General Discussion

unblock

(56,274 posts)

2. I don't think that's the case.

Sun Sep 19, 2021, 09:43 PM

Sep 2021

A conviction for such an offense would certainly make the matter very straightforward, but I don't think it's necessary.

The original intent of this section was to prevent any confederate soldiers or officers from holding public office. They didn't need to have a trial and find specific offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply wearing the uniform was enough.

I would think that an opposing candidate could challenge the candidacy and a court would decide, probably based on a preponderance of evidence, whether or not the candidate violated the clause.

Ianal

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Tweet of the night: [View all] applegrove Sep 2021 OP

someone has to actually convict him of doing that first............ Takket Sep 2021 #1

I don't think that's the case. unblock Sep 2021 #2

Yes - there would have to be some kind of a judicial determination of violation StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #7

Surely there is some precedent from shortly after the civil war? unblock Sep 2021 #8

Not really StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #10

People might want to read the January 29, 2021 report from the Congressional Research Service... PoliticAverse Sep 2021 #3

Thanks. Very interesting. nt reACTIONary Sep 2021 #4

Keeping this link. Thanks! calimary Sep 2021 #5

that applies to tfg spanone Sep 2021 #6

Hope his Dem opponent in the next election uses that in campaign ads. brush Sep 2021 #9