When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
First, their argument acts as if section 3 of the 14th Amendment exists in a vaccuum, which it does not. Section 5 very clearly establishes the enforcement mechanism: legislation passed by Congress. Congress did in fact pass the appropriate legislation, 18 USC 2383.
This is a really good argument.
Seriously, it's one I hadn't spotted myself, and I it. I can think of no counter-argument.
Originally Posted by Roda
Second, the Constitution also establishes a right to Due Process. No court can simply declare a person penalized under law without Due Process. Trump has not been convicted, nor even charged, under 18 USC 2383, so the penalty for that statute cannot legally be applied to him. In fact, the only actual legal process that took place regarding Trump's role in J6 was the Congressional Impeachment, and the Senate specifically acquitted Trump of "insurrection" charges.
Rebuttal: Due process is about the deprivation of life, liberty, or property.
Ineligibility for public office is none of these. And many people who are citizens of the United States, who have never been convicted of any crime, are none the less permanently ineligible to appear on any ballot for President or Vice President.
If I were arguing this, I'd have stopped at the first point. It's a strong one.
Originally Posted by Roda
We are at a dangerous crossroads... a government that can tell you who you get to vote for can do to you just about anything they want.
Oh, absolutely. American democracy is being methodically dismantled, and We the People are cheering it on.
That terrifies me, and I don't want anyone to think differently just because I like to analyze situations objectively, and in "real-world" terms.
Even a banana republic is laughing about it. Nayib Bukele - president of El Salvador -
"Think what you want about former President Trump and the reasons he’s being indicted," Bukele, who has faced criticism in his own country over the constitutionality of his re-election campaign, wrote. "But just imagine if this happened in any other country, where a government arrested the main opposition candidate."
"The United States ability to use ‘democracy’ as foreign policy is gone."
Rebuttal: Due process is about the deprivation of life, liberty, or property.
Ineligibility for public office is none of these. And many people who are citizens of the United States, who have never been convicted of any crime, are none the less permanently ineligible to appear on any ballot for President or Vice President.
I would strongly disagree with this. You are taking away the liberty to run for office. Therefore, due process is due.
I would strongly disagree with this. You are taking away the liberty to run for office. Therefore, due process is due.
If that is true, then The US Constitution deprives many of its own citizens of liberty without due process in Article II Section 1 paragraph 6.
This image is not directly related to this conversation, merely something I looked up and saw on the air, and thought to myself "We probably could have come up with a better way to phrase that headline."
The president was not "having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, ...to support the Constitution of the United States"
Again, it depends on the definition. So whatever CO decides "officer of the US" means as well as "The Congress" -- you know, cause of that pesky Section 5.
It's also strange to mean this amendment, cause it's the only one in the Constitution giving the Fed powers to do something...
This would be like VA Beach outlawing offensive language in public for the last 25 years... oh wait.
Exactly.
In all seriousness, this is why it does not matter (in the real world) whether a law is bad, wrong, or blatantly unconstitutional, so long as a sufficiently vocal and persuasive portion of the electorate desire to be oppressed in that specific way.
The decision may be a bad one, but you're still going to prison.
If the appeals court later comes along and says "Ackchyually, that's a no-no law," well, that makes for a nice morality tale and a minor entry in a future constitutional law journal, but it doesn't change the fact that your career and marriage are ruined and you now have a swastika crudely tattooed on your ***.
(I'm obviously writing from the point of view of a commoner, not a billionaire politician.)
100% serious question, now that I have bypassed the paywall and read both that entire article, as well as the one which it cites as its source of legal authority.
Did you read both of these articles fully, or only down to the paywall cut-off section?
If the appeals court later comes along and says "Ackchyually, that's a no-no law," well, that makes for a nice morality tale and a minor entry in a future constitutional law journal, but it doesn't change the fact that your career and marriage are ruined and you now have a swastika crudely tattooed on your ***.
It would be nice if every law passed has to go through some sort of SCOTUS challenge before it can be enforced. Like the "vaccine" mandates, they got what they wanted even though it was illegal for years.
If that is true, then The US Constitution deprives many of its own citizens of liberty without due process in Article II Section 1 paragraph 6.
This image is not directly related to this conversation, merely something I looked up and saw on the air, and thought to myself "We probably could have come up with a better way to phrase that headline."
Others have said it....hundreds of times. Texas is doing what the Feds are legally obligated to do. If there's any moral or legal ambiguity, it's because of the actions & inactions of the U.S. government.
Two Rose Bowls worth of people are coming to the U.S. illegally every month. 2.5 miilion a year. Those are the ones we know about. Health care, social services, education....gutted. If you believe that Democrats are actually Marxists, it's to overload our system in order to create a revolution, and then Socialism. If you say don't ascribe evil to what could be put down as stupidity, then the Democrats are simply looking for D voters. And yet, we could still end up extreme social unrest because of the millions of military-age men in the U.S. with no allegiance to the country, and a willingness to violently avoid deportation, en masse.
Others have said it....hundreds of times. Texas is doing what the Feds are legally obligated to do. If there's any moral or legal ambiguity, it's because of the actions & inactions of the U.S. government.
I was really just referring to the awkwardness of the headline.
"Texas criminalizes illegal immigration."
Like, "illegal" is already in the name.
What does "criminalize" mean? It means to declare an act to be illegal.
"Texas makes illegal immigration illegal."
ATM Machine.
Originally Posted by cordycord
Two Rose Bowls worth of people are coming to the U.S. illegally every month.
I have literally no context for understanding this. I do not how how many people are equal to a Rose Bowl.
Using that unit of measurement, as opposed to just stating a number, makes this harder for me to understand, not easier.
From an amazing Michael Crichton talk: “Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.) Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper.”
I was really just referring to the awkwardness of the headline.
"Texas criminalizes illegal immigration."
Like, "illegal" is already in the name.
What does "criminalize" mean? It means to declare an act to be illegal.
"Texas makes illegal immigration illegal."
ATM Machine.
I have literally no context for understanding this. I do not how how many people are equal to a Rose Bowl.
Using that unit of measurement, as opposed to just stating a number, makes this harder for me to understand, not easier.
You've no doubt seen a "Goodyear Blimp" picture of a full Rose Bowl. Men are visual...at least I am. 100,000 is a number not easily visualized. A veritable vast stadium filled to the brim with people is meant to help.
Max modern capacity, 92,000+. BTW, this shows the approximate known illegal immigrant numbers.
12-20-2023, 07:56 PM
it. I can think of no counter-argument.
