US US Rep. Greene challenges the 14th amendment to run for reelection - Treasonous bitch

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

US Rep. Greene challenges the 14th amendment to run for reelection​


ATLANTA, GA. (WCTV/AP) - U.S representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has filed a lawsuit challenging a provision in the 14th amendment in Georgia’s state law that a group of voters are using against her eligibility to run for reelection.

The challenge filed last month against Greene alleges that she helped facilitate the January 6, riot in 2021 that disrupted Joe Biden’s presential election victory.

Greene filed a lawsuit Friday asking a judge to declare the law unconstitutional and prohibit state officials from enforcing it.

Copyright 2022 WCTV. All rights reserved.


 
Click to expand...
Menotaur said:
That's not my job. Thats the job of the people who want to bar her from running. That is kind of the point of my response - if she isn't charged and isn't found guilty of either, then it is a long shot to ask her to be off the ticket.

I'm not here to debate if she did or did not assist - I don't really care. I just find the idea is interesting and has merit - if indeed they can prove it.

And to Nod Flenders who said...

"She, like all people in the US, are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. She's never been convicted, let alone charged. Therefore, she can run for reelection."

Is what I actually said.
Click to expand...
You do realize that I was on your side on this, right?
 
That part of the 14th amendment was included to keep unrepentant Confederates, who had actually engaged in an insurrection against the federal government of the United States, out of federal office. Nearly all Confederates did repent so it became a historical curiosity really quickly

Some number of people, perhaps 2,000 at the most, did go to Washington and storm the Capitol building with the intent of preventing the election being certified by vote of Congress, which is an insurrection. Convict them and bar them from federal office, sure

But none of those people are named Marjorie Taylor Green, or Madison Cawthorn, or Ron Johnson, or Jim Jordan, or Donald Trump, or anyone else being targeted in this way by lawfare scum. None of them conspired to cause an insurrection or participated directly in one, so the point is moot
 
Menotaur said:
On a more important note:

I feel Greene's supporters are actually missing the point: Greene’s lawsuit asks a judge to declare that the law that the voters are using to challenge her eligibility is itself unconstitutional and to prohibit state officials from enforcing it.

So Greene is trying not to challenge those who are accusing her, but the law in place that would see her barred if the accusation is true. For Greene's supports, that should raise red flags as bright as the sun at mid day.

That's like being accused of manslaughter for drunk driving and then asking before you go to trial that the court rule the law that says drunk driving causing death is manslaughter be revoked.
Click to expand...
That already happened in the Madison Cawthorn case. It wasn't thrown out. A judgement was rendered which said that those penalties outlined in the 14th amendment have not applied since Amnesty Act of 1872 nullified them.

So, she's right.
 
pwnest injun said:
That already happened in the Madison Cawthorn case. It wasn't thrown out. A judgement was rendered which said that those penalties outlined in the 14th amendment have not applied since Amnesty Act of 1872 nullified them.

So, she's right.
Click to expand...
Right.

But why approach a judge in the first place to ask if we "can please confirm I can't be charged if I did commit insurrection."?

Bit odd, wouldn't you say?
 
Interesting what is being said by Marjorie and it reminds me greatly of the election fraud bullshit where they say one thing publicly and then another entirely when under oath.

As vile as it is what she stands for I am not seeing sufficient evidence (yet) for her to be disbarred from running.

But to be frank it is on a razors edge; and we are talking about the difference between a few words in this direction or that direction being sufficient evidence for proof of conspiracy.

On the balance I'd say there is sufficient evidence to say she openly wanted the government elections to be thwarted and should be found ineligible. However I say on the balance of it because there are technicalities involving how the President is indeed voted for that throw up the "black and white" nature of this case into the unknown.

This case is probably a lot more important than most are giving it credit for given the context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom