More legislation was not what the writers of the 14th amendment intended. Otherwise they would have said so. The wording is clear: anyone who “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution cannot hold office.

串文

2024-12-26 14:51

讚

回覆

轉發

作者

Steve Pretzel
pretz58

粉絲

496

串文

132+

讚

回覆

轉發

24小時粉絲增長

無資料

互動率

(讚 + 回覆 + 轉發) / 粉絲數

2.62%

回覆 (BETA)

最先回覆的內容
發文後	用戶	內容
10 小時內	Reed Garrison rgar4960	Wasn’t charged with insurrection and we know too much about J6 now
11 小時內	Linda Duarte lovemygirlstoo	You dimwits it has never been proved!
一天內	David Tuniman david_tuniman	Exactly right. How do the phony justices explain for example Brown v Board of Ed based on Sect 1 of 14 A resolved without an enabling statute? Ask whether 22A also needs an enabling statute. They'll say in 2028 or does to allow 3rd Trump term. Garland could act, won't.