A valid question that needs to be answered. It’s unfathomable that all of these insurrectionists got away with it, including the one who incited the entire thing.
I post nearly every newsletter Closer to the Edge puts out on multiple platforms and they've never complained. Pretty sure, that's why they send them out.
It would be great if she reflected upon this question, however from a practical perspective there is no longer any mechanism to bring any consequence to bear. When a criminal organization essentially controls all 3 branches of government, neither the language nor the intent of what is written in the constitution matters. They can selectively apply or twist it any way they want. Kagan is limited to writing scathing dissents.
Maybe the people, We the People, can reflect on this question, and put real pressure on Congressional Reps to bring this question before the court. We would really like to see the Justices grapple with this.
At the moment, the best answer is to VOTE at all levels of government at every opportunity.
AND ... Please spread the word that virtually every state has provisions for people 16-or-17-and-older to pre-register to vote. This means that while they are not permitted to vote until they are 18, it won't matter where in the world they are (college, military, etc.) they automatically become registered voters in the election district where they pre-registered on their 18th birthday).
Exactly. I expressed my frustration in my initial response 👇🏻 -
Good and pertinent question.
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, OR given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House remove such disability.”
So here I am, still pondering why DJT was not immediately indicted and removed from office by the senate after he brazenly engaged in an insurrection on 1/6.
And lest we forget, the senate actually had two opportunities to kick his butt out, but instead they chose to yawn and give him a pass. TWICE.
BUT THEN, WHY was he not only allowed, as a convicted felon, to run for president again when he likely wouldn’t even qualify for a security clearance? Yet the Republicans actually elected him again! Talk about a warped sense of integrity, morality, responsibility, courage, and duty to honor their oaths to protect and defend the constitution and rule of law!
It such an insult to our country.
One would think that the majority of the American people would expect and demand a higher standard for POTUS. And those who represent them. sigh…
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, OR given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House remove such disability.”
So here I am, still pondering why DJT was not immediately indicted and removed from office by the senate after he brazenly engaged in an insurrection on 1/6.
And lest we forget, the senate actually had two opportunities to kick his butt out, but instead they chose to yawn and give him a pass. TWICE.
BUT THEN, WHY was he not only allowed, as a convicted felon, to run for president again when he likely wouldn’t even qualify for a security clearance? Yet the Republicans actually elected him again! Talk about a warped sense of integrity, morality, responsibility, courage, and duty to honor their oaths to protect and defend the constitution and rule of law!
It such an insult to our country.
One would think that the majority of the American people would expect and demand a higher standard for POTUS. And those who represent them. sigh…
Yes, I do. Why? Please show me an instance in which a private citizen has standing to FILE a question directly to a Supreme Court justice. To be precise, a citizen may write a letter to a Supreme Court justice; letters are considered private correspondence. Clerks and/or staff might keep a log of such public correspondence; they're not required to bring any such correspondence to the Justice who is addressed. You make clear that you're not writing about a case. (Good. If a citizen is not party to a case, s/he must file a petition for a writ of certiorari via the usual court protocols). I think filing for cert in a particular case on the docket might be useful. However, see current docket. Where would your letter fit in so that you would be able to file for cert, and who would represent you?
A valid question that needs to be answered. It’s unfathomable that all of these insurrectionists got away with it, including the one who incited the entire thing.
YES, and most importantly the POTUS
I’d like to post this publicly on my Facebook page if that’s OK. But will it matter to anyone other than those who already understand it?
Please do. We will keep writing letters until this constitutional question addressed.
Not just Facebook, but all the media platforms including all social media platforms.
We have to keep speaking out and sharing the questions that affect our keeping or losing Democracy.
I post nearly every newsletter Closer to the Edge puts out on multiple platforms and they've never complained. Pretty sure, that's why they send them out.
It would be great if she reflected upon this question, however from a practical perspective there is no longer any mechanism to bring any consequence to bear. When a criminal organization essentially controls all 3 branches of government, neither the language nor the intent of what is written in the constitution matters. They can selectively apply or twist it any way they want. Kagan is limited to writing scathing dissents.
Maybe the people, We the People, can reflect on this question, and put real pressure on Congressional Reps to bring this question before the court. We would really like to see the Justices grapple with this.
Unfortunately SCOTUS has clearly shown its majority hand, hence its agenda.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Rook wants to see the Justices sweat and twist themselves into knots.
Wholeheartedly agree. I very much appreciate all of Rook’s comments.
And believe it or not, I’ve always been a lifelong, certified, card carrying optimist!
Thank you for holding on to optimism.
The Justices don't seem to grapple with anything. DT asks and they majority of SCOTUS rubber stamps it.
At the moment, the best answer is to VOTE at all levels of government at every opportunity.
AND ... Please spread the word that virtually every state has provisions for people 16-or-17-and-older to pre-register to vote. This means that while they are not permitted to vote until they are 18, it won't matter where in the world they are (college, military, etc.) they automatically become registered voters in the election district where they pre-registered on their 18th birthday).
Exactly. I expressed my frustration in my initial response 👇🏻 -
Good and pertinent question.
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, OR given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House remove such disability.”
So here I am, still pondering why DJT was not immediately indicted and removed from office by the senate after he brazenly engaged in an insurrection on 1/6.
And lest we forget, the senate actually had two opportunities to kick his butt out, but instead they chose to yawn and give him a pass. TWICE.
BUT THEN, WHY was he not only allowed, as a convicted felon, to run for president again when he likely wouldn’t even qualify for a security clearance? Yet the Republicans actually elected him again! Talk about a warped sense of integrity, morality, responsibility, courage, and duty to honor their oaths to protect and defend the constitution and rule of law!
It such an insult to our country.
One would think that the majority of the American people would expect and demand a higher standard for POTUS. And those who represent them. sigh…
Thank you for addressing a SCOTUS member for still having the ability to understand the English word and its meaning to others…1776 or 2025…
I would really like an honest answer to this question, too.
Keep us posted.
Follow up to previous text: when did the constitution censor women in SCOTUS?
Good and pertinent question.
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, OR given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House remove such disability.”
So here I am, still pondering why DJT was not immediately indicted and removed from office by the senate after he brazenly engaged in an insurrection on 1/6.
And lest we forget, the senate actually had two opportunities to kick his butt out, but instead they chose to yawn and give him a pass. TWICE.
BUT THEN, WHY was he not only allowed, as a convicted felon, to run for president again when he likely wouldn’t even qualify for a security clearance? Yet the Republicans actually elected him again! Talk about a warped sense of integrity, morality, responsibility, courage, and duty to honor their oaths to protect and defend the constitution and rule of law!
It such an insult to our country.
One would think that the majority of the American people would expect and demand a higher standard for POTUS. And those who represent them. sigh…
You guys don't want to earn the rep of taking the Court's time with frivolity. Take care.
You think it's frivolous?
Yes, I do. Why? Please show me an instance in which a private citizen has standing to FILE a question directly to a Supreme Court justice. To be precise, a citizen may write a letter to a Supreme Court justice; letters are considered private correspondence. Clerks and/or staff might keep a log of such public correspondence; they're not required to bring any such correspondence to the Justice who is addressed. You make clear that you're not writing about a case. (Good. If a citizen is not party to a case, s/he must file a petition for a writ of certiorari via the usual court protocols). I think filing for cert in a particular case on the docket might be useful. However, see current docket. Where would your letter fit in so that you would be able to file for cert, and who would represent you?
What? The current DOJ does this regularly. I think this action is overdue.
KA Farrell, please see my reply to the author, above.