too bad! "Federal judge halts legal challenge to Madison Cawthorn's candidacy

[orleans]

crap!

Federal judge halts legal challenge to Madison Cawthorn's candidacy

A federal judge on Friday blocked a legal challenge to Rep. Madison Cawthorn’s (R-N.C.) candidacy filed over allegations he helped spur the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill.

Richard Myers, a Trump-appointed federal judge in the eastern district of North Carolina, approved Cawthorn’s request for a preliminary injunction to the challenge to his reelection bid.

Eleven North Carolina voters filed the suit to the State Board of Elections in January, arguing that Cawthorn’s comments in the speech shortly before the insurrection violate the 14th Amendment, which states in part that no person “who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

Cawthorn the next month sued to have the effort dismissed, leading to his win Friday. However, the State Board of Elections could appeal Myers’ decision.

more at link

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/596911-federal-judge-halts-legal-challenge-to-madison-cawthorns-candidacy

[ck4829]

1. Something tells me a leftist insurrectionist would not get quite the same leeway

[lagomorph777]

2. Trump judge. No wonder he doesn't support the Constitution.

Will this go to the appeals court now?

[orleans]

3. from the link:

Rob Fein, the legal director of Free Speech For People, which is the co-lead counsel for the 11 voters, called for Friday’s decision to be reversed on appeal.

“This ruling, by Chief Judge Richard Myers II, a Trump appointee, is wrong on the law and would block the State Board of Elections from determining whether Cawthorn is ineligible under the Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause of the US Constitution. The ruling must be reversed on appeal, and the right of voters to bring this challenge to Cawthorn’s eligibility must be preserved,” Fein said in a statement.

[lagomorph777]

4. Thanks! Glad to see it. This is an important case.

I dread what the Trump SCROTUS might do to it though. Cancel the 14th Amendment?

[Volaris]

5. Theyll say that spoken support for insurrection is within bounds.

It's not like he picked up a gun and started shooting at us army regulars (well, not YET, anyway).

[melm00se]

6. As much as this sucks,

the judge was correct.

Let's look at the 2 documents:

14th Amendment, section 3

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.

Amnesty Act of 1872

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), That all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.

(emphasis added)

The 14th Amendment allows for the removal of the ban on serving in the listed offices if two-thirds of each House concur.

In May 1872, that is exactly what happened...two-thirds of each House voted to lift the ban.

Yes it sucks.
Yes it probably goes against what the original intent of this section of the 14th Amendment.

But the laws are applied by what they say, not what we wished that they say.