Creeper

UDFA
Messages
1,835
Reaction score
2,218
This is the legal definition of "Insurrection".

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Now here is the dictionary definition:
  1. The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.
  2. A rising up; uprising.
  3. The act of rising against civil authority or governmental restraint; specifically, the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state; incipient or limited rebellion
Now the 14th amendment, section 3

Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

It is important to understand that Section 3 of the 14th amendment was written after the Civil War when confederate states still loyal to the South sent rebels as representatives to congress. The congress refused to seat them and responded by writing this amendment and section giving them legal grounds not to seat rebels within the congress.

If you take the definition of insurrection literally, then no one who participated in a protest or riots against the US government would be eligible for office. That include Bill Clinton who protested against the Vietnam War. Kamala Harris who urged BLM and Antifa to "keep it up" as the burned an looted US cities - and attacked federal court houses. It would also exclude Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar both of whom have participated in protests against the government.

Clearly the 14th amendment does not apply to simple protests and riots against specific US policies or actions.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
57,895
Reaction score
8,668
No. And I'll tell you why. I think Vivek has skeletons and has also made some anti-America First comments in the past. He's admitted that he's evolved on certain issues but I also think he's catering to the populace/base and what they want to hear.

Trump is the guy that will go after the military industrial complex, the far left and the deep state. And they all exist. He'll give these traitors a bigger middle finger than he did the first time.
And this is exactly why the deep state stole the 2020 election
 

yimyammer

Quality Starter
Messages
9,976
Reaction score
3,766
This is the legal definition of "Insurrection".

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof,

anyone else find it confusing to use the word insurrection when defining insurrection?

regardless, I do & I think a better term should have been used in this instance
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
57,895
Reaction score
8,668
I call bullshit until I see a valid source or video (not fake ai BS) where he actually says this
I have no idea whether its true or not, but in the last couple years or so he has been critical of Dems in California. And he left the state to move to Nevada a year or so ago as well. He also said he likes Nevada's new Republican governor when he cited reasons for leaving. (along with crime and homeless)
 

yimyammer

Quality Starter
Messages
9,976
Reaction score
3,766
No. And I'll tell you why. I think Vivek has skeletons and has also made some anti-America First comments in the past. He's admitted that he's evolved on certain issues but I also think he's catering to the populace/base and what they want to hear.

Trump is the guy that will go after the military industrial complex, the far left and the deep state. And they all exist. He'll give these traitors a bigger middle finger than he did the first time.

forgot ask:

Do you think he's lying and acting like he believes something he doesnt?

Do you have any sources for any perceived skeletons?

Dont we want people to evolve (in an honest way, not pandering to the whims of the day)?

If he's BS'ing everyone, he's damn good and needs to move to Hollywood because he's got me fooled
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
57,895
Reaction score
8,668
My vote would be Dr Carson or Byron Donalds.

I seriously doubt he is really considering #9 or #10 on that list and would be extremely disappointed if he picked one of them.

 

Creeper

UDFA
Messages
1,835
Reaction score
2,218


Trump also posted two tweets at 1:38PM and again at 2:13 PM asking protesters to remain peaceful and respect the Capitol police.

This is why Trump has not been charged with inciting the J6 riots. His words make it clear he did not. It is also why these calls to remove him from the ballot are so wrong. The Supreme Court should have ruled already. Trump's team has not yet filled as far as I know. If I was Trump's lawyer I would have filed my case 5 minutes after the CO SC ruled. This cannot wait. I think the SCOTUS will understand this too. Then again, the Roberts court has been pathetic when it comes to dealing with hot potato issues, other than Roe v. Wade. They prefer to kick the can down the road as long as possible
 

touchdown

Defense Wins Championships
Messages
5,727
Reaction score
4,674
Special Counsel Jack Smith had asked the nation's highest court to take up the immunity case on an expedited basis, bypassing the federal court of appeals.

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices nominated by Trump, denied the request in a one-line order that did not provide any reason for the decision.

 
Top Bottom