14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 3 and our dear fiend, Madison Cawthorn

[Samm]

@FreeAndClear

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

Can someone be deprived of property in a civil case?

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government power, not individual power. Statutes extend due process for darned near any grievance between individuals, but the BoRs is a check on government, not the people.

The use of article three courts by people. That’s the government.

They have to prove insurrection or rebellion first, they cannot invoke 14.3 based on some political adversary’s opinion. And proving insurrection is the government’s job too … due process.

[Samm]

@WorldWatcher

@Samm

@WorldWatcher

@Samm

@WorldWatcher

@Samm

He has to be found guilty of that (due process) before he can be denied eligibility to hold office per section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Where all of the confederate supporters found guilty of a criminal action as a condition of being denied eligibility to hold office per section 2 of the 14th Amendment?

(Hint: The answer is no, in fact the vast majority of those denied the ability to hold office never even faced criminal charges.)

WW

Okay …

Maybe I missed something. Did Cawthorn disavow his citizenship and march on Fort Sumpter?

Did all the confederates disavow their citizenship? Can you link to the registry where this is kept?

WW

Did all Confederates lose their right to hold public office?

Didn’t say they did did I.

But to answer your question, I don’t believe every man, woman, and child from succeeding states were barred from holding office.

That does not change the fact that not all confederates barred from holding office were charged and convicted of insurrection.

Those post civil war exclusions from office though show that conviction of such a crime is not a requirement to be found ineligible for office under 14.3.

WW

There was a lot of unconstitutional ■■■■ going down back then. But then it was in context with war. It doesn’t have any precedence today.

[Ben_Natuf]

pssst… pretty sure lincoln took some action that precluded them being charged… what could that have been i wonder

[WorldWatcher]

Thank you all for agreeing that criminal charges are not a requirement under 14.3.

That it took a series of acts over the course of the 1860’s and 1870’s including the Confiscation Act of 1862 whereby Congress empowered Lincoln to provide amnesty under conditions (i.e. those who had not held office in the Confederacy, mistreated prisoners, and would sign an oath of allegiance), increased amnesty awarded by Johnson in 1865, and finally Amnesty Act of 1872 to fully restore the ability to hold office for those not charged with crimes.

WW

WW

[biggestal99]

@Samm

They have to prove insurrection or rebellion first, they cannot invoke 14.3 based on some political adversary’s opinion. And proving insurrection is the government’s job too … due process

Well that’s one opinion, basically 14.3 is uncharted water legally.

It’s was only used one time in the 20th. Century.

Allan

[Ben_Natuf]

your ■■■■■■■■ is exactly ■■■■■■■■■

lincoln and johnson pardoned the confederates. accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. while the president could pardon them, he cannot excuse them from constitutional requirements. in accepting pardons, confederates admitted guilt and precluded themselves from office under the constitution. in all likelyhood, the amnesty act of 1872 by virtue of its excusing said provision was probably unconstitutional. would have been interesting, does not being charged with a disqualifying event due to being pardoned for and accepting the pardon before being charged somehow erase the event you are accepting guilt for? i think not

[johnwk2]

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

Can someone be deprived of property in a civil case?

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government power, not individual power. Statutes extend due process for darned near any grievance between individuals, but the BoRs is a check on government, not the people.

The use of article three courts by people. That’s the government.

They have to prove insurrection or rebellion first, they cannot invoke 14.3 based on some political adversary’s opinion. And proving insurrection is the government’s job too … due process.

Our revolutionary democrat party leadership believes “due process” is what they say it is and to hell with the 6th Amendment

JWK
let us not forget during the coming election what the Revolutionary Democrat Party Leadership has done to our businesses, our families, our children and our homeland.

[FreeAndClear]

Is 5 a different number than 6.

[Samm]

@biggestal99

@Samm

They have to prove insurrection or rebellion first, they cannot invoke 14.3 based on some political adversary’s opinion. And proving insurrection is the government’s job too … due process

Well that’s one opinion, basically 14.3 is uncharted water legally.

It’s was only used one time in the 20th. Century.

So is it your opinion that 14.3 can be invoked based on the opinion that someone participated in insurrection or rebellion?

[FreeAndClear]

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

Can someone be deprived of property in a civil case?

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government power, not individual power. Statutes extend due process for darned near any grievance between individuals, but the BoRs is a check on government, not the people.

The use of article three courts by people. That’s the government.

They have to prove insurrection or rebellion first, they cannot invoke 14.3 based on some political adversary’s opinion. And proving insurrection is the government’s job too … due process.

No they don’t and you won’t be able to reference anything that proves you right.

[Ben_Natuf]

yes, they do. you cannot be precluded for aiding an insurrection that never happened. to aid an insurrection, there has to actually be an insurrection. calling a riot an insurrection does not make it an insurrection, it just makes the person claiming it an idiot

[FreeAndClear]

@Ben_Natuf

yes, they do. you cannot be precluded for aiding an insurrection that never happened. to aid an insurrection, there has to actually be an insurrection. calling a riot an insurrection does not make it an insurrection, it just makes the person claiming it an idiot

We are discussing due process. In that specific context the lawsuit is the due process. I am only referencing that. Not the specifics of the case.

[Ben_Natuf]

no its not. due process is something you seek or are entitled to, not something foisted upon you by other peoples fantasies. claiming someone is disqualified by 14.3 is claiming a federal disqualification which belongs in a federal court. insurrection being a crime against the united states its not something a civilian would sue you for its something the government would prosecute you for. a result of being found guilty would be disqualification under 14.3, just like losing your right to own a handgun if you’re convicted of a felony. this is akin to your neighbor suing you to make you give up your gun because you had a loud party and they think they may have possibly, maybe heard a gunshot possibly somewhere in the area… or at least close by

[FreeAndClear]

No due process is afforded specifically because you shouldn’t have to deal with out her peoples fantasies without recourse.

I don’t care whether proof of insurrection is necessary. It’s not what i am discussing with @Samm

[Ben_Natuf]

well, in this case what would constitute due process is summary dismissal with prejudice

[FreeAndClear]

@Ben_Natuf

well, in this case what would constitute due process is summary dismissal with prejudice

Agreed. Absolutely that is due process

[Ben_Natuf]

i don’t even know how stupid a judge would have to be to entertain it. there is only one entity with standing to claim insurrection, the united states government. although i suppose people could technically rebel against their state… which would in affect be the same thing

[FreeAndClear]

I am not a big fan of any legislation that dresses up punitive results in pretty civil lawsuit cases. Running for office is protected by the right of association among others. It shouldn’t be denied because of overzealous citizens.

That applies to many other laws.

[Samm]

@FreeAndClear

No they don’t and you won’t be able to reference anything that proves you right.

I already have … the Constitution.

[Ben_Natuf]

the law in nc was not written to address federal qualifications, it was written specifically to address your address. this “suit” is frivolous