Well, Colorado seems to be in the news today.

[wesw]

RR, civil proceedings do not meet the same standards as criminal proceedings must

please sir, can you not even acknowledge my argument?

and its merits?

[wesw]

to quote a great movie...

"yer killin' me. Smalls"

[MajGenl.Meade]

innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers

A jury does not "prove" guilt. Evidence proves guilt. A jury decides whether the evidence shows guilt or is insufficient to do so. Not all cases are determined by juries.

People are actually guilty or actually innocent of crime before arrest, before trial, before a jury (or judge) makes a determination.

I did not claim that e.g. PGT Beauregard was legally guilty of treason. Nor Davis, nor Lee, etc.

I claim that they were factually traitors to the United States on the grounds of waging war against the U.S.

[Sue U]

innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers

you seem to confuse subjects of the crown with free men

weak tea

RR, civil proceedings do not meet the same standards as criminal proceedings must

please sir, can you not even acknowledge my argument?

and its merits?

There is no merit to your arguments.

First, "having engaged in insurrection" under the 14th Amendment is not a criminal violation determined under any criminal code and is not punishable by a prison term or a monetary fine; it is a constitutionally-mandated disqualification from office. There is no need, let alone statutory or constitutional requirement, for a jury trial and there are no defined criteria for what kind of proceedings, what standard of proof or whose burden of proof it is in order to determine whether any given individual is disqualified from office. These are some of the issues that SCOTUS may address (they granted the petition for review of the Colorado case today).

"Innocent until proven guilty" and rules of criminal procedure are entirely irrelevant to constitutional disqualification, which is fundamentally a political question, not a question of either civil or criminal liability. And as I said earlier in this thread, the Constitution leaves the conduct of elections for federal office -- including rules for ballot access -- entirely up to the states. If the Supreme Court were true constitutionalists who actually believed in federalism as a principle of government, they'd say it's none of their business how those elections are run as long as they do not violate any constitutional provisions. And it's hard to see how honoring the 14th Amendment's mandate is somehow violating the Constitution. But then again, I'm not Brett Kavanaugh and Alina Habba is not demanding that I "step up" to protect the mob boss who "went through hell" put me on the Court, probably for this very moment. Quid, meet Quo.

[Bicycle Bill]

innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers

you seem to confuse subjects of the crown with free men

weak tea

What you are basically saying, wes, is that no matter what you do, so long as you aren't caught at it, brought to trial, and convicted, you didn't do it
That may be the way it works in wcourt of law, but that ain't the way it is in real life.  If I've got video of you storming the Capitol, smashing windows, fighting with uniformed LEOs, and carrying away the speaker's podium ... you done did it, whether or not you ever saw the inside of a courtroom.

[wesw]

18 us code 2383

[Sue U]

18 us code 2383

What about it?

[Scooter]

He's trying to make an argument about the 14th Amendment not being self-executing, or something.

Or maybe he's just high.

[Sue U]

Don't spoil my fun.

[Sue U]

18 us code 2383

Come on, wesw, what's your point? What are you trying to say? Where do you think you're going with this? Don't just slink off and run away. Build an actual argument if you have one. Or admit that your opinions are just pulled out of your ass and based on nothing but your own personal "vibes."