General Discussion

hadEnuf

(3,625 posts)

82. Has what happened on 1/6 been actually defined in a "legal" sense?

Reply to Alexander Of Assyria (Reply #67)

Wed Dec 22, 2021, 09:56 PM

Dec 2021

I mean it's been called a riot, a demonstration, a gang of tourists, an insurrection, a coup d'état and nothing at all. Someone upthread also mentioned that no one has actually been charged with insurrection, which is the most common term applied to what happened.

Republicans play word games all day long. It would be helpful to have an official pronouncement or an "official name" that powerfully, accurately, completely and legally describes what 1/6 actually was. Corporate & RW media also spend a huge amount of time trying to blur the description of what happened on that day to keep people on the edge of their seats.

Having clarity on simple things like the correct name for an event can certainly have an effect on public opinion, which of course drives the politicians to act. Or to not act.

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