VakAttack

You haven't made one. You've made an evidence-based argument without, you know, providing any evidence.

In the middle of a segment where they're complaining about media coverage, no less!

Will he quote me a 4th time only to make no point at all? Let's see.

It's ok, I wouldn't expect hypocrisy to bother you. Go on now, back to making wild, expansive claims with no evidence.

If you're going to call people stupid, you probably shouldn't make basic grade school errors, Obi Wan Jabronie.

*your

Nobody has ever said zero election fraud ever. There is, however, zero evidence of massive or results-changing amounts of voter fraud.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/dec/09/viral-image/no-this-isnt-a-real-elon-musk-tweet-about-alleged/

It is not, when: 1. The text of the section in question is self-executing on it's face. 2. You literally, when making your argument, had to add language to the existing text to make it say what you wanted to say. That is literally the opposite of textualism or originalism. Sure, maybe the Court will SAY it's textualist, but that doesn't make that true. The Justices change their arguments all the time to suit their needs in a given moment. Look no further than their public comments on Roe v. Wade prior to being sat on the Court, all of them calling it settled law and saying they would respect stare decisis, but as soon as they had enough votes...not so settled law. Ruth Bader Ginsburg at times argued SHE was an originalist., which is obviously patently absurd. 3. In your insistence on ignorance, you're ignoring that the Constitutional argument vs. the statute at 18 USC 2383. 18 USC 2383 (the "Treason, Sedition, Insurrection, etc." statute) is a criminal proceeding. The penalty of not being able to hold office is not a criminal proceeding (neither is impeachment). Let me give you an example: Lets say you, Offthemat, are just being obstinate about an argument that you are ill-informed on and have to Google constantly to get information that you hope supports your position and you just keep regurgitating it, over and over again. In this completely hypothetical situation, you're just insistent on being so ridiculously ingrained and entrenched on a position that I became enraged and punched you in your hypothetically stupid face. Like I just hypothetically whaled on your hypothetically stupid, stupid face. Now, I could be charged with a crime because of said whaling, arrested, and prosecuted. Now, lets say somehow, I was acquitted of said whaling. You could still sue me civilly for the savage beating I laid on you, and you could still win and be awarded some amount of money to make up for the hypothetical ass-whupping I had laid on you. Even though I wasn't convicted of the same crime in a criminal court!

Stop trying to change the argument. I have already stated, multiple times, that I personally would want the living document/non-textualist interpretation of laws written hundreds of years ago; that there should be a conviction. You and I have been simply arguing about textualist and originalist legal interpretation. The Colorado Court used a textualist interpretation to get their result. You are advocating for a non-textualist interpretation, which I agree with.

The language of section 3 is, on it's face, self-executing. It tells you, in that section, that Congress may by a 2/3 vote remove the disability. It does not require legislative intervention to excecute.

Again, a fundamental misunderstanding of how the judicial system works. The Constitution itself is law. Violations of it can and are enforced by the court system all the time. This section itself even gives you the proscribed penalty. And again you're going away from the traditional R requirement of only the plain text of the language. As to this, no, it's a novel legal theory, and those typically run up against the more slow-moving nature of the judicial system.

That is NOT how a textualist would read it. First of all, Congress doesn't "enforce" anything, the court enforces the laws Congress passes. You're literally adding language, the opposite of what textualists and originalists do. These theories of legal interpretation focus on the language in print.

Because, textually speaking, Section 5 isn't specifically exhaustive in terms of remedy, i.e. it doesn't say "the only way this can be enforced is through Congressional legislation" just that Congress has the power to enforce this thru further legislation.

I just said that they should not have done this to Trump. Separately, I disagreed with your characterization of the Biden case and the evidence therein. Thirdly (and this is new) it's not the same thing, even under the current allegations, Biden isn't accused of insurrection or rebellion. Stop talking definitively if you don't know what you're talking about.

You have no idea what you're talking at about at this point and are just digging your heels in and rambling. All of this has been explained, multiple times.

Dude, are you drunk?

Lots of undocumented folks here in central Florida in harvesting, mostly in peanut farms and orange groves. I don't have anything to add on the TX law, it seems repugnant and openly racist, and also likely violates federal law, since immigration is under federal purview.

Dude, the courts didn't make anything up, the allegations were made by citizens, WTF are you even doing right now?

This is just a fundamental lack of understanding about how our system works; the elected representatives are authorized to act on behalf of their constituents, they are not required to seek approval for every single decision they make.

Allow me to be clear with you, since you seem to be struggling: I do not think this should have happened. I think the interpretation requiring a conviction is how it should be interpreted. I disagree entirely with your characterization of the current Biden situation; there is currently zero direct evidence and very little even circumstantial evidence of anything, whereas we have Trump on video.

There literally IS a remedy available, that's what Colorado SC just did (although the order is currently stayed until 1/4/24 or SCOTUS rules on it.)

I don't know, but that happens all the time in our system; that's part of SCOTUS' main function is to make decisions on federal issues where states disagree.

I've already said I would be fine if SCOTUS interpreted this as needing a conviction and also that I thought this was a loser issue for the Ds.