find out what the case was called.
The case — https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/department-of-homeland-security-v-texas/ — hasn’t been decided yet. SCOTUS did vacate a lower court’s order while the case moves forward, thereby allowing Border Patrol agents to cut razor wire that was placed along some of the U.S.-Mexico border by the state of Texas. And the court likely sided with the Biden Admin. due to the Supremacy Clause.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a legal analysis of anything from JT.
Jonathan: And another one bites the dust! Peter Navarro, a WH advisor to DJT and one of the author’s of the plan to overturn the 2020 election, was sentenced today to 4 months in jail for contempt of Congress after he defied a subpoena to testify before the J. 6 Select House Committee. Steve Bannon was also convicted and sentenced to the same jail time. He is out pending appeal but that is unlikely to go anywhere.
So more members of DJT little conspiracy are finally coming to terms with hard reality. You do the crime and you will do the time!
For the record, you of course, are off topic.
To your point, Bannon and Navarro were sentenced for the crime of Contempt of Congress, not some alleged conspiracy that you are alluding to.
The J6 Confirmation Bias Committee deserves nothing other than scorn, derision, enmity and contempt.
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with Section 3. Nothing in law or constitution bars Colorado plaintiffs from litigating a Section 3 case to disqualify Trump and friends.
“This clause ensures that the federal government will never reimburse slaveholders…Osborn v. Nicholson [U.S. Supreme Court case]”
[source: book “The Citizens Constitution” by Seth Lipski” 2009].
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with Section 3.
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment says: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Are you saying “this article” doesn’t refer to the Fourteenth Amendment?
According to this book (“Citizens Constitution”), written by a Conservative author Seth Lipsky, Section 5 only applies to the previous Section 4 of the 14th Amendment.
Taken in context: The post-civil war amendments (13th, 14th, 15th Amendments) were created to grant equal rights to African-Americans. Trump tried to steal the votes of African-Americans and Democrats. Sure the U.S. Supreme Court will realize the spirit of these constitutional laws and Trump trying to deny voting rights.
A second source “The National Constitution Center” has a very good article on the history of “Fourteenth Amendment Enforcement” discussing Section 5.
In that article, the U.S. Supreme Court limited Congress’ oversight in the “Violence Against Women Act” and “Voting Rights Act”.
The article concluded by basically saying the U.S. Supreme only limited Section 5 by Congress regulating state governments – not private citizens.
In other words it seems like the Colorado plaintiffs (private citizens) are in no way restricted by Congress on initiating a Section 3 lawsuit. These plaintiffs are probably perfectly free to file a lawsuit on Section 3, but only Congress can forgive a previous disqualification.
Just a guess of how the U.S. Supreme Court will follow their own precedent on Section 5.
This is an idiotic interpretation.
Par for the course from a mentally defective troll who clogs this blog with his scores of sock puppets to copy/pasta mentally defective, left wing (but I repeat myself) talking points.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes may have been describing such imbeciles
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.
– Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in “Buck vs Bell”, 1927
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/200/
Take your own look at all five sections of 14A and decide for yourself. If the framers of 14A had wanted Section 5 to only apply to Section 4, they would have done one of two things: (a) specified in Section 5 that Congress’s enforcement authority only applies to Section 4, or (b) put the text of Section 5 as the last sentence of Section 4. They didn’t do either one. So I agree with Daniel that the way you are interpreting it is unreasonable.
How can congress remove the sec 3 disablity? That requires a person that is elected
No, it doesn’t require someone to already be elected. The Amnesty Act of 1872 is the most prominent example of when Congress removed the disability:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_Act
How is congress supposed to take up the case of an individual today, denied access to the ballot?
Congress is under no obligation to act. Anymore than Congress can be compelled to impeach.
The act at their own pleasure. AFTER elected they can act to not seat the individual. Or choose not to act. The cant be compelled.
From Truth Social:
Trump Threatens Haley Donors
@realDonaldTrump
Nikki “Birdbrain” Haley is very bad for the Republican Party and, indeed, our Country. Her False Statements, Derogatory Comments, and Humiliating Public Loss, is demeaning to True American Patriots. Her anger should be aimed at her Third Rate Political Consultants and, more importantly, Crooked Joe Biden and those that are destroying our Country – NOT THE PEOPLE WHO WILL SAVE IT. I knew Nikki well, she was average at best, is not the one to take on World Leaders, and she never did. That was up to me, and that is why they respected the United States. When I ran for Office and won, I noticed that the losing Candidate’s “Donors” would immediately come to me, and want to “help out.” This is standard in Politics, but no longer with me. Anybody that makes a “Contribution” to Birdbrain, from this moment forth, will be permanently barred from the MAGA camp. We don’t want them, and will not accept them, because we Put America First, and ALWAYS WILL!
3.46k
ReTruths
11.2k
Jan 24, 2024, 5:49 PM
……………………………………………..
Here Trump viciously attacks Haley simply because she challenged him in the primaries. And outside the rightwing bubble, most would say that Haley pulled her punches way too long; allowing Trump to escape any real criticism.
One should note that Trump refers to Haley as ‘birdbrain’, a term many might see as a put-down to women in general. Ironically it was Trump who came across as mentally less-than-competent in a recent speech where he mindlessly confused Haley with Nancy Pelosi.
Key Passage Above:
“Anybody that makes a “contribution” to Birdbrain, from this moment forth, will be permanently barred from the MAGA camp”.
Here Trump is clearly threatening reprisals against donors who are undoubtedly wealthy players in conservative circles. If Trump is threatening ‘them’, you can be sure a second term would be an endless series of threats.
Cry me a river.
Politics as usual
Well not that usual. Politicians send some one else 3 degrees removed to leave the horse head. Disagree with Trump, but he does his own wet work. He at least he respects Haley, and not offer to buy her out. Thats what the Arizona Republican Party chair asked Lake what her $price is. She said thank you, but no. Then she got his ass fired.
I hate what Trump said about Haley, but why the heck would you say the term “birdbrain” it is anti-women? That is moronic!
“. . . a term many might see as a put-down to women . . .”
Many also see black helicopters.
There is actually a “flag” issue that may be relevant here. Most judges and juries may not know there were 2 separate Confederate Flags – the wartime flag and the peacetime flag (had the South won the Civil War they would presumably retire the wartime flag).
Trump on 2 separate occasions, at two separate fatal events – Trump said he “loved” those flying the “wartime” flag. On January 6 and previously in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those flying the peacetime flag are expressing their family’s heritage. Those flying the wartime flag support a constitutionally-subversive message of overturning the government of the United States with subversive terms like “the South will rise again” – meaning insurrection.
Trump supported those supporting subverting the U.S. Constitution, those flying the wartime flag. Trump swore an oath of office not to love insurrectionists but arrest them!
Mommy, Trump said he loved some people! Make him stop, make him stop!
You, sir, are irredeemably bassackwards.
LINCOLN subverted the Constitution and pursued an anti- and unconstitutional course. Secession was and remains not prohibited and fully constitutional. That one is partial and does not like a particular secession does not bear. Lincoln denied fully constitutional secession causing every subsequent act of Lincoln to be similarly unconstitutional, by extension. Lincoln must have been impeached, convicted, removed and stopped from pursuing further any and all things unconstitutional.
Lincoln had NO power to deny secession, impose martial law, seize all power, install a U.S. military force in, and commence an unconstitutional war of aggression against, a sovereign foreign nation, suspend habeas corpus, deny freedom of speech, deny freedom of the press, confiscate legal deeded private property, void and fail to enforce constitutional immigration law, install an adversarial 4-million-man foreign army on U.S. soil, or improperly amend the Constitution in the favor of illegal aliens in an environment of brutal military occupation and oppression.
Recently, the Supreme Court acted retroactively by 50 years to accurately and properly correct unconstitutional abortion.
Now, the Supreme Court must act retroactively by 150 years to accurately and properly correct Lincoln’s unconstitutional denial of secession and all subsequent acts of Lincoln which were and remain invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional.
What if your 2nd Amendment gun rights were violated? As a private citizen, you hire a constitutional attorney to sue the government official in court citing 2nd Amendment injury. Nobody waits for Congress to intervene.
If someone violates your 14th Amendment rights – trying to steal an election, stealing 51% of all votes – those millions of citizens denied voting rights sue the government official in court citing 14th injury.
This is basically what happened in Colorado. Regular citizens (all Republicans) sued Trump for trying to steal an election citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Citizen-plaintiffs “attempted to “enforced” Section 3.
Section 3 only grants Congress authority to “forgive” a previous disqualification.
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress authority to enforce all of the 14th Amendment. Regarding Section 3, Congress has done so via 18 USC 2383 (federal crime to incite or engage in insurrection or rebellion against United States). Trump has not been even charged with violating that federal law.
Trump did give aid & comfort to those convicted under 18 usc 2383 (insurrectionist convicted in a court of law).
Then why hasn’t any prosecutor charged him under 18 USC 2383? Because they’re scared? That would be a hard argument to make.
“Congress has done so via 18 USC 2383 (federal crime to incite or engage in insurrection or rebellion against United States).” Baloney! Even if Trump was prosecuted and found guilty of 18 USC 2383 that is not sufficient to keep him off the ballot. Section 3 of the 14th is NOT self-executing! Congress is still required to pass “appropriate legislation” as per Section 5. It is clear as day: “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
In the 2020 election with absolute certainty no matter how you choose to look at it the wishes of 75million voters were disregarded.
You claim there was an attempt to “steal 51% of all votes” – that is a stupid and dangerous argument.
What then was the refusal to follow election laws ? Did that not “steal millions of votes” ?
What about the unconstitutional and illegal participation of federal agencies and NGO’s paid by them to fairly successfully censor damning truths and to lie about that that with certainty altered the outcome of the election – did that “steal millions of votes” ?
What about the abject refusal of courts – prior to the election and post to enforce election laws – did that “steal tens of millions of votes” ?
Or the refusal of courts to conduct evidentiary inquiries – putting a bag over their heads and ranting “we see nothing” – did that failure of the rule of law no “steal tens of millions of votes” ?
Contra those of you on the left – not just the right, but tens of millions of ordinary americans – even democrats grasp that 2020 was a total complete disaster.
Super majorities of people want vastly improved and more trustworthy elections.
As is typical of those on the left – you give people something that is warm and fuzzy and appeals to them – such as mailin voting,
But you try to pretend that the consequences – messy untrustworthy elections are not real.
You fail to persuade people and the adults are left trying to sort out the fact that you have created a need, a demand from people for something that can not be provided.
You can not have both trustworthy elections and mailin voting. PERIOD.
Absolutely it can and does work SOME OF THE TIME.
All of our election laws exist – not to assure the trustworthyness and integrity of elections where one party wins 60:40,
But the deal with the problems when one candidate appears to win by 0.25% of the vote.
In GA as an example you could flip a coin and no matter what the result – 51% of voters would NOT have their votes “stolen”
Because there were only 6500 votes between the winner and the loser.
In AZ that was less than 11,000.
Trump lost by less than 45,000 votes nationwide.
Flipping 100,000 votes nationwide would have flipped the presidency, the house and the senate.
With absolutely every possible advantage – With Trump albatrossed by Covid.
With the press massively favoring Biden
With more than double the campaign funds spent by Biden.
With Federal employees strong arming social media to censor the truth – about Covid, about the Biden’s.
With 450m in Zucker bucks paying for an illegal and unconstitutional takeover of government election machinery in the 6 large cities in 6 swing states, and running a blatantly illegal GOTV effort – FOR DEMOCRATS, from inside government.
With the courts and executives falling all over themselves to bend fold spinfle and mutilate the law in you favor.
With massive mailin voting to unattended ballot boxes, with ballot harvesting laws violated right and left.
With the destruction of Voter ID laws, and signature verification that was a farce.
With all of that – completely ignoring the claims of DVS fraud or counting duplicate ballots or truckloads of ballots showing up without chain of custody the day after the election.
You still only managed to Eek past Trump.
And you want to get on your holy high horse and lecture the rest of us about morality, integrity, alleged criminality and insurection ?
The Garbage that you ADMIT to doing to “win” the election could easily have triggered a civil war – and justifiably so.
You should thank your stars that January 6th was a protest that got a bit out of hand – again near certainly with YOUR help.
And not an actual insurrection.
Had Trump and supporters wanted to “steal your vote” – they easily could have. They could have brought all those guns you are terrified of to the capitol – instead of a rickety gallows with a sign on it that said “This is Art”.
Or much simpler still – Trump could have done exactly as Grant did and sent soldiers to the polls on election day to assure that the election was conducted without the Fraud you engaged in.
Regardless, there are plenty of things that Trump did NOT do that you would have been even more offended by that prior presidents had done.
And everything that Trump DID do was done in prior elections – including alternate slates of electors, challenges to Congressional certification – including congress refusing to certify the election and appointing a commision to look into election fraud and recomending the certification of the alternate electors over those offered by the state executive.
A good rule of thumb is that conduct that was legal and constitutional a century ago that has not been barred by law or constitution since remains legal and constitutional today.
Regardless, voters in the 2020 election have every right to be angry – With YOU for conducting an unholly mess of an election – that Smells rotten. And 3 additional years of lying has if anything made the stench worse.
In GA right now a Democrat challenge tot he 2018 election is proceeding and revealing how untrustworthy DVS equipment is.
The smallest estimate of illegal ballot harvesting in the 6 swing states is about 800,000 votes, Far more than the 44,000 that flipped the election. The largest is more like 2M votes.
And we not only have video and geolocation evidence of that in 2020 – but even Democrats have managed to find the same Fraud in their own primaries in 2022.
Section 5 grants only congress the power to put into effect the rest of the 14th amendment.
Section 3 does not give congress the power to forgive. It gives congress the power to seat or not seat someone who was elected who might be disqualified.
There are about a dozen valid reasons that SCOTUS can $hitcan this. The only question is what reason will they choose.
Outside the lunatic left, most everyone understands this is a loser.
But it is worse than that – it is proof that democrats will do ANYTHING to hold power – no matter how dubious.
You Claimed in 2020 that you won a free and fair election – despite having been caught Lying and cheating innumerable different ways
Now in 2024 you are making it clear – you can not even win by lying and cheating.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says nothing about Congress enforcing it. Section 3 only gives Congress the authority to “forgive” a disloyal official that has previously been disqualified.
The Colorado case was originally “enforced” by common citizens, all of them Republicans suing Trump. Congress only has forgiveness authority.
Congress’s enforcement authority in this matter comes from Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. Congress has used that authority to provide that insurrection against the federal government is determined in a federal criminal trial. That’s not what happened in Colorado and so SCOTUS should vacate the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision.
Correct. Scotus should hold that Congress has exercised its enforcement authority by enacting 18 USC 2383, and as a consequence, disqualification per 14A(3) requires a conviction under that statute.
There is the threshold question of whether 14A(3) even applies to the POTUS. Scotus should address that first, and only reach the above issue if the answer is yes.
A14S5 allows congress to specifcy however they wish the enforcement of A14S3.
Congress can require a conviction in a criminal trial. They can delegate the power to determine what constitutes an insurrection to the states – with as broad or narrow scope as congress choses.
But what the A14 does NOT do is grant states the power to decide anything on their own.
This is the norm for constitutional grants of power to government. They are NOT self executing.
A14S3 would not be self executing – if there was no S5. It certainly is not with S5
Just as with the 18th amendment giving Government the power to prohibit the sale of Alcohol, congress must pass a law to put that power into effect.
The idiotic fights here over what constitutes and insurrection are the proof of exactly why grants of power are NOT self executing.
Congress gets to pass a law, and in that law they get to specify how an insurrection is defined, and who decides, as well as whether the decision is made prior to or after the election.
John Say,
They are getting desperate.
That is why they keep repeating the same lies over and over again.
The insurrection narrative is failing and they know it.
MSM aka ARM, the Democrat mouthpiece, is losing its propaganda war against the people.
We can and are seeing the truth.
Just like in 2016 and even in 2020, a goodly number of people have already decided who they are going to vote for, or choose to opt out.
Just take a look at the good professor’s blog. I would wager a good 95-98% know who they are voting for.
Begin at the beginning. Lincoln’s act to deny fully constitutional secession was unconstitutional. Every subsequent act of Lincoln, his successors et al. remains invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, the “Reconstruction Acts,” derived from Karl Marx, a direct and mortal enemy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
To wit,
“They consider…that it fell to…Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”
– Karl Marx Letter To Abraham Lincoln, 1865 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
Congress the authority to “forgive” a disloyal official that has previously been disqualified.
Congress can’t “forgive” any person until they are elected
Try reading past Section 3 — for example, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, to wit: “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” For more see: https://jonathanturley.org/2024/01/25/the-maine-event-that-wasnt-bellows-fails-again-to-force-a-ruling-on-disqualification/comment-page-2/#comment-2362721
OT,
“The entire journalism industry is basically in a free-fall,”
-Taylor Lorenz
What she does not say and to be more accurate, is MSM aka ARM journalism is in free-fall.
WaPo lost $100 million last year.
LA Times is losing some $30-40 million a year and just laid off 115 of their workers.
Meanwhile, Independent Media aka Reality, is doing quite well.
Not to worry, Dennis the Menace.
Biden has committed impeachable treason by failing to execute his constitutional duty to protect States from invasion and by “…adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
The U.S. border is wide open for agents of the Chinese Communist Party (every person in China is an agent of the CCP), Mexicans, global flotsam, and everyone else.
Every person in the world is an American-in-waiting, right, comrade? They are all waiting for General Secretary Obongo’s “fair share” of “free stuff” and “free status,” right, comrade?
Dwight D. Eisenhower, who righteously defeated the Axis in WWII, had a firm grasp of what it meant to be an actual patriotic American in the nation of America.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Operation Wetback”
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) launched Operation Wetback in June and July 1954. It was a massive, coordinated effort involving the U.S. Border Patrol and local law enforcement agencies to curtail illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border. The term wetback, which came into widespread use in Texas during the late 1940s and early 1950s, was a…term used to describe Mexicans who waded or swam across the Rio Grande River into Texas illegally. In Spanish they were referred to as espaldas mojadas (“wet backs”).
The impetus for Operation Wetback stemmed from a tour along the southern border of California by U.S. attorney general Herbert Brownell in 1953…During his trip to California, he witnessed firsthand the illegal crossing of Mexican workers into the United States. Shortly thereafter Brownell began a two-pronged campaign to bring the border under control. One prong involved the enactment of legislation imposing a penalty on any employer who “knowingly” hired undocumented workers. Brownell also sought increased funding for the understaffed Border Patrol and money with which to construct a 150-mile fence along the California-Mexico border. The other part of his plan was to conduct a massive roundup of illegal immigrants who had crossed the border from Mexico. This part of the plan came to be known as Operation Wetback.
At the urging of Brownell and President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Congress increased funding for the Border Patrol.
…
– Encyclopedia.com
As of this week six people have been convicted of “Seditious Conspiracy” [insurrection] with a potential prison sentence up to 20 years:
Stewart Rhodes
Kelly Meggs
Robert Minuto
Joseph Hackett
Davis Moerschel
Edward Vallejo
More trial to come likely convicting more. Trump said he “loved” them and has yet to denounce those convicted of being disloyal to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies anyone that swore an oath of office and then gives aid & comfort to insurrectionists. Seems like Trump, Mike Johnson and friends all fit that disqualification.
This is light punishment, Section 3 merely bans such disloyal officials from ever holding governing authority again.
Trump said he “loved” them and has yet to denounce those convicted of being disloyal to the U.S. Constitution.
Liberal tears can be entertaining.
Who has been disloyal to the US constitution ?
Free speech is in the constitution.
Free assembly is in the constitution.
Petitioning government is in the constitution.
Nothing in the first amendment conditions those freedoms on having the agreement of left wing nuts.
I have defended the rights of Pro-Hamas students to protest in the capitol.
Why would you think I would restrict the rights of those protesting a rigged election ?
They’ve been disloyal to the U.S., which is why they were convicted of seditious conspiracy. Your personal beliefs about it don’t change the conviction or their prison sentences.
The meaning of the 14th amendment, from an enforcement point of view, is clear. Congress alone has the power to enforce. No matter how many of these comments you write, all basically saying the same thing, Trump will win unanimously in the S Ct.
Thank you for pointing this out Edward.
Virtually no one, including Turley, when discussing the Colorado Court decision or Shella Bellows’ decision to remove Trump from the primary ballot in Maine, brings up Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, to wit: “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Assuming the 14th Amendment is valid as foundational law in the US (i.e., The Constitution) then surely section 5 is as important (I would argue the most important section of the 14th) as any other section.
The debate over whether or not Trump has been found guilty of “intersection” by a court is irrelevant to the 14th Amendment. Even if a court did find him guilty of such, it remains up to “The Congress” to enforce the several provisions of the 14th Amendment “ by appropriate legislation”. Presumably it would do this by passing legislation prohibiting Trump from taking office as per section 3. (By the way, it could be argued that when the Democrats held both houses they could have done this themselves had they wanted to, with or without a separate conviction of insurrection). It is absolutely clear; only Congress has the authority to enforce all other sections, including section 3, of the 14th amendment.
No court, including SCOTUS can lawfully enforce any provision of the 14th. That rests exclusively with Congress under the auspices of “appropriate legislation.” SCOTUS could rule on the constitutionality or “appropriateness” of such legislation but neither it, nor any other court or State Assembly or Executive Branch, has authority to impose an order in place of such legislation.
Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, who is categorically no fan of Trump and explicitly does not want him to be the 47th President of the United States, has written a rather profound exposition of why Section 5 of the 14th Amendment is definitive on this.
https://lessig.medium.com/why-trump-should-not-be-removed-v3-8f3b07f740a8
Begin at the beginning. Lincoln’s act to deny fully constitutional secession was unconstitutional. Every subsequent act of Lincoln, his successors et al. remains invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, the “Reconstruction Acts,” derived from Karl Marx, a direct and mortal enemy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
To wit,
“They consider…that it fell to…Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”
– Karl Marx Letter To Abraham Lincoln, 1865 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
You lied. Stewart Rhodes was convicted by a “…jury in Washington, D.C…” of sedition.
Cambridge Dictionary
sedition
noun [ U ]
formal
us
/səˈdɪʃ.ən/ uk
/sɪˈdɪʃ.ən/
language or behavior that is intended to persuade other people to oppose their government
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Stewart Rhodes
Seditious-conspiracy conviction
On January 13, 2022, Rhodes and nine other members of the Oath Keepers were arrested and charged with seditious conspiracy.
– Wikipedia
You do understand that your glee over idiotic and successful lawfare just makes you look all the worse ?
Absolutely many people have been convicted by Democrats for the crime of not kowtowing to democrats.
Pretending that was a win makes you look evil.
No one has heard ANY evidence of an actual conspiracy to overthrow the government – because there was none.
The people you noted “conspired” to come to DC to protest an election. No more a crime than Clinton’s pussy hats protesting in 2017.
As time passes people learn more about the election, They learn more about J6, they learn more about all the unconstitutional lawfare prosecutions, and they do not like what they learn.
It should not surprise anyone that with the slow revalation of all that the left has been hiding – like the collusion delision and the laptop is russian disinformation nonsense, that drip by Drip this all comes apart.
drip by drip – people do not beleive you.
I can provide the new revalations about the DNC pipe bomb or the J6 committed destroying evidence,
or the Capital Sargent at Arms testimony and interviews, or the DOJ documents aquired by FOIA request that reveal that the DOJ not only did not buy the insurection nonsense but in the first year of Biden’s presidency actively stopped partisan staff from trying to push this nonsense.
That DOJ told NARA to pound sand over Trump’s documents.
Or that we have a growing list of conflicts of interests with Smith’s attorney’s.
But why should that suprise ?
Fanni Willis’s won election on a campaign pledging to bring integrity to the DA’s office – that she would not have romantic relations with anyone that worked with her and would fire anyone in her office that did.
But then everything from the left is words. Left wing nuts waste massive amounts of time attacking what others say and fixating on what they should say.
It is as if saying the right thing makes you a good person and saying the wrong thing makes you a bad one – regardless of what you actually do.
Willis was elected because she SAID she would restore integrity to the DA’s office.
NJow that she is DA – those who elected here ignore the FACT that what she DOES is the opposite of what she SAYS.
Jonathan: And there is more bad news in Jim Comer’s little impeachment inquiry. Today Comer’s Committee interviewed yet another former business associate of Hunter Biden–one Mervyn Yan. Yan is affiliated with a Chinese-backed energy company that worked with Hunter and James Biden on a joint venture that dissolved in 2018–by the way when Joe Biden was not in office.
As far back as May Yan’s attorney told Comer: “He [Yan] is not a public official”…and “has no professional contact or communication with President Biden at any time”…”Mr. Yan has no information about any alleged connection between Biden and Hunter and Jim Biden’s business endeavors”. No doubt this is what Yan will tell the Committee today. How soon do you think it will take Jim Comer to release the full transcript of Yan’s interview?
So where is Comer’s impeachment inquiry and your continued false claims about the Biden family headed? Your boat with Captain Comer at the helm is slowly sinking into the Potomac!
We have had lots of people say one thing publicly and another privately under oath.
I would bet that Yan’s testimony will be public before the almost 2TB of testimoney before the J6 committee that was encyrpted and deleted rather than turn it over to republicans as required by law, is made public.
Here is the full transcript of Morris’s testimony last week.
I exepect ou will get the transcript of Yan’s testimony next week.
https://oversight.house.gov/release/oversight-judiciary-and-ways-and-means-committees-release-kevin-morris-transcript%EF%BF%BC/
If you prefer the library of congress – it will be available there shortly.
Further the library of congress has links to a subscription service that will get you access to transcripts a couple of days before they are fully public.
It is possible that Yan’s testimony will fall flat. It is possible that it will be damning.
You will likely hear the highlights on the news tonight as democrats and republicans leak excerpts with their pin.
And likely next week you can read the whole thing.
Conversely – we still do not have full transcripts from Trump’s imperachment committees.
We still do not have full transcripts from the J6 committee.