Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

Showing Original Post only (View all)

lees1975

(7,192 posts)
Wed Jul 19, 2023, 11:42 AM Jul 2023

This national embarrassment must not be allowed to continue. [View all]

https://signalpress.blogspot.com/2023/07/this-national-embarrassment-must-not-be.html

This is more than just politics, more than a test of the limits of free speech and freedom of conscience, more that just a symptom of a bigger political, and educational, problem that now exists within the United States of America. This is a national embarrassment. I'm talking about Trump's campaign to be elected to a second, non-consecutive term as President of the United States.

There's not a specific mechanism in the 14th Amendment for prohibiting those who engage in insurrection against the United States, such as a conviction in a court, from being eligible for public office. It's initial application simply involved using the record of service to the Confederate States, whether it was in the military or in government, to restrict potential office holders. We had a Congressional investigation into the January 6th insurrection, complete with thousands of pages of documentation and evidence, which identified the former President as its instigator, with the intention of overturning the results of a legitimate election, fraudulent attempts to appoint fake electors with fake documents, and the complete subversion of the Constitution, all acts which, by definition, meet the standards of the 14th amendment.

So what is there preventing any federal court from also indicting him based on the congressional investigation's evidence? And, forgive me for thinking in simple terms, but doesn't Congress' investigation establish the former President as being guilty of insurrection? The constitution does not specify that a jury trial is necessary to do so. When this amendment was passed and enforced, trials were not held for former Confederates to restrict them from office, all that was necessary was proof that they had supported the Confederate States of America. We have that same proof, in the congressional investigation. Who, in government, has the authority to declare the former President guilty of insurrection, based on the congressional investigation, and therefore ineligible for office. Then let's see if Congress can come up with the two thirds vote necessary to get him off the hook.
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»This national embarrassme...