lefty justice
guilty until proven innocent
nope… not sorry
1 Like
This is a dry run. If successful, the headline will run and others will follow.
the state of NC isn’t trying anything
It will go something like “Sitting US house member Cawthorn R-NC has been banned for life from holding office due to his involvement in the January 6 insurrection!!!”
2 Likes
Yeah, sneaky corrected me, I agreed.
1 Like
except… no.
there was no insurrection. i don’t see any government entity in NC inventing one either.
That will be the headline if they’re successful in their suit. It’s the goal that will start a domino effect.
ahhh… not gonna happen. first they have to prove there actually was an insurrection. big time fail. in fact, maybe the lefty idiots need a court to tell them that
You should read the law.
The candidate holds the burden of proof, not the challenger. Cawthorne will have to prove there wasn’t an insurrection.
you should read the constitution. the burden is not on him
1 Like
It won’t be that simple. Let’s say they get him on the stand. The media will ignore anything that comes out saying there was no insurrection and focus on anything Cawthorne did to aid and comfort the dirty seditionists. Him playing the Amnesty Act card is actually his best move from a pr standpoint. Kick out this political sham of a suit at the onset.
Which part of the Constitution? This challenge is under a NC state law.
Supremacy clause.
1 Like
which cannot shift the burden of proof into the accused. funny thing rights. the law is unconstitutional under both federal and state constitutions
1 Like
You’ll have to elaborate on that. Is there any part of the Constitution (or Federal law) that contradicts the NC law?
I have a problem with it as well, but remember, this isn’t a criminal case.
Why not? This isn’t a criminal law.
Show your work.
the plaintiff just doesn’t get to claim an insurrection and then he has to prove it didn’t happen. they have to show with a preponderance of evidence that there was an insurrection. since there was not, the first hurdle is a big fail.
§ 163-127.5. Burden of proof.
(a) The burden of proof shall be upon the candidate, who must show by a preponderance
of the evidence of the record as a whole that he or she is qualified to be a candidate for the office.
(b) If the challenge is based upon a question of residency, the candidate must show all of
the following:
(1) An actual abandonment of the first domicile, coupled with an intent not to return
to the first domicile.
(2) The acquisition of a new domicile by actual residence at another place.
(3) The intent of making the newer domicile a permanent domicile. (2006-155, s.
1; 2017-6, s. 3; 2018-146, s. 3.1(a), (b).)
1 Like
At a minimum, it violates the long-standing principle. If it were a criminal trial, it would be easy; the 6th. But it’s not a criminal trial. It’s more of a qualifications hearing.
Since they are using the 14th, it gets complicated right off the bat.
It will be interesting to see what the court says.
I think the burden of proof part is going to be a problem.
