Originally published at: Marjorie Taylor Greene sued for being an insurrectionist — if proven true, she won't be able to run again | Boing Boing
…
13 Likes
I wish Ron Fein well, but I am surprised that “being an insurrectionist” is a crime that exposes you to individual action.
3 Likes
I applaud the effort but recent events suggest it will be an uphill battle.
23 Likes
Empty G, support Marcus Flowers campaign, send what you can, give when you can. Let’s get that troglodyte Marg out’a Congress.
5 Likes
The biggest problem here is that the Courts are going to (rightly) find this to be non-justiciable. Congress gets to decide the qualifications of its members and so it would have to itself make a decision about whether or not someone was an insurrectionist. The Courts can’t order Congress to seat someone, they can’t rule the filibuster is unconstitutional. All of that is just off limits.
I mean, she’s horrible, but not in a way the Courts can do anything about it.
8 Likes
I really hope she wins, if only because if she loses, this would basically mean a single person can disqualify a viable candidate without any criminal due process. This gets used by us successfully, it’ll be used on us too.
6 Likes
Regarding “Not being able to run again”, how about going for a relatively simple indictment upon the orange blob hisself? Did he destroy, attempt to flush, federal documents? yes. And there are several White-house functionaries who will provide witness to this. So what? Well, if he’s found guilty of this, then he can’t run for federal office again. U.S. Code §2071b And even having that as a legal assurance would shift the far right politics around …well, a bit.
2 Likes
offtopic but once again what with the mirrored image video? Is this a feature of tikTok or something?
Win or lose, I’d like to see this fascist hatemonger made to answer questions about her insurrectionist statements under oath. She’ll try to lie and spin, of course, but she’s not bright or clever enough to pull it off.
16 Likes
Ain’t nuthin’ gonna happen…
4 Likes
11 Likes
Bu bu bu but what about State’s Rights?
6 Likes
So Congress can just “overrule” the Constitution then, what an interesting doctrine 
7 Likes
It sounds like the ultimate question here is whether Raffensperger can use the court’s finding as a basis to disqualify MTG from their ballot under Georgia law. Whatever the ALJ comes up with will not be binding upon Congress, and is not equivalent to a determination by Congress, but is presumably something the Sec. can consider. These are two separate things. If Raffensperger can’t or won’t, life goes on, near as I can tell.
1 Like
Perhaps this is a dark thought from an outsider of the US but… the weapon of choice available to all and the ‘right to bear arms for a militia against a tyrannical government’ e.g. that orange fellow didn’t bare any fruit with his tyranny…
Ain’t nothing gonna happen…
She also planted the pipe bombs on Jan 6.
Watch the camera footage of the bomber, then watch footage of MTG walking.
Change my mind.
1 Like
Yeah, no, that’s now how the Constitution works. This decision better be in appeals court because it’s stupid and wrong.
5 Likes
I hope they file against Hawley and Cottton too.
3 Likes
The 14th Amendment specifically states that Congress can override this provision.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Emphasis mine.
Now the bigger issue is in the interpretation of the Amnesty Act of 1872.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), That all political disabilities imposed by the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.
Again, emphasis mine. Now, to me, it seems ridiculous that the Congress decided to override this clause of the 14th amendment for all time, ever, except for a few folks at the time. It seems far more likely that “all persons” refers to “all living persons”. But you can argue the other view, and Cawthorn convinced one judge to take it that way.
1 Like
It’s how the Constitution works in this specific case, because the text of this section of the 14th Amendment expressly allows it.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Emphasis mine.
The bigger argument is if the Amnesty Act of 1872 removed that provision for everyone except those specifically referenced in its text forever, or if it only removed that provision for everyone who was an insurrectionist at the time the law was passed.
1 Like
