• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Congress pass a law banning Insurrectionists?

Hercules56

Banned
H
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
17,176
Supreme Court has made it clear: states cannot ban candidates from Federal elections due to the 14th Amendment ban on insurrectionists holding office. Only Congress can do it.

So, should Congress pass a new law spelling out Insurrection and banning folks convicted of Insurrection or aiding Insurrectionists, if convicted in Federal court of such crime?

We already have a law that poorly addresses this,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.

18 U.S. Code § 2383



But it does not spell out Insurrection so its kinda hard to convict someone of this act. Congress could amend this code to clearly spell out and describe what acts qualify as Insurrection and aiding Insurrection.

Should Congress do so?
 
Last edited:
Yes, but congress is totally dysfunctional, so they won't.

They should, even the reps, they couldn't apply to Jan 6th on account of the Constitution banning ex post facto laws.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Should Congress do so?
Click to expand...

Eventually, but not now. Right now, any such law will only be viewed through the prism of Trump, and whether or not such a law would or could be used to disqualify him. That's not a good environment for crafting thoughtful legislation.
 
Ziggurat said:
Eventually, but not now. Right now, any such law will only be viewed through the prism of Trump, and whether or not such a law would or could be used to disqualify him. That's not a good environment for crafting thoughtful legislation.
Click to expand...

If they should be doing it at all, they should be doing it now.
As the expression goes: the best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago.
The second best is now.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
If they should be doing it at all, they should be doing it now.
As the expression goes: the best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago.
The second best is now.
Click to expand...

Sure, but what could they actually get passed. If its a law that gets all that Dems it will not get any reps if its a law that gets all the reps it won't any Dems, if its an actual compromise it will lose enough of both to not pass.

Dems will write it to clearly include Jan 6 and the Reps will write it to clearly exclude Jan 6.
 
Ziggurat said:
Eventually, but not now. Right now, any such law will only be viewed through the prism of Trump, and whether or not such a law would or could be used to disqualify him. That's not a good environment for crafting thoughtful legislation.
Click to expand...

Sadly I agree.

This law or amending the old law should be passed AFTER trump wins or loses in November.

But we definitely need such a law so scumbag traitors can be banned from Federal office.
 
ahhell said:
Sure, but what could they actually get passed. If its a law that gets all that Dems it will not get any reps if its a law that gets all the reps it won't any Dems, if its an actual compromise it will lose enough of both to not pass.

Dems will write it to clearly include Jan 6 and the Reps will write it to clearly exclude Jan 6.
Click to expand...

We got a bipartisan rewrite of the Electoral Count Act, which made it clear that Trump's claims that VP could unilaterally reject electoral votes was absolute bull crap, I dont see why we cant amend the law to allow the Feds to ban Federal candidates who try to destroy or take over or suspend the govt.
 
Ziggurat said:
Eventually, but not now. Right now, any such law will only be viewed through the prism of Trump, and whether or not such a law would or could be used to disqualify him. That's not a good environment for crafting thoughtful legislation.
Click to expand...

This is the stupidest sentiment I've ever heard. We can't pass legislation because people will see it through the lens of events that illustrate the need for it? Where do you think the 14th Amendment came from in the first place?

Okay, we'll just wait for the next insurrectionist President.
 
JayUtah said:
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) introduced a bill to that effect some time ago, which he says he plans to revive.
Click to expand...

What exactly does the bill do?

Amend 18 U.S. Code § 2383 so that it clearly spells out what acts qualify for Insurrection or aiding Insurrectionists?

Is it new law?
 
JayUtah said:
This is the stupidest sentiment I've ever heard. We can't pass legislation because people will see it through the lens of events that illustrate the need for it? Where do you think the 14th Amendment came from in the first place?

Okay, we'll just wait for the next insurrectionist President.
Click to expand...

No way in hell such a new law would break a filibuster, especially if Trump wins and the clear intent is to charge trump and convict him before he takes office.

Abolish the filibuster so as to pass this law before 1/21/25? Would be terribly divisive to this country, might start a civil war.

I know, I know, sounds like classic hyperbole. But it might be true.

Pass the law before 1/21/25 and then charge President Trump while in office?

Hmmm....
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
This is the stupidest sentiment I've ever heard. We can't pass legislation because people will see it through the lens of events that illustrate the need for it? Where do you think the 14th Amendment came from in the first place?

Okay, we'll just wait for the next insurrectionist President.
Click to expand...

The 14th seems poorly thought out, too.
 
JayUtah said:
The practicality and likelihood of passing such a bill was not the question. The providence of doing so was the question.
Click to expand...

Nobody needs you telling us what is and is not the question being asked. We're not stupid.
 
JayUtah said:
This is the stupidest sentiment I've ever heard. We can't pass legislation because people will see it through the lens of events that illustrate the need for it?
Click to expand...

No. It's not that people will see it through that lens. It's that the people writing the bill will see it through that lens, and they will tailor it to their opinions about this specific case rather than crafting well-thought-out legislation of general utility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom