Greene sues to stop challenge to her reelection eligibility

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: AP

ATLANTA (AP) — U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene filed a lawsuit Friday challenging a state law that a group of voters is using to challenge her eligibility to run for reelection.

The challenge filed last month with the Georgia secretary of state's office alleges that Greene, a Republican, helped facilitate the Jan. 6, 2021, riot that disrupted Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s presidential election victory. That violates a provision of the 14th Amendment and makes her ineligible to run for reelection, the challenge says.

Greene’s lawsuit asks a judge to declare that the law that the voters are using to challenge her eligibility is itself unconstitutional and to prohibit state officials from enforcing it.

A rarely cited part of the 14th Amendment says no one can serve in Congress “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.” Ratified shortly after the Civil War, it was meant in part to keep representatives who had fought for the Confederacy from returning to Congress.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/greene-sues-stop-challenge-her-211017384.html

[brooklynite]

1. And she'll win.

[oldsoftie]

2. Sadly, yes.

[ck4829]

28. Sad that her tyranny will win

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. So, MTG is claiming that an amendment to the Constitution is itself Unconstitutional?

Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs…

[Mr.Bill]

4. Once they use the word unconstitutional

you know they've got nothing.

[soldierant]

7. Exactly.

She can only win if the judge deciding is corrupt, stupid, or both.

[Jerry2144]

8. or republican

But I repeated your list and only did it with one word.

[cstanleytech]

12. That's pretty much the "both".

[cstanleytech]

23. My bet is that she will win as her attorneys will argue that she has not been convicted

Last edited Sat Apr 2, 2022, 02:43 PM - Edit history (1)

and therefore she cannot be denied the right to run for elected office.
Of course its going to depend on what the amendment exactly says but if it does not specifically declare the need for a conviction the Conservative Republican stolen majority on SCOTUS will likely rule in her in her favor.
Just like how they have done for the 2nd to serve their own goals even though the 2nd clearly states the right to own guns is for a well regulated militias which we do have but only via the military which could be interpreted that to own guns you need to be part of the military.

[cab67]

25. I don't recall any former members of Congress who served the Confederacy being convicted of anything

[azureblue]

21. I think the courts will be very wary of ruling in her favor

Because this would open the door to declaring any other part of the Constitution invalid..

[lagomorph777]

30. Meh. SCROTUS renders the Constitution powerless on a daily basis.

It's what they do.

[usaf-vet]

5. And the Second Amendment could have conceived weapons that fire hundreds of rounds/min.

Funny how the Constitution is twisted into pretzels to win in one case but with the next case, it is demanded, that it be kept straight as an arrow.

The entire lot of lawmakers are disingenuous at best if not out and out liars day after day.

[The Jungle 1]

18. "A well regulated militia"

These fools want to end abortion but have no problem with crazy people owning guns and killing babies in school.

[usaf-vet]

33. Their goal has always been to use abortion and a political wedge. At best they are pro-birth.

After that, the newborn, the mother, and other siblings are ON THEIR OWN.

[msfiddlestix]

32. This 10,000 %

Couldn't have put it more clearly myself.

And what you said is a deplorable Truth.

[aggiesal]

6. The Constitution is unconstitutional ...

[DanieRains]

9. Imagine How Smart The People Who Vote For MTG Are

I will bet the clumps in my cat box have more intelligence....

[Hekate]

10. Is she saying the Constitution is unconstitutional?

[trusty elf]

11. Have some chocolate pie, Marjorie.

[intheflow]

13. No, no, no!

We want her to shut her damn pie hole! 😂

[intheflow]

14. Has anyone proved she participated?

I mean, we all know she was all in, but has the J6 committee formally linked her to the insurrection yet? Hopefully I missed that update, there’s so much to keep track of.

[bucolic_frolic]

16. In my mind, that is the strongest part of the Constitution for eliminating these traitors

It doesn't mention how to expel them, it says they shall not serve and provides a remedy to reinstate them by 2/3 vote.

If that literal interpretation could be made to stick, Congress would be 1/3 empty!

[lagomorph777]

31. You'll find lots of DUers claiming the 14th is irrelevant, because...reasons.

[bucolic_frolic]

34. Because they insist on coupling it with 2/3 expulsion, but that's not what A14 says

A14 says outta here unless reinstated by 2/3 vote. But the enforcement for not serving is unmentioned. Perhaps it's more geared to lawsuits preventing those disqualified from running?

[lagomorph777]

35. Right, the 2/3 works opposite to the usual sense, in the 14th.

True, the mechanism of enforcement is unmentioned; your theory that they expected lawsuits seems a fair guess.

[liberalgunwilltravel]

17. Interesting

What I find interesting is that she isn't saying that she isn't an insurrectionist or seditious conspirator, what's she's apparently saying is I got caught and I don't like the fact that you want to enforce the laws I broke.

[Farmer-Rick]

20. Yeah, exactly

It will be interesting what evidence and arguments she brings to court.

Won't she have to establish standing?

"Standing is a legal term which determines whether the party bringing the lawsuit has the right to do so. Standing is not about the issues, it's about who is bringing the lawsuit and whether they have a legal right to sue."

So she will have to prove she committed insurrection or rebellion against the United States to be able to bring this lawsuit successfully? Do you think she can prove it for the court that she is actually an insurrectionist?

[The Jungle 1]

19. What she did was treason.

We will not forgive her for this!

[GB_RN]

22. ESAD, Marjorie...

Eat Shit And Die.

[jmowreader]

24. Her defense

“Your Honor, I freely admit that I helped facilitate the attempt to stop Joe Biden from taking President Trump’s rightful place. But I stopped my activities fifteen minutes before swearing the oath. The Constitution clearly states ‘having previously taken an oath…’ and since I hadn’t previously taken the oath you can’t do a thing to me.”

“So…would you like to explain what you were doing in the Willard Hotel on the night of January 5, two days after you were sworn in?”

[AnnetteChaffee]

26. Interesting

We have Constitutional scholars out there - MSNBC should have one of them on there to discuss this. I'd be interested to see if this would be held up or if her challenge would be denied. Saying something is unconstitutional is a buzz word, WHY do they claim that a part of the Constitution is unconstitutional? Provide the details that you base this claim on.

You can't on one hand stand there and state that everything should be as the Constitutional states, and on the other hand say it isn't to protect yourself against a lawsuit. If you are going to challenge the Constitution, then you better bring a good case because this would be bigger than a state lawsuit.

Oh, and I eagerly await the results of the 1/6 commission who may take care of this in any event

Annette

[oasis]

27. Lazy "legislator" wants to continue the grift of her idiot donors. nt

[Emile]

29. Crazy nut should be behind bars!

[brooklynite]

36. Court Transcript:

Plaintiff: We want Marjorie Taylor Greene removed from the ballot for Insurrection under the 14th Amendment.
Judge: Has the Defendant been convicted of Insurrection under 18 U.S. Code § 2383?
Plaintiff: No.
Judge: Has the Defendant been indicted for Insurrection under 18 U.S. Code § 2383?
Plaintiff: No.
Defendant: Move for dismissal.