What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Grand Unified Election Thread 2: What is the difference between Biden and Dump?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Drew S. said:
She(along with a few others) shouldn’t have been let in to begin with. Absolutely disgraceful to have them in Congress.
Click to expand...

Anybody should be "let in." Voters gonna vote. The People should be allowed any representative they want.

But that representative then has to observe her oath (not to mention basic human decency).

Is violation of the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution a prosecutable offense or just grounds for expulsion?

Reading matter.
 
Last edited:
From that pointer, here's the law where you can't violate the oath. Note the insane particularization of striking.

An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he--

(1)  advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(2)  is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(3)  participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;  or

(4)  is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia.
Click to expand...
 
Here is the statue on riots and incitement:

(a)  An individual convicted by any Federal, State, or local court of competent jurisdiction of--

(1)  inciting a riot or civil disorder;

(2)  organizing, promoting, encouraging, or participating in a riot or civil disorder;

(3)  aiding or abetting any person in committing any offense specified in clause (1) or (2);  or

(4)  any offense determined by the head of the employing agency to have been committed in furtherance of, or while participating in, a riot or civil disorder;

shall, if the offense for which he is convicted is a felony, be ineligible to accept or hold any position in the Government of the United States or in the government of the District of Columbia for the five years immediately following the date upon which his conviction becomes final.  Any such individual holding a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia on the date his conviction becomes final shall be removed from such position.

(b)  For the purposes of this section, “felony” means any offense for which imprisonment is authorized for a term exceeding one year.
Click to expand...
 
More fun with riots, starring everybody's favorite, the Commerce Clause:

(a)Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—
(1)
to incite a riot; or
(2)
to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
(3)
to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4)
to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;
and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— [1]
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b)
In any prosecution under this section, proof that a defendant engaged or attempted to engage in one or more of the overt acts described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) [2] and (1) has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce, or (2) has use of or used any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including but not limited to, mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, to communicate with or broadcast to any person or group of persons prior to such overt acts, such travel or use shall be admissible proof to establish that such defendant traveled in or used such facility of interstate or foreign commerce.
(c)
A judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits under the laws of any State shall be a bar to any prosecution hereunder for the same act or acts.
(d)
Whenever, in the opinion of the Attorney General or of the appropriate officer of the Department of Justice charged by law or under the instructions of the Attorney General with authority to act, any person shall have violated this chapter, the Department shall proceed as speedily as possible with a prosecution of such person hereunder and with any appeal which may lie from any decision adverse to the Government resulting from such prosecution.
(e)
Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to make it unlawful for any person to travel in, or use any facility of, interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of pursuing the legitimate objectives of organized labor, through orderly and lawful means.
(f)
Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to prevent any State, any possession or Commonwealth of the United States, or the District of Columbia, from exercising jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section; nor shall anything in this section be construed as depriving State and local law enforcement authorities of responsibility for prosecuting acts that may be violations of this section and that are violations of State and local law.
Click to expand...
 
Kepler said:
Anybody should be "let in." Voters gonna vote. The People should be allowed any representative they want.

But that representative then has to observe her oath (not to mention basic human decency).

Is violation of the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution a prosecutable offense or just grounds for expulsion?

Reading matter.
Click to expand...

You’re kinder than I am. There should be some standard that incoming members have to meet.
 
WeAreNDHockey said:
Justin Amash, whose politics were mostly wrong-headed, was one of the few republican politicians who called trump what he was. He, like others before him, paid with his position in the congress. His successor also appears to be cut from the same cloth.



It would be nice if the spine he has showed in the last few days keeps growing. I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

This is more about keeping is business around, and his district is not derp enough to go full on treason.
 
Drew S. said:
You’re kinder than I am. There should be some standard that incoming members have to meet.
Click to expand...

If we didn't allow imbeciles into Congress half the population (and 75% of conservatives) would be disenfranchised.

Believe whatever dumb thing you want, you're welcome. Believe in supernatural fairies, you're welcome. Incite violence or insurrection, hit the bricks.
 
The pics coming out today if the officer who was murdered are as bad as you might imagine
 
MichVandal said:
As for the "revolutionary" nature of this thing- if there were factual, demonstrable issues that needed to be defended for, yea. But there have been ZERO facts to support the "steal". The one post that bugged me on another board was the idea that the courts intentionally didn't look at the data- when the court records clearly says that the data was not even presented. And when pressured to know what the charges were, fraud was consistently taken off the charges. They would not present that charge multiple times.

I wonder if anyone has found the same accused problems for AZ, GA, PA, and MI to see what dumpy states would also be disqualified. I thought I heard that at least on of the two Carolina's would have to be thrown out, too.
Click to expand...

It's not that they wouldn't present charges of fraud, they would stipulate to the court that they "weren't alleging that fraud had occurred. But, throw out these millions of votes anyway."
 
Kepler said:
More fun with riots, starring everybody's favorite, the Commerce Clause:
Click to expand...

Isnt that what they used against the Chicago Seven? Crossing State Lines to cause a riot? Oh wait they were (((Jews))) and Blacks and such so they were communists!!11!1!
 
Kepler said:
His father was a former Senate Sergeant-at-Arms who later worked as chief of staff for two Republican Senators and as a lobbyist for... Paul Manafort.

I've had enough of this Tom Clancy novel. Check, please.
Click to expand...

I am sure it is just a coincidence...
 
Jimjamesak said:
Clancy would’ve made it a leftist mob financed by Mexican drug lords.

Remember, Clancy wrote that only a weak leftist like Dukakis would use nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Clancy was a POS who couldn't write his way out of a paper bag, but I don't think even he would have come up with the cuckoo coup.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top