Politics And Current Events

[Beveridge]

Trump getting back in will lead to 4 years on how they will make it so he can run again.

[MR25]

Trump getting back in will lead to 4 years on how they will make it so he can run again.

Not far off.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

I honestly don't know why this isn't constantly blasted out there RE: Trump. The media has no idea how to react to someone like him.

[Shyster]

This isn't a criminal question. I wish people would stop bringing this up.

It is a criminal question because Section 5 of the 14A says that "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article," and legal Twitter is pretty unified in believing that the SCOTUS is going to hold, probably sometime in the next 30 to 60 days, that Section 5 means that only Congress may enforce the disqualification clause. And Congress has enforced Section 5 of the 14A by enacting the statute codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2383, which makes it a federal crime to "engage[] in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or give[] aid or comfort thereto" and says that someone who does "shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

So it's a criminal question because the currently enforcement mechanism (which Congress could change) hinges in a criminal conviction.

[Pavel Bure]

Trump getting back in will lead to 4 years on how they will make it so he can run again.

Not far off.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

I honestly don't know why this isn't constantly blasted out there RE: Trump. The media has no idea how to react to someone like him.

It has its own damn website championing it for a conservative cause. It’s a disgusting plan to subvert democracy.

Can’t win with actual conservatism so they abandon democracy instead.

[tifosi77]

This isn't a criminal question. I wish people would stop bringing this up.

It is a criminal question because Section 5 of the 14A says that "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article," and legal Twitter is pretty unified in believing that the SCOTUS is going to hold, probably sometime in the next 30 to 60 days, that Section 5 means that only Congress may enforce the disqualification clause. And Congress has enforced Section 5 of the 14A by enacting the statute codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2383, which makes it a federal crime to "engage[] in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or give[] aid or comfort thereto" and says that someone who does "shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

So it's a criminal question because the currently enforcement mechanism (which Congress could change) hinges in a criminal conviction.

But that's what I was on about earlier, the difference between 'engaged in' and 'convicted of'.

More than half a dozen people have been formally disqualified from federal office based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - including one person who was retroactively removed from office - none of whom were ever convicted criminally for the underlying disqualifying conduct. And that's ignoring the untold hundreds or even thousands of individuals who following the ratification of the 14th Amendment were understood to be disqualified by its provisions without challenging them.

[Shyster]

The "Y/N" to that last question does not require a criminal conviction, the word choice in the Amendment is 'engaged in' not 'convicted of'. I believe the current law that defines the federal crime of insurrection was not passed until Harry Truman was President. (I do not know its legislative history, if it superseded an older part of the US Code, but that's potentially a gap of almost 100 years of operation for the Insurrection Clause absent even the possibility of a criminal conviction, never mind a predicate.)

Sections 14 and 15 of the Enforcement Act of 1870, also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1870 or First Ku Klux Klan Act, not only made it a crime for a disqualified person to hold office, but it provided a quo warranto procedure for US attorneys to remove that person from office. Thus Congress passed a statute to enforce Section 3 of the 14A within two years of the ratification of that amendment. It's not clear why these provisions were rescinded in the 1940s and replaced with what is now 18 U.S.C. § 2383, but the below was in place within two years of the 14A and was federal law for more than 60 years.

Sec. 14. And be it further enacted, That whenever any person shall hold office, except as a member of Congress or of some State legislature, contrary to the provisions of the third section of the fourteenth article of amendment of the Constitution of the United States, it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States for the district in which such person shall hold office, as aforesaid, to proceed against such person, by writ of quo warranto, returnable to the circuit or district court of the United States in such district, and to prosecute the same to the removal of such person from office; and any writ of quo warranto so brought, as aforesaid, shall take precedence of all other cases on the docket of the court to which it is made returnable, and shall not be continued unless for cause proved to the satisfaction of the court.

Sec. 15. And be it further enacted, That any person who shall hereafter knowingly accept or hold any office under the United States, or any State to which he is ineligible under the third section of the fourteenth article of amendment of the Constitution of the United States, or who shall attempt to hold or exercise the duties of any such office, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor against the United States, and, upon conviction thereof before the circuit or district court of the United States, shall be imprisoned not more than one year, or fined not exceeding one thousand dollars, or both, at the discretion of the court.

[shafnutz05]

Seems legit

[MWB]

To…?

[NTP66]

Penisveinia

[count2infinity]

It’ll be changed to CRT-LGBTQA-DEIsylvania

[dodint]

Pennsovfefe.

[count2infinity]

Pencesyvlania since he bravely stood up to stop the tyranny of king trump.

[eddy]

Stifel Financial had a headline in their newsletter saying that they put Bidens chance of dropping out up to 40% today up from 10-15%. That's kinda weird

[RonnieFranchise]

Wokesylvania

[Dickie Dunn]

Dunnsylvania

[AuthorTony]

Come on, guys, we all know it's Pennsyltucky.

[Pavel Bure]

Guys, Trump can’t remember what day of the week it is. This is big. If I was Biden I’d be hammering this non-stop. It’s certain to change minds.

[King Colby]

This is the second PB post downplaying the biden cognition report

Can you provide the start and end years of each job had in your career? I can. Most people can.

How long does it take you to remember the year of major life events like your marriage, birth of your kids, or death of a close family member? A millisecond? Less?

[Pavel Bure]

This is the second PB post downplaying the biden cognition report

Can you provide the start and end years of each job had in your career? I can. Most people can.

How long does it take you to remember the year of major life events like your marriage, birth of your kids, or death of a close family member? A millisecond? Less?

Ask me again when I’m 80. I’m not downplaying it. I’m more annoyed we have two old people that don’t know what day it is as our choices. Trump has been displaying poor functioning cognition since being in office. Biden now has it out in the open as well.

One of them appoints experts and listens to them. The other appoints sycophants and demands loyalty. Applesauce brain that lets the experts do their thing is preferred to applesauce brain that throws tantrums.

[King Colby]

That's great but you still twice downplayed POTUS essentially having dementia, "yeah, but trump" aside

[AuthorTony]

I've already admitted that the Biden report is worrisome. I also think he's declining. That said, I do see how my father's long battle with brain cancer turned those 8 years into a blur for my mom. Dad's been gone for 4 years now, but she can't remember the order of certain events, like his stroke, hospital stays, surgeries,etc. She wouldn't be able to tell you what year he was diagnosed. She doesn't strongly recall some fairly major life events that happened during that time. It all blends together in a long series of pain and suffering. Having a loved one go through a terminal illness wreaks havoc on your life during that time. Do I think she has dementia? Absolutely not. She's 100% functional, and has as good of a memory as any other 70 year old. Does Biden? I have no idea.

[Pavel Bure]

That's great but you still twice downplayed POTUS essentially having dementia, "yeah, but trump" aside

Where did I downplay it? I’m making light of it, in the sense of it supposed to be a big deal for one but not the other while pointing out they’re both old and probably shouldn’t be running.

[Troy Loney]

Biden’s handlers > trump

[meecrofilm]

Can you provide the start and end years of each job had in your career? I can. Most people can.

Absolutely not.

[shafnutz05]

Biden’s handlers > trump

I mean, Trump and his circle of supporters have been vocal for months about their plans to eliminate civil servants and replace them with sycophants loyal to Trump. Not the country, not the citizens...Trump. He admires guys like Putin, Orban, etc. He and the MAGA crowd are blatantly compromised by Russia.

This isn't a normal election, so Biden’s dementia is a far smaller concern than the country electing an autocrat (which a large percentage of Republicans are totally okay with)