Wisconsin lawsuit accuses 3 GOP congressmen of insurrection

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: AP

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin liberals on Thursday filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Republican Sen. Ron Johnson and two other GOP congressmen are insurrectionists in violation of the U.S. Constitution for their words and actions in support of Donald Trump leading up to the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The lawsuit, alleging a violation of the “Disqualification Clause” of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, says Johnson and U.S. Reps. Tom Tiffany and Scott Fitzgerald conspired to undermine President Joe Biden's victory and sow public distrust of the outcome.

That clause was enacted after the Civil War to prevent congressmen who had fought on the Confederate side from returning to Congress. It prohibits anyone from holding federal office who has taken an oath to protect the Constitution but has also “engaged in insurrection” against the United States or “given aid or comfort” to its enemies.

It's unclear what would happen if a court ruled that a sitting member of Congress had violated the amendment. The lawsuit doesn’t seek a specific remedy, but in a statement announcing its filing, the plaintiffs said the men “are no longer qualified” to seek reelection.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/wisconsin-lawsuit-accuses-3-gop-185451439.html

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Yeah, that's the gist of it

14A does not specify a means for the remedy. Says something about being ineligible to serve. Expulsion is mentioned somewhere in the Constitution itself. As to the connection between the two, that is tenuous and unclear in my mind. I know what I think it means, or what I'd like to believe it means, but no one is asking me.

[NHvet]

2. Seems its right in section 3.... unable to serve,

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.

[L. Coyote]

6. On the construction of "engaged in rebellion," see United States v. Powell, 27 F. Cas. 605

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-3/disqualification-clause

The 14th Amendment’s Disqualification Provision and the Events of Jan. 6

... Now Section 3 is back in the news because of its declaration that officials who swore an oath to defend the Constitution and then “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States are ineligible to serve in office again. This raises the significant question of whether President Trump and other individuals who played some part in the events surrounding the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol are now ineligible from future service. A review of the basic parameters of Section 3 suggests it is the best legal framework available for addressing the extraordinary events at the Capitol with respect to the eligibility of participants to hold public office.

The Key Questions

The first question under Section 3 is who decides whether someone is ineligible. The answer is that a court must determine if someone outside of Congress is subject to the disability. This point was established in cases between 1868 and 1872, in which men who were accused of being ineligible contested that claim in court with full due process of law. In this respect, Section 3 is different from a disqualification from federal office imposed as a sentence for an impeachment conviction. A disqualification sentence from the Senate is final and not, for all intents and purposes, subject to judicial review.

By contrast, Congress cannot simply declare an official outside of that body ineligible under Section 3 without the concurrence of the courts. To hold otherwise would allow simple majorities in Congress to oust federal and state officials without judicial scrutiny and would subvert long-established constitutional principles, such as life tenure for federal judges and the limits of the impeachment process. At most, Congress can exercise its Section 5 enforcement authority under the 14th Amendment to express its considered opinion that certain individuals are ineligible, with the expectation that the courts will accept that opinion under the “congruence and proportionality” standard articulated by the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Boerne v. Flores—assuming that City of Boerne even applies to the enforcement of Section 3.

With respect to sitting members of Congress, Section 3 must be enforced internally, because the Constitution contemplates no other disciplinary process. .........

[bucolic_frolic]

11. I believe that section is often read backwards, as it is in this case

"No person shall be ... having previously taken an oath ... shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same ...."

So THAT establishes who and why they shall not be in Congress. That is the "disability". The last sentence does not say 2/3 to remove them. It says 2/3 to "remove such disability" - to waive the restriction why they shall not be a member. It is reinstatement to the legislative body.

The Amendment does not refer to the original Constitution's method for expulsion - a 2/3 vote. It says they "shall not" unless reinstated. So the method of enforcing this section is unclear. In my mind it should be taken up in the courts, and a close reading of the Amendment would force some people from office.

[Ellipsis]

5. I am.

Dish.


"Johnson and U.S. Reps. Tom Tiffany and Scott Fitzgerald conspired to undermine President Joe Biden's victory and sow public distrust of the outcome."


I would agree with the above statement.

[soldierant]

8. Since all three are in Congress and all from the same state,

I would say the formal disqualification would fall on the Secretary of state, unless Wisconsin has a separate Chief Election Official, in which case it would be on his or her head. Those are usually the authorities who make eligibility determinations. There are other reasons someone might not be eligible so it wouldn't beas if they had never done it before.

[babylonsister]

3. Terrific! Someone has to start. nt

[mountain grammy]

4. I hope this grows legs..

[Cha]

7. Guilty as Charged!

💙💛

[ShazzieB]

9. Well! It's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

10. This will be fun to watch

[Wild blueberry]

12. "No longer qualified" to seek reelection

due to their own actions.

Don't know why Wisconsin AG Kaul has not already moved on this or on the ten false "electors" who forged "certification" for Flush.

[ck4829]

13. K&R

[lagomorph777]

14. More of this, please.