Political Forums

Political Forums (http://www.politicalchat.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.politicalchat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   The Constitution has an answer for seditious members of Congress (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=13181)

Chicks 12-12-2020 07:18 AM

The Constitution has an answer for seditious members of Congress
 
The Constitution has an answer for seditious members of Congress

https://theweek.com/articles/954673/...mbers-congress

Quote:

...this lawsuit, even though it didn't succeed, is a flagrant attempt to overturn the constitutional system and impose through authoritarian means the rule of a corrupt criminal whose doltish incompetence has gotten hundreds of thousands of Americans killed. It is a "seditious abuse of the judicial process," as the states of Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin jointly wrote in their response to Texas trying to steal their elections.

The Constitution, as goofy and jerry-rigged as it is, stipulates that insurrectionists who violate their oath are not allowed to serve in Congress. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, written to exclude Confederate Civil War traitors, says that "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress … who … having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same[.]" How the Supreme Court ruled, or whether Republicans actually believe their lunatic claims, is irrelevant. It's still insurrection even if it doesn't work out.

Democrats would have every right, both under the Constitution and under the principle of popular sovereignty outlined in the Declaration of Independence, to convene a traitor-free Congress (also including similar acts committed by Republican senators like Lindsey Graham, David Perdue, Kelly Loeffler, and others), and pass such laws as would be necessary to preserve the American republic. That might include a national popular vote to decide the presidency, ironclad voting rights protections, a ban on gerrymandering either national or state district boundaries, full representation for the citizens of D.C. and Puerto Rico, regulations on internet platforms that are inflaming violent political extremism, a clear legal framework for the transfer of power that ends the lame duck period, and so on. States would be forced to agree to these measures before they can replace their traitorous representatives and senators. If the Supreme Court objects, more pro-democracy justices can be added.

It is virtually impossible to imagine the ancient, timid fossils that run the Democratic Party even considering this kind of thing (though remarkably, Rep. Bill Pascrell of New Jersey has) because it would require courage, vision, and honestly reckoning with the parlous state of the nation. It would not be illegal, but it would be a step beyond narrow legal proceduralism and into the uncharted waters of aggressive political innovation and raw will-to-power. It could conceivably touch off armed unrest in several states.

But it's not hard to see where the current conservative trajectory is headed. While elected Republicans have tried to overturn the election using increasingly blatant methods, top conservative pundits are mulling the idea of secession, as their treasonous fire-eater forebears did 160 years ago. The lie that Biden stole the election is now official GOP dogma. By the same token, it is not a coincidence that the Republican Party is ignoring the deadly pandemic (if not actively spreading the virus) while they try to overturn the Constitution. They feel they can safely ignore the welfare of the American people, because they are not accountable to them.

Unless this escalating conservative extremism halts from the inside somehow — which is not remotely in sight anywhere — this can only end eventually in a violent confrontation, or (much more likely) Democrats will simply give up and let themselves be defeated. Still, this country was founded by people who thought it was worth putting their lives at hazard to throw off tyrannical rule. Perhaps some of that spirit can once again be found.

Chicks 12-12-2020 07:48 AM

New Jersey Rep. Tells Nancy Pelosi Not to Seat 126 Republicans Who Backed 'Malignant' Texas Lawsuit

https://www.newsweek.com/new-jersey-...awsuit-1554307

Quote:

Pascrell, a Democrat who represents New Jersey's 9th congressional district, invoked Reconstruction Era "safeguards to cleanse from our government ranks any traitors and others that would destroy the union."
This is precisely what needs to happen. Will it? Doubtful, sadly.

RickeyM 12-12-2020 08:02 AM

I agree 100%. The Republican party has been actively acting against the interest the American majority in favor of the privileged few. They need to be slapped down with prejudice. They need to pay a price for their seditious acts. It's obvious that they are intent on working against a Bidne presidency the will of the American people be damned.

Oerets 12-12-2020 08:12 AM

What we've got here is....... failure to communicate......

My guess about a third of the country agrees with the treason!


We are dealing with a cult and some serious deprogramming is called for.

nailer 12-12-2020 08:36 AM

After secession slavery will be reinstituted for all non-whites. This will not apply to Republicans.

FWIW, since I moved here in 1980, I've occaisionaly heard a crrtain kind of Texan threaten secession. Same as it ever was.

nailer 12-12-2020 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicks (Post 395385)
New Jersey Rep. Tells Nancy Pelosi Not to Seat 126 Republicans Who Backed 'Malignant' Texas Lawsuit

https://www.newsweek.com/new-jersey-...awsuit-1554307



This is precisely what needs to happen. Will it? Doubtful, sadly.

Sounds like you want real violence. Just like NI.

donquixote99 12-12-2020 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicks (Post 395384)
The Constitution has an answer for seditious members of Congress

https://theweek.com/articles/954673/...mbers-congress

Uh, we Constitutionists don't get to ignore the constitution, just because the other side wants to. Can't have a revolution and expect to drag the red states along kicking and screaming. At this point I'd actually like it if the red states seceded like the Texas guy proposes. Then the Union can amend the constitution as desired in the proper way, without the red states making it impossible as they do now.

donquixote99 12-12-2020 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicks (Post 395385)
New Jersey Rep. Tells Nancy Pelosi Not to Seat 126 Republicans Who Backed 'Malignant' Texas Lawsuit

https://www.newsweek.com/new-jersey-...awsuit-1554307

This is precisely what needs to happen. Will it? Doubtful, sadly.

Would be a terrible precedent. Every two years we'd have the majority party voting to kick out the minority en masse.

Human 12-12-2020 09:12 AM

The Onion Salutes these brave men and women:

https://politics.theonion.com/the-on...min-1845865496

nailer 12-12-2020 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99 (Post 395397)
Uh, we Constitutionists don't get to ignore the constitution, just because the other side wants to. Can't have a revolution and expect to drag the red states along kicking and screaming. At this point I'd actually like it if the red states seceded like the Texas guy proposes. Then the Union can amend the constitution as desired in the proper way, without the red states making it impossible as they do now.

Didn't know you moved.

Chicks 12-12-2020 09:24 AM

‘An Indelible Stain’: How the G.O.P. Tried to Topple a Pillar of Democracy
The Supreme Court repudiation of President Trump was also a blunt rebuke to Republican leaders who had put their interests ahead of the country’s.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/12/u...l-college.html

Quote:

“The act itself by the 126 members of the United States House of Representatives, is an affront to the country,” said Michael Steele, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. “It’s an offense to the Constitution and it leaves an indelible stain that will be hard for these 126 members to wipe off their political skin for a long time to come.”

Speaking on CNN on Friday, Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, a Republican, said, “What happened with the Supreme Court, that’s kind of it, where they’ve kind of exhausted all the legal challenges; we’ve got to move on.” It was time, he said, for Congress to “actually do something for the American people, surrounding the vaccines, surrounding Covid.”

With direct buy-in from senior officials like Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and the Republican leader in House, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the president’s effort required the party to promote false theory upon unsubstantiated claim upon outright lie about unproved, widespread fraud — in an election that Republican and Democratic election officials agreed was notably smooth given the challenges of the pandemic.

And it meant that Republican leaders now stand for a new notion: that the final decisions of voters can be challenged without a basis in fact if the results are not to the liking of the losing side, running counter to decades of work by the United States to convince developing nations that peaceful transfers of power are key to any freely elected government’s credibility.

donquixote99 12-12-2020 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nailer (Post 395401)
Didn't know you moved.

??????

donquixote99 12-12-2020 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human (Post 395399)
The Onion Salutes these brave men and women:

https://politics.theonion.com/the-on...min-1845865496

This is actually hilarious, at least for the first 30 items or so....

nailer 12-12-2020 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99 (Post 395404)
??????

Dayton is in Ohio which is now redder than Texas. :cool:

donquixote99 12-12-2020 11:21 AM

Yes, There would be funny things happening if the big divorce were to happen. It would be pretty messy. Most states are not very purely red or blue.

RickeyM 12-12-2020 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99 (Post 395409)
Yes, There would be funny things happening if the big divorce were to happen. It would be pretty messy. Most states are not very purely red or blue.

Let #DiaperDon bring up the subject and a whole bunch of the cult would be all for it. Just tell 'em Donny would be president for life and there'll be no Dems and they'd be all in.

Waggs098 12-12-2020 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickeyM (Post 395411)
Let #DiaperDon bring up the subject and a whole bunch of the cult would be all for it. Just tell 'em Donny would be president for life and there'll be no Dems and they'd be all in.

Do you think this is how all trump voters would feel?

donquixote99 12-12-2020 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waggs098 (Post 395416)
Do you think this is how all trump voters would feel?

Are you saying you would not be on board?

Any sort of 'maybe' means yes you would be. Don't kid yourself. If you're not against it, you'd go along with it.

My guess is upwards of 70% of trump voters would be OK with the election being overturned by unconstitutional means, rising to near 100% if the move is viewed as 'successful.'

Fewer would go for splitting up the country, especially those who think their home would be on the wrong side of the split,

Waggs098 12-12-2020 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99 (Post 395419)
Are you saying you would not be on board?

Any sort of 'maybe' means yes you would be. Don't kid yourself. If you're not against it, you'd go along with it.

My guess is upwards of 70% of trump voters would be OK with the election being overturned by unconstitutional means, rising to near 100% if the move is viewed as 'successful.'

Fewer would go for splitting up the country, especially those who think their home would be on the wrong side of the split,

No, I would not be on board with Trump as president for life.

As far as the election "overturned" if done in a legal way sure, but then that is trumps last term.

nailer 12-12-2020 03:12 PM

Pretty sure many who voted for Trump feel this way.

donquixote99 12-12-2020 05:05 PM

I meant "overturned" to mean not legal. There would of course be a pretense of legality, but it would be vanishingly thin....

RickeyM 12-12-2020 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waggs098 (Post 395416)
Do you think this is how all trump voters would feel?

Of course not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waggs098 (Post 395420)
No, I would not be on board with Trump as president for life.

As far as the election "overturned" if done in a legal way sure, but then that is trumps last term.

If #DiaperDon could overthrow the results of this election do you honestly think he would stop with just one more term?

nailer 12-13-2020 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99 (Post 395424)
I meant "overturned" to mean not legal. There would of course be a pretense of legality, but it would be vanishingly thin....

Per Google: (https://www.google.com/search?source...ile-gws-wiz-hp)

"Overturn ...

Similar: cancel, reverse, rescind, repeal, revoke,retract, countermand, withdraw, take back, rule against, disallow, override,overrule, veto, set aside, quash, overthrow, repudiate, recant, annul, nullify, declare null and void, invalidate, negate, void, abrogate, vacate, recall."

'Not legal', i.e. illegal, is MIA.

Waggs098 12-13-2020 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickeyM (Post 395433)
Of course not.

If #DiaperDon could overthrow the results of this election do you honestly think he would stop with just one more term?

Yes i believe he would stop after a second term.

donquixote99 12-13-2020 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nailer (Post 395444)
Per Google: (https://www.google.com/search?source...ile-gws-wiz-hp)

"Overturn ...

Similar: cancel, reverse, rescind, repeal, revoke,retract, countermand, withdraw, take back, rule against, disallow, override,overrule, veto, set aside, quash, overthrow, repudiate, recant, annul, nullify, declare null and void, invalidate, negate, void, abrogate, vacate, recall."

'Not legal', i.e. illegal, is MIA.

All those words denote an exercise of power to get rid of something. The essence is the power and the getting rid of. Each has its connotations and nuances, but that's the common theme. The power may or may not be exercised with full legal authority, that depends on context. Some of the words imply legal authority more than others.

I did not say that Waggs was wrong to interpret 'overturn' as he did. I just clarified what I meant.

donquixote99 12-13-2020 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waggs098 (Post 395445)
Yes i believe he would stop after a second term.

I believe I can fly :)

Chicks 12-13-2020 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waggs098 (Post 395445)
Yes i believe he would stop after a second term.

You truly are this naive. :rolleyes:

Waggs098 12-13-2020 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicks (Post 395453)
You truly are this naive. :rolleyes:

If you say so but hey it's all hypothetical till it actually happens.

RickeyM 12-13-2020 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waggs098 (Post 395445)
Yes i believe he would stop after a second term.

https://media.giphy.com/media/JmsG1P...a1v9/giphy.gif

RickeyM 12-13-2020 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waggs098 (Post 395454)
If you say so but hey it's all hypothetical till it actually happens.

Yeah right, wait for #DiaperDon to do the right thing :rolleyes:

nailer 12-13-2020 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99 (Post 395450)
All those words denote an exercise of power to get rid of something. The essence is the power and the getting rid of. Each has its connotations and nuances, but that's the common theme. The power may or may not be exercised with full legal authority, that depends on context. Some of the words imply legal authority more than others.

I did not say that Waggs was wrong to interpret 'overturn' as he did. I just clarified what I meant.

And I didn't say that you did.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.