How did America as a nation form, in insurrection.
It specifically states against the constitution. Not against Congress. If indeed Trump caused the insurrection? Of which he himself wasn't a part of.
Pathetic argument and one for the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile tell me of such minorities given positions of governance, office, of public service, from eliciting insurrection? I am sure there are hundreds of examples.
I debate that Congress is the Constitution. It supposedly serves the constitution. Today it seemingly serves somebody else. Did the acting president, initiate a rebellion, or challenge Congress? If a rebellion took place he wasn't the perpetrator. What rebellion did the acting president cause? A coup? An armed revolt? An insurgency? No.
I think the letter of the law should be applied, rather than any other dubious feelings of it? Nothing occurred in the pretext of that ammendment. But it makes an amusing debate.
The pretext, is an armed rebellion, effectively breaking away from the constitutional charter, by insurrection perpetrated by the individual. When that was written, it envisaged, what, specifically. Never a Twitter Broadcast, or any other words of somebody else's misinterpretation. Physical acts of unwavering insurrection and noncompliance in person to the constitution, breaking the oath sworn. Not a protest every other Democrat attended during Trump's office. Let's not forget about Nixon. Or whatever other climate, lgbtq, minority hoohaw and what not?
How did America as a nation form, in insurrection.
It specifically states against the constitution. Not against Congress. If indeed Trump caused the insurrection? Of which he himself wasn't a part of.
Pathetic argument and one for the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile tell me of such minorities given positions of governance, office, of public service, from eliciting insurrection? I am sure there are hundreds of examples.
I debate that Congress is the Constitution. It supposedly serves the constitution. Today it seemingly serves somebody else. Did the acting president, initiate a rebellion, or challenge Congress? If a rebellion took place he wasn't the perpetrator. What rebellion did the acting president cause? A coup? An armed revolt? An insurgency? No.
I think the letter of the law should be applied, rather than any other dubious feelings of it? Nothing occurred in the pretext of that ammendment. But it makes an amusing debate.
The pretext, is an armed rebellion, effectively breaking away from the constitutional charter, by insurrection perpetrated by the individual. When that was written, it envisaged, what, specifically. Never a Twitter Broadcast, or any other words of somebody else's misinterpretation. Physical acts of unwavering insurrection and noncompliance in person to the constitution, breaking the oath sworn. Not a protest every other Democrat attended during Trump's office. Let's not forget about Nixon. Or whatever other climate, lgbtq, minority hoohaw and what not?
I really don't think it will go their way.