Breaking: Proposed Plan to Block Donald Trump from Taking Office Sparks MAGA Fury

I wondered why this was ignored months ago. Now, two attorneys are finally pressuring Democrats to comply with their oath of office by acting on the 14th Amendment, Section 3.

https://www.newsweek.com/proposed-plan-block-donald-trump-taking-office-maga-fury-2006387

 

Yawn.

Another couple of morons heard from. As if there haven't been enough these past 4 years from the left.

 

Yeahright, except there has been NONE. The Democrats are all in violation of their own oath of office because they've very carefully avoided any language or any action that could threaten trump.

 

Great. Impeach the bastids.

Think that will help?

 

No. That's just it. The WHOLE SYSTEM needs to go. It's all corrupt. But first trump must be stopped.

 

These two "scholars" are endorsing and insurrection!

Lock them up!

 

The American voters disagreed with you.

Sorry 'bout that.

 

Let me know when you've worked up to more than 3 people who agree with you.

 

Already a thread on this..
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...tion-to-stop-trump-from-taking-office.624029/

But my thoughts are the same:
These "Lawyers" are a couple of idiots making fools of themselves...
***List of Things MORE "Likely to Happen"....
1) Bigfoot Becoming Dictator for Life and Declaring Martial Law....
2) The Shortest Man in the World Winning the NBA Slam Dunk Contest...
3) The Roswell Aliens Annexing Antarctica and turning it into a Tropical Paradise...

 

Maybe chronologically past 4; mentally. not even close to four.
The more time they fiddle-f**k around with crap like this the less time they'll have to actually examine the past election and come up with a workable strategy.

 

What's that saying? Something about the first step to getting out of a hole is to stop digging?

 

Where are the audits for election fraud? No president should be confirmed until a thorough audit has been undertaken.

 

Stopped from doing what? Be specific.

 

Are you saying Biden & Co ran a corrupt election?

 

The argument both men put forward relies on the 14th Amendment, which says that "No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath ... 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."
The authors called evidence of Trump's involvement in the insurrection "overwhelming" and, therefore, disqualifying.

This nonsense again?
The desperation of the left runs swift and deep.

14th Amendment, section 5:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Federal law, enacted by Congress:
Title 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I-CRIMES
CHAPTER 115-TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
S2383: REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

This is a criminal law; for the consequences to take effect, the accused must first be convicted in criminal court.
No one, much less Trump, has been indicted, tried or convicted of insurrection re: Jan 6.

/ Thread

 

Kamala Harris herself, as sitting vice president will be the one to certify the election results. Not because she has high standards of integrity, but because accepting the results of the election is her basic duty, both as a candidate, and as a person who holds public office

 

And as required by the law Democrats enacted in 2022.

 

Imagine that, a ruling party passing laws to further protect democracy instead of protecting their own power.

 

"Stopped from holding office".

I thought you were listening. My mistake.

 

Then why does that not read?

"No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have been convicted of having been engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

 

Good point. Trump hasn't been convicted of anything so it really doesn't matter.

Feel free to try again.

 

Does the president run the election? What are your comments about the 2020 election when Trump was president?

 

Regarding elected officials, I don't have even 2 and it's a question of will. They're sure they won't be prosecuted for neglecting their oath.

 

You don't understand.
Congress, through the power given to it by the 5th section of the 14th amendment, chose to enforce the 3rd section of 14th Amendment with the law I cited.
That law, being a criminal law, requires a conviction.
That is, Congress requires a criminal conviction for the 3rd section to have any effect.

See how easy that was?

 

Indeed, but if a conviction was a pre-requisite, why didn't the Clause include words to make it clear a conviction was first required? That it did not strongly suggests a conviction is not a pre-requisite.