-->
@Double_R
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>JFC, this subject was already covered and I shut it down with actual legal facts and proper analysis of the 14th Section 3. Again…Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
You are presenting a legal argument that your own definitions do not support.First, you seem to be relying on the idea that arms = guns, which is not true. Arms simply means weapons, and the rioters who broke into the capitol carried all kinds of weapons from mace, flag poles, hell even the riot shields they stole from the capitol police.
Well, it is about fucking time you took this up, as I noticed the first time, I put this stupid ass argument to rest you were curiously silent. And no matter what I or anyone say to discredit your ignorance on the subject, your intellectual cowardice denialism will not allow you to admit failure. I know that going into this, but I will enjoy discrediting you, nonetheless.
"First, you seem to be..." = strawman fallacy. No one cares what you think, feel, believe or perceive as "seem to be" as it means shit. The only thing that matters is what you can PROVE!
It is patently condescending and wholeheartedly ignorant of you to assume what arms even means given the contextual nature of the events under charge of "rebellion" across the ages. For fucks sake, back in 1786-1787 during Shay's Rebellion all they had were what tools were available to them. Anything can be used as a weapon, but some tools were more effective than others; and all soldiers (or those experienced with combat) know that the more effective the tool, the more valuable the tool. No one is going to pick up a table fork (i.e., silverware) to fight with when a pitchfork is available. The higher the effectiveness of the weapon, the greater the use it is as an "arm(s)."
Terms evolve over time just the same as the tools evolve over time for the purposes of insurrection, rebellions, and quite obviously war. And it takes more than one, three, or a handful among THOUSANDS of individuals to be armed to quantify the act as an actual "insurrection," "rebellion" or "act of war." Given the glaring FUCKING FACT that the corrupt government's own FBI did not classify J6 as an insurrection or anything else other than a minor riot (i.e., skirmish). You and anyone on the left have ZERO LEVERAGE on this matter regarding the historical acts and legislative history upon which it is based upon in defining and applying said terms within the 14th Amendment, Section 3.
Second and more importantly, you ignored the second part of your own definition of rebellion which specified it's main qualifier ("perhaps a more correct sense") as a "forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued". That couldn't describe what occurred on January 6th any more perfectly.
Remind us all again where you matriculated to earning some degree in the legal arena that would equip you with the requisite academic credentials and/or professional experience to competently understand the subject at hand? Oh, that's right. Nowhere. You're a layman, and a very ignorant one at that when it comes to reading, understanding and correctly interpreting the law. Especially Constitutional Law.
I ignored nothing. You simply do not know how to read legal statutes, Constitutional, federal, state or otherwise correctly. Which is exactly why I said to the author of this thread how/why everyone gets this topic wrong. Plain readings of the law never work. Period.
The part you cite is not the qualifier, the premise (or preamble) is: The taking up arms traitorously against the government. The part you cite is merely the augmentation of that, it is not the actual legal qualifier. Taking up arms is. Arms is the essential criterion here. Cause no matter how many idiots you have carrying spoons, forks, pencils, a few with a handgun, and one with a riot shield breaking a mere fucking window still will not ever qualify J6 as an insurrection, much less Trump being directly involved in it: shall have engaged in.
Moreover, you seem to not understand the entire point of the 14th amendment -
This coming from a guy with ZERO legal academic and/or professional experience telling me what I "seem to not understand" about a subject I am every bit more qualified, academically and professionally, to comment on. You're a pathetic joke, Double_R. Pathetic. Using ad homs as some defense against my factually accurate legal analysis of the 14th, of which I have demonstrated far more knowledge on this subject than you could ever hope to full in that tiny pencil between your legs.
it was passed in the aftermath of the civil war. It's entire point at conception was to stop Americans who tried to overthrow our constitution for running for office. That's literally what Trump did, so the argument that it couldn't apply to him because the rioters were not a foreign power is absurd on its face.
No, it is to YOU who does not understand the point of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, you ignoramus.
What fucking part of this did you fail to utterly NOT comprehend:
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to itssettled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies onlyto the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility withus. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their owngovernment." 8
Only thing absurd on its face here is your own flagrant intellectual cowardice denialism stupidity!!!
More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I.emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection."Or rebellion..."
The terms are fucking synonymous you dumbass.
Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riotand/or directly engaging in said riotThere is nothing about the 14th amendment requiring this.
The argument is the basis of the idiots imposing the claim asserting 14/3.
"...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
He did not "shall have engaged" in anything.
that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol.Cause when all else fails, go full blown Alex Jones on us.
More intellectual cowardice denialism with fallacious retorts. Pure fucking childish ignorance. You're definitely not smarter than a fifth grader.
