Skip to main content

@VivekGRamaswamy..Biden..allies are engaging in election interference..Having tried just about every trick in the book to eliminate President Trump from running in this election..Our country is becoming unrecognizable to anyone who understands our Constitution, and we don’t have long to fix it.

Post

Conversation

Vivek Ramaswamy
@VivekGRamaswamy
President Biden and his allies are engaging in election interference of the highest order. Having tried just about every trick in the book to eliminate President Trump from running in this election, the left is trying to deploy yet another tactic to bar him from ever holding office again: the 14th Amendment. I stand on principle over politics, which is why I am sharing the following viewpoint despite the fact that Trump is one of my opponents in this primary: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that any person who has “previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States ... to support the Constitution” is disqualified from holding public office if that person engaged “in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” Politicized groups are attempting to make Trump ineligible to run for president, arguing he fomented and in fact engaged in insurrection on January 6. This is a perversion of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was part of the “Reconstruction Amendments” that were ratified following the Civil War. It was passed to prohibit former Confederate military and political leaders from holding high federal or state office. These men had clearly taken part in a rebellion against the United States: the Civil War. Participants in the events of January 6 did not. And Trump, of course, was not even among them. That makes it all the more absurd that a left-wing group in Colorado is asking a federal court to disqualify the former president on the same grounds, arguing that his stump speeches on and before January 6 equate to rebellion against the United States. And there’s another legal problem: Trump is not a former “officer of the United States,” as that term is used in the Constitution, meaning Section 3 does not apply. As the Supreme Court explained in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), an “officer of the United States” is someone appointed by the president to aid him in his duties under Article II, Section 2. The term does not apply to elected officials, and certainly not to the president himself. The Framers of the 14th Amendment would be shocked and appalled to see their narrow provision—intended to bar former U.S officials who switched to the Confederacy from seeking public office—being weaponized by a sitting president and his political allies to prevent a former president from seeking reelection. Our country is becoming unrecognizable to anyone who understands our Constitution, and we don’t have long to fix it.
Quote
Sarah Reese Jones
@PoliticusSarah
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) testifies in 14th Amendment trial to disqualify Trump from the ballot in Colorado.
0:20 / 2:20
192.8K
Views

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
3 comments
Read more