Calling it “one on a huge list of priorities,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) announced that he will be reintroducing a prior bill with Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell to disqualify not just Trump but a large number of Republicans from taking office.
The alternative, it appears, is unthinkable: allowing the public to choose their next president and representatives in Congress. It appears that the last thing Democrats want is for the unanimous decision to actually lead to an outbreak of democracy. Where the Court expressly warned of “chaos” in elections, Raskin and others appear eager to be agents of chaos in Congress.
Soon after the decision, Raskin went on the air at CNN to assure people that he and his colleagues would not stand by and allow the right to vote be restored to citizens in the upcoming election. He pledged to offer a prior bill that would declare Jan. 6 an “insurrection” and that those involved “engaged in insurrection.”
I previously wrote about these “ballot cleansing” efforts because it would not just disqualify Trump but potentially dozens of sitting Republican members of Congress. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) sought to bar 126 members of Congress under the same theory. Similar legislation offered by Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) to disqualify members got 63 co-sponsors, all Democrats.
Raskin’s participation in this effort is crushingly ironic. In 2016, he sought to block certification of the 2016 election under the very same law as violent protests were occurring before the inauguration.
The prior bills were sweeping and included members who did not engage in any violent acts (no member has been charged with such violence or even incitement) but merely opposed certification.
Raskin recently offered a particularly Orwellian argument for the disqualification of Trump and his colleagues in Congress: “If you think about it, of all of the forms of disqualification that we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection is the most democratic because it’s the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified.”
In other words, preventing voters from voting is “the most democratic” because these people choose to oppose certification . . . as he did in 2016.
After the ruling, Raskin added the curious claim that the justices “didn’t exactly disagree with [the disqualification theory]. They just said that they’re not the ones to figure it out. It’s not going to be a matter for judicial resolution under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but it’s up to Congress to enforce it.”
That was sharply different from the pre-decision Raskin who insisted that there was no real question legally and that the case before the justices was “their opportunity to behave like real Supreme Court justices.”
Well, they did act as “real Supreme Court justices” by unanimously opposing what the Court described as the “chaos” that would unfold with such state disqualification efforts. Raskin, however, is seeking a new avenue for chaos through Congress.
Raskin’s statement is also bizarre in claiming that somehow the justices agreed with him and the others pushing disqualification. No one, not even the Trump team, questioned that Congress could act to bar people from office. It is expressly stated in the Constitution. It is not an “argument” but a fact.
Of course, the Democrats would need to craft the legislation correctly to satisfy the standard and secure the support of both houses. Neither appears likely at this point.
However, Raskin is succeeding in one respect. He and his colleagues have bulldozed any moral high ground after January 6th. Most of us condemned the riot on that day as a desecration of our constitutional process. Yet, the Democrats have responded with the most anti-democratic efforts to prevent voters from exercising their rights in the upcoming election.
For these members, citizens cannot be trusted with this power as Trump tops national polls as the leading choice for the presidency. It is the political version of the Big Gulp law, voters like consumers have to be protected against their own unhealthy choices.
Raskin has continued to accuse the nine justices of being cowards in not supporting ballot cleansing. He told CNN that the court “doesn’t like the ultimate and inescapable implications of just enforcing the Constitution, as written.” In other words, all nine justices, including the three liberals justices, are disregarding clear constitutional mandates to protect Trump.
It is the same delusional view echoed by other liberals who were enraged by the decision. Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann declared that “the Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the ‘court’ has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. It must be dissolved.”
After all, nothing says democracy like ballot cleansing and dissolving courts before a national election.
With the resumption of efforts to disqualify Republicans from running on ballots, Raskin and his colleagues seem to be channeling the spirit of former Mayor Dick Daley in the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago.
With allegations of abuse by the police in cracking down on protests, Daley declared “the policeman isn’t there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder.” With Democrats preparing to return to Chicago for their convention this year, Raskin and others appear to be responding to the Court that “the party isn’t there to create chaos, the party is there to preserve chaos.”
This column also ran on Fox.com.
I think we need a new acronym for Law School! Instead of the old, patriarchal, white colonist “IRAC”, (see below if you do not know what that is) we must keep up with the times. I suggest IPECAC!
First we take an Issue, that’s the “I” –
Next, we take the Partisan Effect, that’s the “PE”, where we decide how a resolution affects the Democrats –
Next, we take the Conclusion (C) at which we want to arrive, to best support the Democrats;
Then, we Apply “A” the law, or even the “Spirit” of the Law, or even mis-Apply the Law, to reach
Our desired and predetermined Conclusion (C) above!
IRAC IRAC (/ˈaɪræk/ EYE-rak) is an acronym that generally stands for: Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion. It functions as a methodology for legal analysis.[1] The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in law school and bar exams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRAC
Note: Any relation to syrup of ipecac, in my proposal, is purely coincidental!
Syrup of ipecac (/ˈɪpɪkæk/), or simply ipecac, is a drug that was once widely used as an expectorant (in low doses) and a rapid-acting emetic (in higher doses). It is obtained from the dried rhizome and roots of the ipecacuanha plant (Carapichea ipecacuanha), from which it derives its name. It is no longer regularly used in medicine.
In particular, the rapidly induced forceful vomiting produced by ipecac was considered for many years to be an important front-line treatment for orally ingested poisons.
Me too Floyd, how about
Liars, Deceivers and Wordsmithing school to make everything cost more and relieve people of their hard earned money and wealth school.
For The People
I don’t have time to reply to you. I am busy reading the warning booklet that came with my new printer. I must not use my printer in the bath tub. I should stick my fingers, toes, or any other protruding body part into the printer. I should not plop my naked rear end on the printer, unless the printer cart is capable of supporting my full weight, and the printer itself is securely attached to the cart. Do not sniff, inhale, inject or swallow the toner. . . Gee, more to read. I need an aspirin! Do not take an aspirin unless you first check with your physician. . .
should read NOT stick. . .
The Biden camp are in full panic mode. They are biting their nails hoping Biden can read the teleprompter for thirty minutes during the State of the Union address. They can’t win on policy (theirs is a disaster) and their main man has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.
E.M.
Be one of the shortest Sate of the Union addresses?
Could be a preview of the presidential debates, if they let even one happen.
Look at Germany prior to WWII and one gets a sense as to how political participants could become masters of a fundamentally transformed country.
Jonathan: What you conveniently ignore is that the SC ruled it is up to Congress to decide whether a candidate should be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. You may not like Raskin’s proposed legislation but he is simply trying to implement what the SC majority specifically authorized.
Several aspects of the Court’s ruling are very problematic. Section 3 states that a person found to have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” is disqualified from holding public office…”But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability”. Section 3 does not specify who is supposed to enforce the clause but the clear implication is someone or something must first act. The Colorado SC did just that by ruling DJT was an insurrectionist and not qualified to be on the ballot. The 5-4 conservative majority on the SC conveniently ignored that important issue–nor did they address whether DJT engaged in “insurrection or rebellion”. They chose not to do that because the factual record by the CO district court and the CO SC established that DJT engaged in insurrection on J.6.
The four Justices in their concurrence said “…the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office”. Even conservative Justice Amy Comey Barrett pointed out the majority didn’t “address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced”.
As former conservative federal judge Michael Luttig has said about the opinion: “The court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless of whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion…” So if DJT is re-elected he will be the first president to hold office—deemed an “insurrectionist” by the courts. I don’t think that is what the Founders or those who wrote Section 3 contemplated. Jamie Raskin is not one of the “agents of chaos”. The chaos has been created by the conservatives on the SC!
I would suggest that you actually read the decision.
It is clear that you have not.
SCOTUS has address all you your nonsense.
The 14th amendments – as well as the rest of the reconstruction amendments were specifically crafted to REDUCE the power of the States, and enhance the power of the individual. I would guess that you are ignorant of the fact that the history of the 14th amendment was critical to the recent shift in the Supreme court regarding gun control A14S1 priviledges and immunites clause existed to RESTRICT the power of states to bar former slaves from owning or posessing firearms.
The entire tenor of the 14th amendment is to restrict State power – both in elections and elsewhere.
No the CO courts did not find ….
The courts acted illegitimately – their findings are fraudulent.
You do not seem to understand that When the Supreme court of the United States hast to Biden Slap you 9-0 that destroys ALL of your credibility.
Your like a Nazi trying to argue that “just because we can not execute them, that does not mean the jews are not vermin”
When you invite constitutional garbage into your court – you surrender all credibility that you have on anything.
You do not seem to understand that this decision does not merely undermine your A14S3 garbage lawfare – it undermines ALL your lawfare.
The Supreme court has just said 9-0 that the CO Supreme court – and other courts that have entertained this garbage, as well as the pundits that have tried to argue this have no credibility. Not about this, and not really about anything.
You have no credibility about the 14th amendment
You have no credibility about J6.
You have no credibility about what constitutes and insurrection.
You have no credibility regarding election fraud.
You have no credibility regarding classified documents
You have no credibility regarding Biden family corruption
You have no credibility regarding the Hunter Biden laptop.
You have no credibility regarding E. Jean Carroll.
You have no credibility regarding Trump property valuations.
John Say,
Another great and epic take down of Dennis!
Well done!
Once again I agree with Upstate and I also loved this John Say comment.
Excellent points! But maybe we need to cut Dennis McIntyre (aka Dennis MuckEntire!) some slack. Assuming, arguendo, that he is NOT a paid shill, doing this for drug or booze money, because he is supposedly on Social Security, at his alleged age of 73 – but assume that he is a real person, and he/she/it is expressing his true beliefs about things here.
That would mean that he is not only a True Believer cult member, but one that has strayed from the Cult Echo Chamber and has fraternized with The Enemy, for years, if what I have read here is true. He has been exposed to multiple instances of disconfirmation, and yet persists in preaching Das Democrat Narrative. That makes him the “cult-est” of the cult, one so deeply enmired, that he can be exposed to a Reality outside of the Cult’s with impunity.
I am not trying to be unfair to him, by calling him a cult member. I truly believe that he is, if not a paid shill, because he is here on a regular basis, presenting false facts, and pretty much spouting off DNC talking points in spite of evidence to the contrary. Obviously, Mr. Reality has been knocking on his door, on a regular basis, and he has refused to let Mr. Reality in. I have not ever seen him admit that he is wrong about anything, nor have I seen him make any statement that is not blatantly partisan. Personally, I am probably closer to a basically-extinct species, Blue Dog Democrats, as opposed to being 100% Republican. So, I can relate to a person being a Democrat, but hey, when your party goes cray-cray, and opens the borders, and opts for castration and double-mastectomies for children – it’s Wake Up Time – unless one is in a cult, and ideology has trumped core values.
That being said, perhaps MuckEntire, is a “Coleen Stan”, the girl in the box – type of person, one so beaten down, that he can check out of the cult, but never leave. Which is sad, and pathetic. More about Coleen Stan:
After her kidnapping, Stan stated that she was tortured and kept locked in a box 23 hours a day until she was given a contract and forced to sign herself into slavery for life in January 1978. In view from the box, propped up against her purse under the bed, was a photo of Marie Elizabeth Spannhake, a previous victim whose body was never found.[13] She further stated that Cameron led her to believe that she was being watched by a large, powerful organization called “The Company” which would painfully torture her and harm her family if she tried to escape.[14] Stan subsequently became a slave referred to as “K”,[15] was forced to call Cameron “Master”, and was not allowed to talk without permission.
Additionally, Stan was allowed to visit her family by herself in 1981,[15] but did not reveal her situation due to her fear of the possible consequences.[15] Her family thought she was involved in a cult because of her homemade clothes, lack of money, and absence of communications over the years; they did not want to pressure her, fearing she would stay away forever. The next day, Stan returned for a second visit, with Hooker posing as her boyfriend.[15] At the trial, Stan explained that she was happy about visiting her family, who were therefore able to take a photograph of her and Cameron happily smiling together.[24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Colleen_Stan#:~:text=Additionally%2C%20Stan%20was%20allowed%20to,fear%20of%20the%20possible%20consequences.
In each of the 3 different opinions the justices cautioned that THIS IS A BAD IDEA.
It is outside of SCOTUS’s power to prevent democrats from doing something stupid but constitutional.
That does not alter the fact that it is still STUPID.
This decision was written better than my posts on the issue.
The court did not use every argument I made – which I both predicted and said was correct.
The did not decide whether the A14S3 even applies tot he president.
But their decision was remarkably close to what I predicted.
It was a forceful full throated message tot he left “CUT THIS NONSENSE OUT”
They Biden slapped the entirety of left wing nut lawyers, judges and scholars who shilled for this garbage.
They made clear this was not even a close call constitutionally.
And that it was a very bad idea regardless.
They made it clear that no part of the 14th amendment increased the power of states.
Not in elections, not in anything.
They made it clear that the states do not have the power to determine eligability to run for federal office.
Though not specifically addressed this case applies not just to claims of insurrection but also the either constitutional criteria for federal office – such as age, or citizenship – these are NOT withing the domain of the states.
I would note that is consistent with a long history of election cases where states tried to add requirements for federal office beyond those in the constitution. This decision would as an example bar states from requiring disclosure of tax returns to run for federal office.
Though prior cases already do that.
With respect to congress – Democrats can try to pass a law – I would support doing so.
But they can not pass just any law.
Congress can not just claim trump was an insurrectionist and remove him from the ballot,
Aside from not having the power to do so – that would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
Congress can not specify WHO to remove from the ballot.
They can not do so directly – they can not do so indirectly, i.e. they can not create a set of criteria that only matches one person or very few.
A valid constitutional law would require that congress:
Specify what constitutes an insurrection. That is going to be an impossible task – any definition of insurrectiont hat includes Trump and J6 protestors will include pretty much all democrats in atleast the past 20 years.
Further a broad definition will result in another 9-0 defeat in SCOTUS as unconstitutionally overbroad or vague.
After defining what constitutes an insurrection, they would have to define the process for determining that an insurection has occured, that someone has participated in it and should be removed. Whatever process Congress constructs must also pass due process scrutiny.
It is highly unlikely that SCOTUS would accept a determination by only one chamber of congress as sufficient.
It is entirely possible that SCOTUS could determine that the only constitutional standard would be a criminal conviction for violating a federal law prohibiting insurrection.
Regardless, SCOTUS did not give Congress carte blanch to do as they please.
Dennis – why is it necessary to disqualify someone from office on grounds of insurrection under the 14th Amendment? There is a federal state on point. That is the obvious legal avenue to pursue. So, Joe Biden can be disqualified in the future under this statute for failing to defend the southern border.
The concurrence didn’t want to say that only Congress could enforce 14(3). But the part of the majority that they agreed to said that state-level actors (including local municipal officials) can’t individually enforce it. So . . . who would be able to enforce it under the concurrence’s view, but would not be able to under the majority’s view?
The concurrences objected to the majority’s holding for the Court that 14(3) can be enforced only through “appropriate legislation” passed by Congress.
They did not wish to preclude through the decision here the possibility that the Federal executive branch, or the Federal courts, or Congress acting otherwise than through legislation, could disqualify someone without enabling legislation. They also raised the possibility of a defendant raising disqualification as a defense to a prosecution by an oath breaking insurrectionist.
They did not say that any of these possibilities would stand up. They said only that the Court did not need to preclude them at this time to resolve this case.
Okay, that makes sense. It is a separate question whether they were right. They may have been but I have doubts.
They wanted to disallow state and local actors, without saying Section 5 is the only way. So what was their reasoning for state and local actors being barred? It was based on the Founders’ “vision” and the “principles of federalism.” But those are, I believe, weasel words, of the same kind (albeit perhaps lesser degree) as the Hawaii Supreme Court’s reference to the “Spirit of Aloha” as the basis for 2A not applying in that state.
I agree that without some reliance on Section 5 there is less backing for the position.
Some claim Section 3 is self-executing. If that were true there would be no need for Section 5. The post war Congress thought S5 SHOULD be there, otherwise they wouldn’t have included it in A14. Then again, A5 Due Process with a ‘guilty’ court finding for charges of insurrection would be still required before anyone could assert A14S3 upon an “insurrectionist” without defining what that word means.
“Some claim Section 3 is self-executing.”
Not only is that claim deader than a doornail.
SCOTUS has just reiterated (they have said this before). That states do not get to decide the criteria for elegiability for federal elections.
It may be that Section 3 is self-executing, but it is not self-enforcing. The self-executing nature is ethereal until some valid enforcement action is taken.
NO, all the concurrence says is we should not decide questions we were not asked.
The majority wanted to forestall seeing this case again in a month with the nut bar plantifs finding a freindly federal judge to order the same nonsense.
If we can rule that CO can not do this we were not asked and we do not need to find that Judge Chutkan can not do this.
Thank you Daniel but that is NOT what the Concurrence said.
It said – we were only asked to decide that case regarding the CO SCOTUS (and a few other states) and we should not decide what we have not been asked.
Since section 5 refers to enforcement, and since it only refers to Congress, it would a gross mistake to read it as leaving any avenue other than Congressional legislation for enforcement. It is actually possible that the draughtsmen anticipated the possibilities of abuse of this disqualifying power.
Edward – that’s how I read it. Especially now that Congress has indeed passed such legislation (18 USC 2383), it has always seemed clear to me that that is the one and only way for it to be enforced at present. I suppose Congress could pass additional legislation to enforce it in another way, and both statutes would be available depending on the circumstances. But an entity other than Congress does not have such enforcement authority – again, particularly now that Congress has hacted.
Please read the concurrance carefully. The concurrance did NOT say that the majority was incorrect in conclusions beyond barring states from Acting.
The concurrance correctly stated that SCOTUS rarely decides questions that are no before them. Sotomayor etc. Were NOT saying we do not accept the majority position on how A14S3 would be applied Federally. She said We were not asked to decide that and we should not do so.
I am squishy on whether the concurance is correct.
NORMALLY Sotomayor etc ARE correct. SCOTUS should only decide the issue that is before it.
At the same time – there is so much batschiff crazy nonsense going on that I think that the question asked of SCOTUS is more than “Can the state do this”.
Nothing in the concurrance would have precluded this ending up in front of SCOTUS again in a week – as soon as the batschiff plantiffs in these cases found a freindly federal judge to accdept a challenge.
I think that SCOTUS went too far in the majority decision – for the reasons Sotomayor, … said.
But I do think that they needed to go so far as to say – Only congress can by making law impliment A14S3.
Sotomayor was not prepared to go even that far.
This needed to be a strong decision – it was. it needed to be 9-0, it was
and it needed to thwart the case showing up next week after left dingbat federal judge mirrored the CO SCOTUS.
Sotomayor would not stop that.
At the same time, I have little doubt that she would rule against federal courts echoing CO SCOTUS without congress passing a law.
oldmanfromkansas said: ” So . . . who would be able to enforce it under the concurrence’s view, but would not be able to under the majority’s view?”
Perhaps we should consider the possibility that it is so poorly written as to be fundamentally unenforceable. Of course, that would prompt a discussion in regard to how to remedy that issue; a discussion that would doubtless become a series of even louder, even more ill-tempered, even more polarizing disputes. The leftists have processed baby and bathwater into an inseparable soup; it may no longer be possible to throw out just one of those ingredients.
to make that more clear:
oldmanfromkansas said: ” So . . . who would be able to enforce it under the concurrence’s view, but would not be able to under the majority’s view?”
Perhaps we should consider the possibility that SECTION 3 OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT is so poorly written as to be fundamentally unenforceable. Of course, that would prompt a discussion in regard to how to remedy that issue; a discussion that would doubtless become a series of even louder, even more ill-tempered, even more polarizing disputes. The leftists have processed baby and bathwater into an inseparable soup; it may no longer be possible to throw out just one of those ingredients.
Republicans have been a “burden” to Democrats since their conception as the anti-slavery, anti-diversity, perchance pro-life party. Democrats are the party of Pro-Choice. Abort.
Let us bray.
Simply because Democrats can’t win legitmately, so they need to find ways to CHEAT.
A guy like Raskin never built anything in his life and never got the satisfaction of his accomplishments. He’s the little boy that would knock over the blocks other kids were building with. Now that he past puberty, he knows nothing else. The question we need to ask is, “What are you trying to accomplish?” and not to accept a lollypops and roses answer.
Interesting story, while Raskin does the Two Minutes of Hate Schtick:
A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit has revealed that the Biden administration has flown at least 320,000 migrants into the United States in an effort to reduce the number of crossings at the southern border, according to Todd Bensman of the Center for Immigration Studies.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/treason-bombshell-report-reveals-biden-has-secretly-flown-320000-illegals-united-states
In response to the CIS report, Elon Musk wrote on X: “Treason indeed! Ushering in vast numbers of illegals is why Secretary Mayorkas was impeached by the House,” adding “They are importing voters. This is why groups on the far left fight so hard to stop voter ID requirements, under the absurd guise of protecting the right to vote.”
and notice this! What a coincidence!
Garland has said that Supreme Court decisions have weakened the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He added that some voter ID laws and redistricting maps have put minority groups at a disadvantage, saying that voting restrictions “threaten the foundation of our system of government.”
“That is why the Justice Department is fighting back,” Garland said Sunday in front of the church. “That is why one of the first things I did when I came into office was to double the size of the voting section of the civil rights division. That is why we are challenging efforts by states and jurisdictions to implement discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary restrictions on access to the ballot, including those related to mail-in voting, the use of drop boxes, and voter ID requirements.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2901337/merrick-garland-slams-voter-id-laws-as-discriminatory-unnecessary/
Hopefully, they have redistributed and/or financed their share of carbon credits in order to comply with Net-Zero ideology and sustain a pretense of remaining carbon-neutral (e.g. two-child or one-boy and one-girl policy).
Floyd,
Now, why would Biden do that? /sarc
Kinda fun to watch all of the norms the Democrats were supposed to bring back with the Biden admin, and then they do anything but normal.
Washington Examiner? That rag isn’t worthy of lining a bird cage.
But you would be okay if it was the NYT quoting Garland?
Garland said it.
And the NYT is only worthy of lining a bird cage.
How very cult-like of you, Wally! You did not bother to check to see if anybody else ran with the Merrick Garland speech, which there were many. Nope, not Good Old “Bury his head in the sand” Wally! No, just dismiss the source, because the Cult says they do WrongThink! Like FOXNews! No, Wally, you must go to MSNBC, where you get good, honest bias-confirming reporting, like RussiaGate!
Kirby Refuses To Explain Why Biden Has Never Spoken To Border Patrol Heads
https://modernity.news/2024/03/05/watch-kirby-refuses-to-explain-why-biden-has-never-spoken-to-border-patrol-heads/
Floyd said: “Garland has said that Supreme Court decisions have weakened the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He added that some voter ID laws and redistricting maps have put minority groups at a disadvantage, saying that voting restrictions ‘threaten the foundation of our system of government.’”
As glad as I am to finally be rid of Mitch McConnell as Senate Leader, I will always be grateful to him for one act. Imagine the additional damage that would have occurred had he allowed a confirmation vote to make that colossal asshat Garland a Supreme Court justice.
True. And he was excellent with all of Trump’s Scotus picks. He deserves credit for that. Those three Justices have basically saved the Republic – at least for now.
“None Dare Call It Treason.”
Raskin = Two Minutes of Hate!
In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) by George Orwell, the Two Minutes Hate is the daily period during which members of the Outer and Inner Party of Oceania must watch a film depicting Emmanuel Goldstein, the principal enemy of the state, and his followers, the Brotherhood, and loudly voice their hatred for the enemy and then their love for Big Brother.[1]
The political purpose of the Two Minutes Hate is to allow the citizens of Oceania to vent their existential anguish and personal hatred toward politically expedient enemies: Goldstein and the enemy super-state of the moment. In re-directing the members’ subconscious feelings away from the Party’s governance of Oceania and toward non-existent external enemies, the Party minimizes thought crime and the consequent subversive behaviors of thought criminals.[2]
The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.[3]
Brainwashing of the participants in the Two Minutes Hate includes auditory and visual cues, such as “a hideous, grinding screech, as of some monstrous machine running without oil” that burst from the telescreen,[4] meant to psychologically excite the crowd into an emotional frenzy of hatred, fear, and loathing for Emmanuel Goldstein, and for Oceania’s enemy of the moment, either Eastasia or Eurasia. The hate session includes the participants throwing things at the telescreen showing the film, as does the Julia character. In the course of the Two Minutes Hate, the film image of Goldstein metamorphoses into the face of a bleating sheep, as enemy soldiers advance towards the viewers of the film, before one enemy soldier charges towards the viewers, whilst firing his sub-machinegun; the face of that soldier then becomes the face of Big Brother.[5] At the end of the two-minute session of hatred, the members of the Party ritualistically chant “B-B . . . B-B . . . B-B . . . B-B.” To maintain the extreme emotions provoked in the Two Minutes Hate sessions, the Party created Hate Week, a week-long festival of hatreds.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate#:~:text=In%20the%20dystopian%20novel%20Nineteen,and%20loudly%20voice%20their%20hatred
Leftists misunderstand “1984” – it’s meant to be a warning, not a cookbook.
Obama and Biden can be charged with insurection.
They were fully in command of working with our 5 eyes allies, in spying on 34 named Trump campaign team. “bumping” them using Russian paid informants to dirty up the Trump campaign.
@Iowan,
No that is not insurrection.
Clearly they broke the law.
Interestingly enough, in their defense, they will claim immunity, which is what Trump is going in front of SCOTUS to argue.
Were they in office when the story exploded… the only recourse would be to impeach and then file criminal charges.
While yes, these two are despicable. History will not be kind to either.
Joe Biden is the worst POTUS in history and has set this country back over 100yrs in terms of policy.
-G
I think that you are still using the America 1.0 program, where the word “insurrection” had a definite meaning. In the America 2.0 version, things are a lot more wiggly, and insurrection can mean a whole host of different things. Like calling for a peaceful protest.
Excellent post.
The Scotus decision said only Congress can enforce 14A(3). This raises at least two questions in light of Raskin’s current actions (which he knows are doomed to fail, and is just trying to win political brownie points with his constituents).
(1) Would the new legislation allow a judicial determination that the defendant engaged in an insurrection, by a mere preponderance rather than beyond a reasonable doubt? And would that finding be solely for disqualification purposes, and no civil or criminal liability?
(2) Would it violate ex post facto or any other constitutional provision to simply “declare” by legislation that the J6 protest/riot was in fact an insurrection for 14A(3) purposes?
How is he guilty? What happened to innocent until proven guilty!? You have nothing… And I mean nothing in the way of facts to prove you little they nor was Trump even accused of that. You want to get rid of the supreme Court, or add to it. you want to end the electoral college, and you want to ban people (who are kicking your ass) from even being on the ballot. All of this is pissing on our founding principles. How is doing any of that “save out democracy”? It would completely ruin it. We conservatives want to protect that constitution with everything we have. You are on the wrong side of history.
Read my questions again. I don’t say anything you attribute to me. My own position is not what you think it is. I’m asking two questions.
Confucis say: not insurrection if insurrecter not overthrow government.
That’s the point of my second question. Raskin knows Trump would never be found to have engaged in an insurrection; that’s why he wants the legislation to simply declare the J6 protest/riot an “insurrection”? My question is, doesn’t that kind of post-hoc legislative declaration violate the Constitution (e.g., the Due Process Clause) if used to deprive someone of a protected liberty or property interest?
Yes, that’s why section II-A of the decision is so important (and why Kagan fought to keep it out)
If they simply “declared” or “found” him guilty of an insurrection, it sounds like a Bill of Attainder.
How so?
Because Edward doesn’t understand what “Bill of Attainder” means.
Edward pretty clearly understands what a Bill of attainder is.
A bill of attainder is a piece of legislation that declares a party is guilty of a crime. Bills of attainder allow the government to punish a party for a perceived crime without first going through the trial process.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bill_of_attainder
Yes, it will be very diffcult for Democrats to consturct legislation that does not run afould of due process or Bill or attainder problems.
it is near certain they can not do what is needed in a single law.
First they have to define the process – by writing a law. Then that law must be independently applied.
The majorioty decision was sending a STRONG message that they are going to look at all efforets to win elections via lawfare as dubious.
@Oldman,
There are two ways to interpret what Idjit Raskin said.
1) They will attempt to get 2/3rds support of the house then 2/3rd of Senate to go after Trump
OR
2) The Dims are going to attempt to pass new legislation that would bypass this and it will fail.
To your point 2, no, The house can’t do it.
For there to be an insurrection…
1) POTUS can declare one, prior to sending in the military to quell the rebellion.
OR
2) Speaker of the House, who is responsible for security of the Capitol can declare an insurrection and call in the military to quell the rebellion
OR
3) 2/3rds of both House and Senate have to agree that it was an insurrection.
OR…
The person would have to be charged under 18 USC 2383.
Since Trump wasn’t charged and then found guilty under 18 USC 2383, there is no chance of his being involved in an insurrection.
Raskin and other Dims know this.
But they have to do *something* to placate their pleebs who keep voting them into office.
They should be publicly called out and humiliated over this fact.
-G
Ian,
Great analysis and assessment.
Well said and thank you.
“1) POTUS can declare one, prior to sending in the military to quell the rebellion.”
Potus might have the power to send in the military.
POTUS can call something an insurrection – but that would not meet the requirements of A14S3 or constitutional law.
“2) Speaker of the House, who is responsible for security of the Capitol can declare an insurrection and call in the military to quell the rebellion”
Same problem as 1.
“3) 2/3rds of both House and Senate have to agree that it was an insurrection.”
That would be a bill of attainder. Regardless A14S3 specifies that congress can REMOVE disability that way.
“The person would have to be charged under 18 USC 2383.”
Not “charged” – convicted.
Congress can legislate other methods of determining that an insurrection occured and that someone participated.
But they have not.
1). Such legislation can set whatever standard it pleases.
SCOTUS might still reject that standard on sue process grounds.
2). Anything short of an action by both the house and senate is unlikely to be constitutionally sufficient.
There is also significant risk that if congress empowers itself to be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner
that they will have due process and or bill of attainder problems.
“Calling it “one on a huge list of priorities,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) announced that he will be reintroducing a prior bill with Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell to disqualify not just Trump but a large number of Republicans from taking office.”
****************************
From the meaningless gesture crowd come this DOA bill. They are funny folks.
Which is the reason five of the justices added section II-A, which the four women feel was unneeded (Barrett) or would hurt their team (the three libs). It explains the relationship of Section 5 of the 14th to Section 3 (and other sections). In II-B the majority further spells out “Any congressional legislation enforcing Section 3 must, like the Enforcement Act of 1870 and §2383, reflect “congruence and proportionality” between preventing or remedying that conduct “and the means adopted to that end.”” You’d almost think Kagan was working with Raskin in trying to get this taken out and/or watered down.
Barret was singing Cum bay a while at least Kagan – to her credit – knows how to play hardball
The Democrats claim they are trying to “save Democracy” – that’s one of themes of the Democrats for the upcoming cycle of elections. The things Professor Turley describes Raskin and other Democrats doing- these efforts to keep Trump and other GOP members off the ballot for some made up legal excuse are, of course, totally anti-Democratic! But this is the modern Democratic party. Democrats today engage in some low handed tactic and they then charge that the Republicans are doing the selazy thing the Democrats are doing! The Democrats are assisted in spreading these lies and falsehoods by the CNN-MSNBC- Rachel Maddow- Morning Joe echo chamber. The Democrats can continue this behavior but that would be a mistake. The credibility of the Democrats has never been lower, in my view. You can believe nothing they say – and you can also bet the farm any policy proposal they are floating will not work, and it will cause the federal deficit to soar even more out of control than it already is. I’m 70 years old, never seen worse leadership that the Democrats have today. Jamie Raskin is something out of a comic book. A lying gasbag like no other. When ever i see Raskin on TV I think of that film “Liar, Liar” – Raskin lies from the minute he gets up in the morning, right up until his head hits the pillow at night.
head hit spillow at night… and then he lies in his dreams. Assuming evil can dream.
Whenever I hear people like Raskin, Goldman, Debbie W.S. give their highly partisan take on things, I think, “Whatever happened to ‘WE the People’? They’re saying it’s about just ‘SOME of the People’ (where the ‘some’ is just Themselves). Which sounds closer to Lord of the Flies than ‘saving democracy’.
Those three jews hate the USA, we should probably ship them to the stolen lands. Schumer and the penguin too.
The constitution is essentially a reductive argument as is, in turn, the electoral college. The electoral college is a recognition of state’s rights , rights which we cannot abandon for the sake of political gain. If you reside in the state of West Virginia, then you are a member of and a representative of the state of West Virginia. That state is represented in the federal election by way of a popular vote within the state and the results of that vote proportionally represent the state of West Virginia. Mathematically and logically the consensus of the state is represented in the general election by way of the electorates which reflect the pure popular vote of the state. This, mathematically , ensures the majority will or so is the inference. But the inference is controlled by the relations between the given facts not the facts themselves. If the vote is 3/5 to 2/5 then the whole of 5/5 is logically extended to the federal level. It’s going to be that anyway if each individual vote is counted. And so, we now come to the issue of the recognition of each state independently and the role of the individual voter within that state.
Each voter is “thrown” into their conditions by virtue of their very residency and the existential conditions that attend thereto. Is it possible and reasonable to respond to this condition by stating “you’re free to move to another state”? For some this is a small problem, one of inconvenience but not impossibility. The current migration between the states in this country has taken a noticeable uptick in recent years. Many leave for matters of personal comfort more than political sentiment , but they do move and the results of that new residency is reflected in that particular state. Does this migration option reflect the wisdom of the drafters? It does in the sense that to remove a candidate from the ballot in that state is to disenfranchise those voters in that state who prefer a particular candidate. The logic of proportional representation is disrupted. It does represent the wisdom of the drafters that no matter which state in which you reside the sentiment of the state is reflected in the general election. But to remove a candidate from the ballot? That act in itself disenfranchises all of the voters of that state and therein lies the threat. Those disenfranchised voters have no voice and this is the despotism we strive to avoid in preserving the original design of the constitution. To exclude a candidate from the ballot is to exclude those voters of that state who support that candidate and it is that which must be avoided.
The Democrats are frog-marching us into a civil war with their crude attempts to keep half the country from voting for its preferred candidate. Don’t these people ever think about consequences? As for their convention in Chicago this year — good luck with finding a hotel that isn’t full of illegal immigrants.
As an aside; no, at least we know that prog/left women never consider the consequences of unprotected sex – hence the need for planned parenthood. Of course you cannot allow for projected problems to interfere with your march to totalitarian and fundamental transformations of our nation – that would just slow things down.
It is called projection. Many Democrats are cult members. Therefore, they think that Republicans are in a cult too – just like them .
Bill Maher, for example, is in the cult. He knows and openly states that many Democrat ideas are wrong and wacky, like on the border problems and the gender stuff. But is going to vote Democrat anyway – even though the border stuff is serious and the gender stuff results in castration and double-mastectomies for children – Joseph Mengele level evil. When pressed, he says Democrats are better than Republicans, but he can’t go beyond “well, he just sort of knows that.”
Further, Maher loves Gavin Newsome, and thinks he should run, but he can’t name anything Newsome has done that is good. But Newsome is kewl! And, Newsome is a winner! If nominated, Newsome can win because he will have to move to the “center.” What does that say about Newsome – that Newsome is lying now, to win in California, or that Newsome will lie in the future, if nominated, to win across the country? Doesn’t really matter to Bill Maher, as long as a Democrat wins. Which is why I call that whole kind of Party worshiping, even when you know they are wrong, the Bill Maher Syndrome.
I heard somewhere from a cult deprogrammer, that one sign of being in a cult, is when your core-beliefs are trumped by your cult-ideology beliefs. With the Democrats, you often never know if you are dealing with a cult-member Democrat, or just a cynical Democrat, who preaches to the cult base, to keep them stirred up and voting for Democrats. Or maybe a mixture of both.
I suspect that Raskin and Schulz are the cynical type, like Rachel Maddow. Whichever, the whole “Get Trump” thing will never end. And after Trump, the anger will be directed against the Republicans, White Christians, straight people, rural people – whoever. It does not matter as long as they have an enemy to blame. One day, hopefully, they will fully turn on the Jews, and the Blacks, and destroy the base of their party.
Bill Maher is rather typical of those who rode to riches as a Democrat mouthpiece. He’s been a Democrat mouthpiece since the days of Clinton. Mind you, he’s not a good looking guy. Not celebrity material. But he’s made a hundred million plus with his “I love the Democrats who are in power!” schtick. Very typical of U.S. celebrities – it’s all about gigs, grants, and favorable tax and legal treatment. Does say much for pride, self-esteem, or personal scruples though does it?
Maybe that is why Bill Maher smokes dope all the time, and drinks? The same reasons strippers take drugs – a lack of self-esteem, or other mental problem, which is not uncommon in comics. See:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/01/health/sad-clown-standup-comedy-mental-health/index.html
Excellent deductions, Floyd. It seems our blog writer is the same way…True Blue thru and through, despite however many he sees in his own Party doing their level best to destroy the ideas and concepts of a free country where the individual has Rights, not government. Note the tone frequency Professor feels compelled to throw his side a metaphorical bone in every post related to J6, “Most of us condemned the riot on that day as a desecration of our constitutional process.” He knows the “desecration” was the failure of both Congress and SCOTUS to investigate the highly dubious election results in states that refused to uphold their own election laws on the books four years ago. Yet he persists that somehow, in someway, refusal of redress by two of three branches of government (and lawless strings being pulled by the unaccountable in the third) is the right thing to do.
I find that frustrating, too. I do not now how Prof. Turley casts his vote, but if it is not for Trump, then it is for a continuation of Democrat destruction of pretty much all norms. I think there are still far too many people in the country of the “Hail Fellow, well met!” class, who simply do not, or can not, grok who and what they are dealing with. Imagine Raskin, as a Registrar of Voters, and ask yourself if there anything that he would not do to screw with the vote? Well, guess what? There are millions of Raskins out there, and what may have been inconceivable once, should no longer be inconceivable.
But, if the pro-Palestinian Democrat Left starts some Oct. 7th stuff in NYC, maybe that will change a few minds.
More brilliant J6 legal analysis from former law professor Jamie Raskin (do they still fly old USSR flags at half-staff at the Washington College of Law for their boy Joe Stalin?). Jamie Raskin will be the Democrats little “Strike Dog” for the next nine months screaming that Democrats are “saving Democracy”. Sound about right Jonathan?