Recent content by NotreDame

I already said that. I wrote,”The context also includes the “Confiscation Act of 1862” which criminalized insurrection and barred from office those convicted. “SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or...

Your retort is “pelting with popcorn” the part of my post you addressed.

Logically the clause cannot constitute as a “dead letter” if enforcement attaches to Congrssional action. This isn’t the only clause that is dormant absent congressional legislation. The power to raise an army is dormant until Congress passes legislation authorizing the creation of an army and...

Not really because the SCOTUS decision is not based upon whether Trump did engage in insurrection or is an insurrectionist. The opinion unequivocally means Trump can confess he engaged in insurrection, he can be convicted of insurrection in all 50 states, including Puerto Rico, and no state...

Do you agree insurrection means to “overthrow” the government or exiting governmental authority? There’s already a historical. factual context to understand “insurrection” in the Constitution and federal code. The historical, factual context is secession and the actions taken to implement...

Yes I read the decision. The Court decided 1.) Congress must pass legislation before Sec.3 can be enforced 2.) No legislation having been passed by Congress therefore C) Colorado and the States lack authority to enforce Sec 3 against D.) candidates for federal office and those occupying federal...

Or perhaps there wasn’t any insurrection or attempted insurrection as no one Jan 6., acted to overthrow the government or to overthrow the authority of the government. Which perhaps explains why Smith never charged Trump with insurrection but with attempting/conspiring to obstruct an “official...

Except Section 3 doesn’t require any charges or any conviction and the decision is not based upon whether there are charges or convictions.

So what? None of the above is germane to the decision released today by SCOTUS.

The decision doesn’t rest upon whether Trump is charged or found guilty.

No, your logic is ignoring another legitimate and law motive and purpose of completing a trial before election and/or before sworn into office. Trump, if elected and sworn in will have the authority to, at least tangentially if not nearly directly or tantamount to directly have both the...

Eh, the DC Circuit isn’t awful but can certainly be improved.

A commonly used phrase in circumstances where there is a lack of evidence and ignores that “their actions” do not necessarily “speak loudly” in agreement with your POV. It’s a cop out statement to avoid making any evidentiary argument or reasoned argument. Sure, but the issue is whether your...

How do you account for, or explain, the NT books are conspicuously devoid of Christians and the church denouncing governmental tyranny, whether by civil disobedience, public denouncements, protests, etcetera? (For now I’m not including tyranny that implicates Biblical commands, principles, etc.)...

Your claim, your burden, so you’ll need to establish the refusal to accept the case in December was caused by the “sole goal to delay the final verdict to after the election.” The fact alone of “could have chose to hear the case back in December” is a mere statement of fact, of what happened...