The Trump Card...

[Turtle]

There is certainly nothing in the text constraining it solely to that ... and if one subscribes to the textualism school of Constitutional Interpretation - which I am given to understand many conservatives do - it's applicability should be rather broad no ?

Just the opposite. The purpose of the Constitution is to place restrictions on the government, not to leave things open to interpretations that change with the whim of political winds. As Justice Scalia wrote, interpretation should be "guided by the text and not by intentions or ideals external to it, and by the original meaning of the text, not by its evolving meaning over time."

Well, Congress is not dealing with some mere "private citizen" here ... no matter how much some like to ride that hobby-horse.

It's hardly a hobby horse, it's a stone-cold fact, no matter how much some in Congress hate him.

He a former public official.

The key word there being "Former."

But here's a question to consider:

Were the folks that it was originally applied to all convicted in "real courts" ?

Yeah, mostly. Section 3 of the Amendment was for the most part used only for the short period between its ratification and the 1872 enactment of the Amnesty Act, which removed disqualification from Confererates. Not that the Amnesty Act would apply today, because it wouldn't (unless there are any Confederate soldiers still around).

Section 3 does not expressly require a criminal conviction and historically, one was not necessarily necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to disqualify officials linked to the confederacy, and all who were ruled against were disqualified from holding office. And Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat House members without any trial, but they never did that with someone outside the House.

But in any event, SCOTUS has ruled on several occasions that in matters of Congress, including impeachments, that rights (including the right to run and be elected to office) cannot be deprived without due process. Congress still has the ability and authority under the amendment (Section 5) to create legislation in order to implement Section 3, but they have yet to do so. The legislation to deprive someone of their rights would have to pass SCOTUS muster, of course.

Republicans is spelled wrong in that sentence.

Republicans and Democrats Are Describing Two Different Constitutions

But when you hear people like Raskin and David Cicillini say out loud in an official proceeding that Trump's refusal to testify is evidence of his guilt, and will be considered as such, and when you see a complete lack of any semblance of due process in two consecutive impeachment proceedings, and when you see House Managers fabricate and tamper with evidence, I'm pretty sure I spelled it correctly.

 

[Turtle]

That's not what I'm thinking at all.

You might consider publicly revealing your thinking. It would certainly help with the conversation. But it's up to you.

 

[Ragman]

Not that the Amnesty Act would apply today, because it wouldn't (unless there are any Confederate soldiers still around).

 

[RLENT]

Maybe he can figure out a way to time travel to escape justice ?

 

[RLENT]

You might consider publicly revealing your thinking. It would certainly help with the conversation. But it's up to you.

Still trying to locate the relevant supporting document ... had it a bit ago but can't quite lay my fingers on it at the moment ...

 

[RLENT]

Just the opposite. The purpose of the Constitution is to place restrictions on the government, not to leave things open to interpretations that change with the whim of political winds. As Justice Scalia wrote, interpretation should be "guided by the text and not by intentions or ideals external to it, and by the original meaning of the text, not by its evolving meaning over time."

Yes - and the meaning of the text itself is quite clear.

It means what it says ... and says what it means.

And it says absolutely nothing whatsoever about being limited, or only applicable, to rebellion/insurrection of the Confederacy. The Confederacy and the War between the States is not mentioned anywhere.

Black letter.

It's hardly a hobby horse, it's a stone-cold fact, no matter how much some in Congress hate him.

As is the fact that he is also a former public official.

The key word there being "Former."

Yes.

Impeached while in office, tried after leaving.

Yeah, mostly. Section 3 of the Amendment was for the most part used only for the short period between its ratification and the 1872 enactment of the Amnesty Act, which removed disqualification from Confererates. Not that the Amnesty Act would apply today, because it wouldn't (unless there are any Confederate soldiers still around).

Correct.

And we are fortunate that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was written in the precise manner that it was.

Kinda makes one think those that wrote it might have had some vision.

Section 3 does not expressly require a criminal conviction and historically, one was not necessarily necessary.

Thank you.

Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to disqualify officials linked to the confederacy, and all who were ruled against were disqualified from holding office. And Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat House members without any trial, but they never did that with someone outside the House.

Ok.

But in any event, SCOTUS has ruled on several occasions that in matters of Congress, including impeachments, that rights (including the right to run and be elected to office) cannot be deprived without due process.

Yes ... so the matter of what constitutes "due process" is arguable and open to opinion as it would effect such a case of Congress baring someone from future office ... at least until a court might rule on it.

Of course, if someone felt they were deprived of their due process and were to appeal, a court could take it up ... or chose not to hear the case at all.

Congress still has the ability and authority under the amendment (Section 5) to create legislation in order to implement Section 3, but they have yet to do so. The legislation to deprive someone of their rights would have to pass SCOTUS muster, if course.

True.

Assuming SCOTUS would agree to hear the case, if it were disputed.

I'm guessing these days, they might not be quite as eager to put Donald on the Docket as in times past.

Republicans and Democrats Are Describing Two Different Constitutions

But when you hear people like Raskin and David Cicillini say out loud in an official proceeding that Trump's refusal to testify is evidence of his guilt, and will be considered as such,

Nah ...

Raskin and David Cicillini were entirely correct about adverse inference on guilt ... because this was a civil trial ... not a criminal one.

No loss of liberty, no fines could possibly attach with regard to an Article 3 sanction.

Different legal standards (civil vs. criminal)

and when you see a complete lack of any semblance of due process in two consecutive impeachment proceedings,

Trump had the opportunity to come and testify and present his own personal testimony, to present his own personal evidence.

He chose not to.

It was probably a wise move - in that it probably would have been a complete disaster.

and when you see House Managers fabricate and tamper with evidence,

That's a bit of misinformation that has been peddled in the rightwing media, for partisan ends of course.

It's been addressed and refuted:

Democrats dismiss claims they misrepresented evidence during impeachment trial

I'm pretty sure I spelled it correctly.

Ok.

I see it differently.

 

[Turtle]

Raskin and David Cicillini were entirely correct about adverse inference on guilt ... because this was a civil trial ... not a criminal one.

The Supreme Court has long held that the Fifth Amendment applies outside a criminal courtroom. It's a really long list, but on that list is impeachments and testifying before Congress. But also, this was neither a criminal nor a civil trial, each of which has their own legal standards. This is an impeachment trial, which has no established standards, like, for example, the rules of evidence that apply in both criminal and civil courts do not apply in an impeachment. However, the Court has ruled repeatedly that even in impeachment trials, due process and Constitutional rights still apply.

Yes - and the meaning of the text itself is quite clear.

It means what it says ... and says what it means.

And it says absolutely nothing whatsoever about being limited, or only applicable, to rebellion/insurrection of the Confederacy. The Confederacy and the War between the States is not mentioned anywhere.

You forgot to bold in the quoted text the part about "... and by the original meaning of the text, not by its evolving meaning over time." You're trying to read into the text what you want it to mean, which is the opposite of Textualism and Originalism, which go hand in had. I understand wanting to do that, because as the article I linked shows, Democrats tend to want to do that. But that's not what Textualism is. The meaning and intent of the Amendment is quite specific, and according to Textualism should be adhered to without letting the meaning and intent evolve to political whims.

We've seen such desperate attempts to "get Trump" by creative use of interpretations over and over. Setting aside the "We got him now!" bombshell reports du jour ad nauseum, we've seen, "Hey, let's get him by gaming the Electoral College!" and "Hey, let's get him with the 25th Amendment! Yeah, that's the ticket!" and "Hey, let's just impeachm him!" and now, "Hey, let's get him with the 14th Amendment! That'll teach him a lesson!"

It's sad no matter where you fall on the political spectrum.

Yes ... so the matter of what constitutes "due process" is arguable and open to opinion...

It's really not. Due process is the foundation of our American society and our legal system, and is the requirement that legal matters (civil, criminal, constitutional) be resolved according to established rules and principles, and that individuals be treated fairly. It requires the state to respect all the legal rights owed to a person, and balances the power of the state and protects the individual person from the power of the state.

It helps keep the notion of the Golden Rule in the ethical forefront. The ethics of the Golden Rule is so important to the fairness and rights of Due Process that Thomas Jefferson used the phrase "inalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence as a direct reference to French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau who argued the idea that each individual has a right to just treatment, and a reciprocal responsibility to ensure justice for others, and that these rights are human rights.

 

[coalminer]

My wife ran across this on Facebook the other day had to laugh




Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[Turtle]

Trump's lawyer David Schoen, the one who destroyed the Fine People Hoax on live television, only found out himself that the hoax was a hoax on the day when he was preparing his defense and decided to watch the full unedited video. He was astonished because he'd never heard the truth about it, since he mostly watches CNN and the other mainstream media outlets. The biggest lie in the country, and he thought it was true.

That's how good the media is at manipulating the public. Keep that in mind when you watch or read the news, and then believe it. I mean, they made the Hunter Biden laptop story go away like it never happened.

 

[Turtle]

Wanna make your liberal friends mad? (if they haven't already stopped talking to you by now)

Trump is the most acquitted president in history.

 

[Ragman]

The biggest lie in the country, ......

Actually, the election was stolen is a bigger lie.

Trump is the most acquitted president in history.

It's nothing to be proud of. Its really shameful in reality.

 

[muttly]

Wanna make your liberal friends mad? (if they haven't already stopped talking to you by now)

Trump is the most acquitted president in history.

 

[muttly]

Actually, the election was stolen is a bigger lie.

It's nothing to be proud of. Its really shameful in reality.

Russia collusion is the biggest lie.
Yes, shameful that Dems wasted everyone's time with 2 Shampeachments.

 

[Turtle]

Actually, the election was stolen is a bigger lie.

Not even close. The lie that Trump praised white supremacists is what allows for people to paint both Trump and his supporters as white supremacists, Nazis, racists, and antisemites. They believe this to be true, one hundred percent, no doubt whatsoever. And if you believe someone to be those things, why, it's practically your duty to attack and harm them with physical violence, and we've seen that very thing happen.

As for the election was stolen lie, it's not even a lie. I realize the media has been telling you it's "The Great Lie." They used to use "The Big Lie," and some still do, but I think someone pointed out that "The Big Lie" is word-for-word from Nazi propaganda, so they figured they'd just change it a little bit and instead of quoting Nazi propaganda directly they would tacitly reference it.

But it's not a lie. It's an opinion or an allegation, but it's not a lie. The media is telling you that it is, and you've fallen for the age-old persuasion tactic of "thinking past the sale."

Countless Democrats claimed Trump stole the 2016 election. Stacey Abrams still claims her gubernatorial election was stolen. Are they lying? They don't have any proof. So they must be lying, right?

To date, there is no proof that has been litigated or examined in a court to support the charge of election fraud, irregularities, shenanigans, that it was stolen. None whatsoever. But that's not the same as it being proof there wasn't fraud, etc. We've simply not seen the proof. Yes, I am aware of all the court cases that were dismissed, but none of those were dismissed based on any evidence presented, they were all dismissed for other reasons, with "no standing" being the most common reason.

The reason "The Great Lie" makes you think past the sale is, it makes you believe that the election was free, fair, and transparent. But there's no proof of that, either. If the election was indeed free, fair, and transparent, then claiming that it was stolen would be a lie, and we could all see it. But there is zero proof of transparency in the election. The election may have been perfectly legit, but there's no proof of that. The election may have been stolen, but there's no proof of that. Nobody knows.

So calling the claim that it was stolen "The Great Lie" is itself a lie, and a pretty big one, because the claim might be true. We don't know. We can believe, hope, and be convinced one way or the other, but we don't know.


There are lots and lots, but the biggest part of Nazi propaganda that people would be wise to recognize when they see it, to prevent from getting duped, is:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Joeseph Goebbels

This Wikipedia page discusses the big lie. Read the first 3 or 4 paragraphs and see if you don't see any parallels with what is happening today. Then go back and swap out "Jew" with "Conservative" and see if you don't.

Don't be duped.

 

[muttly]

Trump's lawyer David Schoen, the one who destroyed the Fine People Hoax on live television, only found out himself that the hoax was a hoax on the day when he was preparing his defense and decided to watch the full unedited video. He was astonished because he'd never heard the truth about it, since he mostly watches CNN and the other mainstream media outlets. The biggest lie in the country, and he thought it was true.

That's how good the media is at manipulating the public. Keep that in mind when you watch or read the news, and then believe it. I mean, they made the Hunter Biden laptop story go away like it never happened.

Constant barrage of lies about the Fine People Hoax and other things. Reporters continuously asking him to condemn over and over like they weren't even listening.
They lied because they wanted to drive down his popularity and get him out of office. So in their view, the ends justify the means.

 

[Pilgrim]

Remember the definition of "gaslighting" mentioned not too long ago? How appropriate is that to describe the Democrat party strategy and its application supported by the mainstream media. Notice how their representatives in the House and Senate always vote in lock step with no dissent ever from the party line, unlike the GOP. Independent thought and representing the will of their constituents and constitutional rights isn't tolerated.

 

[Ragman]

 

[Turtle]

That doesn't even make sense. Trump's not at the White House anymore.

The Left can't meme. They try so hard, but they just can't.

 

[Ragman]

That doesn't even make sense. Trump's not at the White House anymore.

The Left can't meme. They try so hard, but they just can't.

Smh

 

[muttly]