Regarding seditious conspiracy...

[OneGrassRoot]

No doubt we're in new territory and thus the answers are unknown, but I'm really curious about this and would appreciate any thoughts you may have.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states:

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.

Like so many things in our Constitution, there are different interpretations. The two-thirds vote thing is MOST disheartening.

(EDIT #2: Please see first reply below speaking to the 2/3 vote thing.)

I think even more than being frog marched, I want to see all found guilty expelled from their current positions -- both private and public -- and precluded from holding any elected and other influential positions in the future. This obviously includes Trump and all sitting politicians and his other minions. If a non-legal guilt by association metric could be applied that would be great...lol.

Do you feel expulsion and prevention from holding office in the future is more realistic than jail time, if found guilty?

The "having previously taken an oath" is the other problematic part. There are a lot of people involved in this mess who never took the oath of office. Can you envision any way possible that they could face similar consequences re: never running for office if found guilty? Can employment applications add to the "have you been convicted of a felony in the last 5 years" a question akin to "have you been found to be involved in seditious conspiracy in the last 5 years"?

Short of a sizeable majority of our country shunning them all, I don't see how they will face serious consequences moving forward in the near future. The significant minority of right-wingers have created their own ecosphere such that all traitors can have employment somewhere that continues their malignant influence but preventing these people from holding any office would be most effective in removing this cancer, imo.

Edit to add: Sedition is pretty straightforward: "conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch." Social media provides proof of a LOT of American citizens engaged in this activity in the last few years. Surely something could be done, no?

[bucolic_frolic]

1. The two-thirds vote thing is MOST disheartening????????????

Read the clause closely. The two-thirds is to "remove the disability" of being unable to serve due to the bad behavior cited. It's 2/3 for reinstatement. So many people misread this clause. Grant you then method of removal is not stated, it's either left to the courts or other parts of the Constitution, and they are there, from 2/3 expulsion to Speaker removes them. This is a growth industry.

Continuing to misread this clause is a great disservice.

[OneGrassRoot]

5. I added an edit to my post...

referring to your comment. Depending upon the makeup of Congress at any given time, the 2/3 vote tidbit still disturbs me greatly overall as it concerns this issue.

[Novara]

2. I'd like a good interpretation of this sentence:

"But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

What does that mean? The way I'm reading it, it means that there'd need to be a vote of 2/3 to KEEP an insurrectionist in the House and/or Senate, NOT to remove them. "Remove such disability." What is the disability? The expulsion?

The statute also does not specify that insurrection must be proven in a court of law, but I would imagine most judges would interpret it so.

I'm interested in some lawyers parsing this. Thanks for posting the question.

[OneGrassRoot]

6. See first reply above. n/t

[Novara]

8. Thanks. I think we posted almost at the same time.

It actually doesn't state who makes the decision to remove them or what the threshold for removal is (Suspicion? Proof? Conviction?).

Can Nancy Pelosi remove people? If so, why hasn't she done so? I mean, other than the obvious reasons (optics, political witch hunt, etc). We are in uncharted waters, that's why. I believe Pelosi is smart enough to wait until all the damning evidence comes out. Right now the public only has proof of Loudermilk's tours. And I'm not sure anyone has connected many of them with the 1/6 insurrectionists, except for one guy.

[exboyfil]

3. This is a directed Amendment

To the Southerners in the Civil War. Obviously the prima facie case against them is much stronger than for Trump and his minions (statements as they withdrew from their offices or posts, the willingness to take up arms, and the election and service to a rebellion with stated goal to leave the Union in an unconstitutional fashion).

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. It is generally agreed that the 14th cannot REMOVE a legislator, only PREVENT the seating of one

So, say Gosar is convicted of Seditous conspiracy; that wouldn’t remove him from congress, but the 14th could be used to prevent him from being seated, if he were to be re-elected.

The mechanism of enforcement is ill defined; it would likely take:

A conviction for a crime matching the conduct described in the 14th, section 3;
A simple majority vote to block the person from being seated.

It would almost certainly be challenged in court, probably along the lines of “I wasn’t convicted of the specific crime of insurrection, so the 14th doesn’t apply”.

[OneGrassRoot]

7. Thank you. n/t

[Novara]

9. I wonder if the judge who said MTG couldn't be booted off the ballot ...

... might regret his decision if there's proof she provided tours to insurrectionists?

[Novara]

10. Hm

Do they take a new oath each new term of Congress or only when they are initially sworn in? House members face re-election every two years. Pelosi could refuse to seat any one of these seditionist motherfuckers next January, right?

[OneGrassRoot]

11. You would think...

the blatant threats OAC and Pelosi have endured by sitting legislators would be enough for expulsion but everything is quite complex -- at least as it concerns consequences for Republicans.

Ugh.

[Novara]

12. No kidding.

If you threaten another lawmaker that should be immediate expulsion.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. Every two years a new Congress convenes, but Pelosi doesn't have sole authority

And if Dems started refusing to seat Republicans without serious convictions for sedition or insurrection, then what would stop Republicans from returning the favor?

[Novara]

14. That's along the lines of what I suspected

Who makes the decision? I mean, somebody's got to. If these traitorous motherfuckers gave recon tours to known insurrectionists and we have proof of them taking photos of stairwells and security stations, who makes the decision not to seat them?

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. A simple majority vote is my guess. Nt

[Novara]

16. I know the Dems are afraid to do anything because they fear backlash, but ...

... how can they allow seditionists to remain in the House to make laws????