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, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, 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.
God I hate to support this ghoul, but it does say “engaged in” or “given aid to”. She’s given support for an insurrection, and if one happened I imagine she’d be impeachable due to both statements, but until then she’d be covered under the 1st amendment
|But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Never saw that part before. Does that mean that a person supporting insurrection causes the government to have a disability, that someone supporting insurrection is disabled and can be removed with a 2/3rds vote, or they are automatically barred execpt if 2/3rd vote to remove the restriction?
Not sure if you are being facetious, but it means that you can’t be part of the government unless 2/3rds of each house of Congress votes to allow you to participate in the federal government again.
Interestingly, it doesn’t say that you get your elected position back, just that you can hold office again.
So in this case, MTG would be removed, her seat would be filled by whatever process Georgia has for replacing a Congressional Rep. If (and it’s a big if since a good chunk of her own party dislikes her) she gets a 2/3rds vote from the House and the Senate, then she would be able to run for office again. I think. It would probably be a constitutional crisis that would get kicked to the SC either way.
Sounds like she should be removed from Congress.
God I hate to support this ghoul, but it does say “engaged in” or “given aid to”. She’s given support for an insurrection, and if one happened I imagine she’d be impeachable due to both statements, but until then she’d be covered under the 1st amendment
…capitol building?
She should definitely be held accountable for that, yeah. But not this. This is actual freedom of speech
|But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Never saw that part before. Does that mean that a person supporting insurrection causes the government to have a disability, that someone supporting insurrection is disabled and can be removed with a 2/3rds vote, or they are automatically barred execpt if 2/3rd vote to remove the restriction?
Not sure if you are being facetious, but it means that you can’t be part of the government unless 2/3rds of each house of Congress votes to allow you to participate in the federal government again.
Interestingly, it doesn’t say that you get your elected position back, just that you can hold office again.
So in this case, MTG would be removed, her seat would be filled by whatever process Georgia has for replacing a Congressional Rep. If (and it’s a big if since a good chunk of her own party dislikes her) she gets a 2/3rds vote from the House and the Senate, then she would be able to run for office again. I think. It would probably be a constitutional crisis that would get kicked to the SC either way.