General Discussion

onenote

(46,148 posts)

57. One thing that Elias seems to have forgotten

Wed Dec 22, 2021, 09:28 AM

Dec 2021

As far as I know, not a single person who actually stormed the Capital has been charged with "insurrection." I cannot see the courts upholding any attempt to disqualify a member of Congress for insurrection when those who most actively engaged in the events of January 6 have not been charged with insurrection.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

86 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

MARC ELIAS: "Disqualify R House Members by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from serving in Congress" [View all] Budi Dec 2021 OP

Yes. elleng Dec 2021 #1

The 2/3rds pertains to LIFTING a ban pursuant to this statute. Nevilledog Dec 2021 #2

☝🏼 THIS ☝🏼 dweller Dec 2021 #3

It takes 2/3 Zeitghost Dec 2021 #8

This is not about expulsion, it's about barring the member from holding future office Fiendish Thingy Dec 2021 #32

The clause, as I've read its interpretations, is about office holders outside of Congress. ancianita Dec 2021 #38

I understand that Zeitghost Dec 2021 #43

I read it as 2/3rds to override the disability to run for office. ... aggiesal Dec 2021 #39

You have the first part correct Zeitghost Dec 2021 #41

What, exactly is the ban being lifted? And from what statute, since the 14th is not a statute. ancianita Dec 2021 #10

Here's some more info on this provision. Nevilledog Dec 2021 #17

Who will charge and convict members of Congress. Elias has no standing. The 2/3 vote stands. ancianita Dec 2021 #19

Yeah, he's not talking about doing it himself. Nevilledog Dec 2021 #20

Please source. ancianita Dec 2021 #36

Read the article I provided. Nevilledog Dec 2021 #42

Nobody is being charged with insurrection Zeitghost Dec 2021 #44

It says insurrection or rebellion. Nevilledog Dec 2021 #48

That's a very loose interpretation Zeitghost Dec 2021 #61

Guess we'll see. Nevilledog Dec 2021 #74

I did. ancianita Dec 2021 #51

This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Dec 2021 #79

The 2/3 can only vote to REMOVE the disability. This will probably end up as a key SCOTUS case. pnwmom Dec 2021 #22

And the disability is? No one has explicitly said, including Elias. ancianita Dec 2021 #35

The disability is as stated in the Article. They are disabled-- that is, unable to hold the office-- pnwmom Dec 2021 #52

In the OP? Oh, THAT disability. Sounds like an arbitrary imputation of a "condition." ancianita Dec 2021 #59

The thing to remember is that the Constitution was written hundreds of years ago. pnwmom Dec 2021 #71

My take is that "disability", in this context, is the default removal from..... jaxexpat Dec 2021 #76

Seems to prove why it was so bad that good Republicans abandoned ship of state. n/t SleeplessinSoCal Dec 2021 #83

That's why he anticipates litigation- it's uncharted territory. Nt Fiendish Thingy Dec 2021 #33

Still. Who would represent against the proven aiders and abettors of insurrection? ancianita Dec 2021 #78

Untrue FBaggins Dec 2021 #11

Powell v. McCormack severely limits the House's ability to refuse to seat tritsofme Dec 2021 #81

Thanks for that clarification pandr32 Dec 2021 #62

Very good wendyb-NC Dec 2021 #4

This man knows what he's talking about mahina Dec 2021 #5

Hope RayStar Dec 2021 #6

By golly, he's onto something FakeNoose Dec 2021 #7

What? There's no gainsaying the exact words of the 14th. ancianita Dec 2021 #13

Would it be by a simple majority vote to disqualify them? kentuck Dec 2021 #9

That isn't how the constitution works FBaggins Dec 2021 #12

Exactly. ancianita Dec 2021 #15

But if someone were convicted of insurrection, wouldn't that mean they were ineligible? Nt Fiendish Thingy Dec 2021 #34

Of course - but the chances of that happening are between zero and none FBaggins Dec 2021 #54

alrite'y - let's get this off the ground ! monkeyman1 Dec 2021 #14

The meaning of this amendment is clear by what it says more than any "desired" 'implication. ancianita Dec 2021 #16

Translation - what is and isn't being said here FBaggins Dec 2021 #18

You're not understanding the vote math. Volaris Dec 2021 #21

No, you don't understand. No 2/3 vote got them IN. 2/3 is for expulsion. ancianita Dec 2021 #49

Members of Congress who have been convicted of crimes lees1975 Dec 2021 #23

They have to be remove from office before they are disqualified berni_mccoy Dec 2021 #24

They would need to have been found guilty in a court of law before they can be disqualified. NYC Liberal Dec 2021 #25

Rt TY.. Cha Dec 2021 #26

All of this should have been done immediately after the insurrection ecstatic Dec 2021 #27

Yeah! We could get the VP to just declare it! FBaggins Dec 2021 #55

My favorite amendment and the GOP's most hated IronLionZion Dec 2021 #28

"Now is a great time for Pelosi to use Section 5" onenote Dec 2021 #30

And here's the 1st section of the 14th Amendment: Gaugamela Dec 2021 #29

Not while they're sitting congressmen and in session. ancianita Dec 2021 #37

They would challenge it in court. You could accuse anyone of insurrection. Gaugamela Dec 2021 #40

SCOTUS will NOT rule on a sitting Congress person in session. Elias won't get into court with that. ancianita Dec 2021 #46

Thank you for your response, and I appreciate that you know more about this than I do. Gaugamela Dec 2021 #73

Throw the bums out! nt. BlueIdaho Dec 2021 #31

The 2/3 is to allow them to stay, but they would still 1st need to be convicted of insurrection krawhitham Dec 2021 #45

I suggested this a year ago. 2naSalit Dec 2021 #47

GOOD! Traitors have no place in Washington. Kid Berwyn Dec 2021 #50

K&R UTUSN Dec 2021 #53

Seems like a good way of losing more ground with public opinion Amishman Dec 2021 #56

The public gives a great deal of shit to an attack on democracy and the Republic by Alexander Of Assyria Dec 2021 #67

Has what happened on 1/6 been actually defined in a "legal" sense? hadEnuf Dec 2021 #82

Yes. It has. In great detail by 3 federal judges. Alexander Of Assyria Dec 2021 #85

And what their consensus? hadEnuf Dec 2021 #86

One thing that Elias seems to have forgotten onenote Dec 2021 #57

Aid or comfort mercuryblues Dec 2021 #58

...K&R... spanone Dec 2021 #60

In this country, you couldn't get 2/3 of the congress to support a vaccine world wide wally Dec 2021 #63

it only takes 1/3 + 1 Gore1FL Dec 2021 #66

I have a slight issue with this theory jmowreader Dec 2021 #64

It would require 2/3 to do the wrong thing if this were pursued. Gore1FL Dec 2021 #65

My prediction is sarisataka Dec 2021 #68

Discussion by people that are intentionally uninformed on how this could actually be implemented. Calista241 Dec 2021 #69

That's my take on it all along bucolic_frolic Dec 2021 #70

DEMs should try to use it to expel the Members who participated in NCjack Dec 2021 #72

The 2/3 mentioned is for reinstatement, to waive their disqualification, "remove such disability" bucolic_frolic Dec 2021 #75

We are all 2/3rds correct sanatanadharma Dec 2021 #77

If it were possible to remove stting members of Congress Mr.Bill Dec 2021 #80

It may be possible not to seat them in the next congress. nt Gore1FL Dec 2021 #84