Ragefully Wrong: A Response to Professor Laurence Tribe

Jonathan Turley ^ | September 8, 2023 | Jonathan Turley

[Reily]

He’s just mad that none of his leftist acolytes have out him on the USSC!

[enumerated]

You wanted Garland on the SC?

[old school]

Tribe reminds me of a vengeful old woman. He’s the Madame De Farge of Harvard Law.

[princeofdarkness]

No. I meant his comments were correct in general about how conservatives feel about him but not about McConnell keeping Garland off the SC.

[enumerated]

Oh I see

[NNN]

Therefore, "insurrection" in the 14th amendment was meant to apply to the several states, not to individual citizens. A state must be in open rebellion before the citizens of that state can be held for insurrection under Title 18.

A complete reading of the legislative history and accompanying commentaries preceding passage of the 14th Amendment clearly demonstrates that Section 3 was always directed at individuals, not states. Within that general scope, debate focussed on those who should be encompassed by its provisions, and those who should be excepted from them.

See Congressional Debates of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution for a complete compendium of Congressional consideration of the issue.

[Albion Wilde]

This country was founded by gentlemen and defended by patriots. They simply couldn’t imagine the depths today’s rabble would stoop to after having been given such a gift.

[Political Junkie Too]

Thank you for the link. It's rather lengthy and will take me awhile to read it all.

The punishment is for individuals, but I'm suggesting that because Title 50 Chapter 13 refers to states in insurrection, that the individuals must be a part of a state that is in insurrection, not lone-wolf actors with a grudge against the government or citizens simply speaking out in opposition or rallying citizens to hear a speech antagonistic to the government.

-PJ

[StAnDeliver]

Barely-closeted toe-tapper. Swampazz married for 44 years and his wife throws him out in 2008.

[StAnDeliver]

"Tribe argued Bush v Gore but not before SCOTUS. Don't recall why Gore swapped him out for Boise."

Ron Klain, The White Hospice former Chief of Staff. You're welcome.

[StAnDeliver]

"Tribe reminds me of a vengeful old woman. He’s the Madame De Farge of Harvard Law."

And that's why, since he's 81, I'm hoarding candy to pass out the minute he passes out.

LULULULULULULULULLULULULULULULULULULUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Likewise, California Governor Gavin Newsom pushed for the passage of an anti-gun rights law that was used to mock the holding of the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling in Dobbs.

???? How was an anti-gun rights bill used to mock the Dobbs ruling? I must be missing something.

[Political Junkie Too]

I'm not sure why you directed this to me. Still, the question caught my eye so I looked into it. The best I could come up with was this local news story:

Newsom details new California gun laws, including 1 modeled after Texas abortion law

-PJ

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Thanks for the help. I posted it to you to help me make sense of Turley’s statement in the article about Tribe. I was looking for something Tribe said about Cal gun laws. I read the Turley statement again, and in fact he said Tribe praised Newsom’s gun laws because he claimed they were similar to Texas abortion laws.