Posted on 03/04/2024 9:48:06 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Representative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, on Monday said he's working with colleagues on legislation that could bar someone who committed insurrection from holding office.
Raskin made the announcement after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that former President Donald Trump should appear on the primary ballot in states that have challenged his presidential candidacy.
"I'm working with a number of my colleagues—including [Democratic Representatives] Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell—to revive legislation...to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by section three of the 14th amendment," Raskin said during an appearance on CNN.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court reached a 9-0 decision to side with Trump and overturned a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that the former president should be removed from the state's ballot in the 2024 election for his alleged role in the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
In August, the former president was indicted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in its investigation regarding the riot. The insurrection saw a mob of Trump supporters—allegedly incited by his unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud—violently protest at the Capitol building in a failed effort to block Joe Biden's 2020 Electoral College victory. Trump has plead not guilty in the case, maintaining his innocence.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Congress has no role in this. SCOTUS has spoken.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PLUS the left wants to develop a FEAR in the conservatives, and patriots...and " wear us down".... and threatening these measures is their plan.
WE will NOT be intimidated. FORWARD to November 2024!!!
GOD BLESS TRUMP!!!!!
The Department of Veteran Affairs just banned the V-J Day kiss photo.
"To foster a more trauma-informed environment photographs depicting the V-J Day kiss should be removed from all Veterans facilities." pic.twitter.com/JYBcm8y4cL— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) March 5, 2024
See The Heritage Foundation: Retroactive Tax Increases and The Constitution.
Generally (to my dismay), the Courts have interpreted the ex post facto clause to only apply to criminal laws.
-PJ
Dems will probably win the House in 2024 even as Trump wins the presidency, thanks largely to the fiasco of Republicans unable to pick a House leader, and that we love to attack each other (Dems always stand united) that’s just the facts-AND when that happens they will pass legislation, problem is Trump will be elected president so they will immediately impeach him and it will go to the senate.
Dems don’t need facts they just get off on virtue signaling how righteous they are in hating Trump
I posted my thoughts on this last December.
I summarized the above in a post in January which I will repost here.
-PJ
If you are correct that the disability was removed in perpetuity that covers President Trump, there is still the fact that it was an act of Congress and not a ratified amendment that removed the disability. The language still exists in the amendment.No Congress can bind a future Congress. Yes, a prior Congress voted to remove the disability "from all persons whomsoever," but a future Congress can remove that removal by passing a new law reinstating that part of the 14th amendment, or asserting that any removals are temporal only to the cases at hand.
The only way to remove the disability forever out of reach of future Congresses is to ratify a new amendment removing section 3 of the 14th amendment.
That said, how it affects President Trump is debatable. One argument can be made that the amnesty act that you reference is forward-reaching that covers Trump and that moots the issue right then and there. The other argument is that the lack of a time limit in the language was assumed to be for all people living at the time because future Congresses have the power to decide future cases for themselves.
In either case, my proposed plan would allow those arguments to take place, but within a 20th amendment framework and not a 14th amendment framework. "Ripeness" is the key, because arguing it now is premature since so many future events have to happen before Trump gets anywhere near a Presidential inauguration.
WTAF!!!!
To be replaced with a photo of Ben Cardin's aide doing it on a table in the US Senate with his gayboy lover.
"The Beast With Two Backs"
He was not convicted for insurrection. You don’t have a case!
No way this will be allowed!
3/4ths of them would have to concur. There would be lamp posts erected.
HOW LONG can ANY ‘legislation’ lay dormant???
NO MORE COMPLICATED THAN NATURAL BORN CITIZEN-—
BUT A FEW OF US KEEP SAYING IT OVER & OVER & OVER.
No, I think what you posted makes sense. I think judges could bar a POTUS candidate who, for example, was proven to be a serial murderer (this does not apply to Trump because he has done no such thing), but that would hardly be “part of his official duties.” I just wanted to clarify that the part of the 14th Amendment that requires 2/3 majorities in congress referred to how to un-bar a person so that he could serve. Obviously Trump would not require such a vote, even the Amendment applied to this century.
Correct me if I am wrong, but, would this not be considered an unconstitutional bill of attainder and or ex post facto law? Therefore, illegal. But, we know Democrats do not care about laws, unless, they help them.
This may help as well:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/03/why_the_trump_scotus_victory_is_bigger_than_it_looks.html
Since Trump ‘lost’ SO badly last time, why are they afraid to have him on the ballot THIS time?
The Marxocrats fka Democrats. Ratkin needs a course in CIVICS because he is being tyrannical!
Defeats their plans is why...
But he didn’t in any way, shape or form commit an insurrection. Contesting elections has been done many times before, and so long as it was done thru legal channels, it’s fine. Tilden supporters were threatening CW II back in 1776, and took to the streets. Never considered an insurrection.
So Raskin has the money to buy off enough votes from Republicans in the House?
Thats the only way it would even get out of conference.
Yes, and they would need for the Supreme Court case about Trump’s presidential immunity to get decided, and decided against Trump, before that could happen. Otherwise the SC would just put a hold on that case too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.