Kavanaugh: “Some of the rhetoric of your position seems to suggest, unless the states can do this, no one can prevent insurrectionists from holding federal office. But obviously, Congress has enacted statutes, including one still in effect, Section 2383 of Title 18. [It] prohibits insurrection – it’s a federal criminal statute. And, if you’re convicted of that you are – it says, ‘shall be disqualified from holding any office.’ And so, there is a federal statute on the books, but President Trump has not been charged with that. So what are we to make of that?
Murray: “Two things, your honor. Section 2383 was initially enacted about six years before Section 3. It wasn’t meant as implementing legislation related to Section 3. And I would emphasize that by the time that Section 3 was ratified, most Confederates had already received criminal pardon.”
Kavanaugh: “I guess the question is a little bit different, which is, if the concern you have—which I understand—is that insurrectionists should not be able to hold federal office, there is a tool to ensure that that does not happen, namely, federal prosecution of insurrectionists. And if convicted, Congress made clear, you are automatically barred from holding a federal office. That tool exists, you agree, and could be used but could be used against someone who committed…”
Murray: There’s a reason section three has been dormant for 150 years, and it’s because we haven’t seen anything like January 6th since reconstruction. Insurrection against the Constitution is something extraordinary.
Roberts: It seems to me you’re avoiding the question, which is other states may have different views about what constitutes insurrection.
And now you’re saying, well, it’s all right, because somebody presumably us are going to decide. Well, they said they thought that was an insurrection, but they were wrong. And maybe they thought it was right. And we’d have to develop rules for what constitutes an insurrection.
Murray: Yes. Your honor, just like this court interprets other constitutional provisions, this court can make clear that an insurrection against the Constitution is something extraordinary.
And in particular, it really requires a concerted group effort to resist through violence, not some ordinary application of state or federal law, but the functions mandated by the Constitution–
Kavanaugh: On your point that it’s been dormant for 155 years. I think the other side would say the reason for that is Chief Justice Chase’s opinion in 1869, in Griffin’s case, to start, which says that Congress has the authority here, not the states.
That’s followed up by the Enforcement Act of 1870, in which Congress acts upon that understanding, which is followed, and there’s no history contrary in that period. As Justice Thomas pointed out, there’s no history contrary in all the years leading up to this of states exercising such authority.
I think the reason it’s been dormant is because there’s been a settled understanding that Chief Justice Chase, even if not right in every detail, was essentially right. And the branches of the government have acted under that settled understanding for 155 years.
And Congress can change that. And Congress does have section 2383, of course, the Insurrection Act, criminal statute. But Congress could change it. But they have not. And 155 years in relevant respects for what you want here today at least.
Murray: No, Justice Kavanaugh! The reason why it’s been dormant is because by 1876, essentially all former Confederates had received amnesty. And we haven’t seen anything like an insurrection since then.
The report says the investigation “uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen” but does not establish guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Yet Hur’s assessment of Biden’s “significantly limited” memory also played a part in his decision not to prosecute.
“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” the report states. “Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt.”
Right on time.
Who had Bubonic Plague in the new pandemic pool?A resident in Deschutes County, Oregon, was likely infected with the bubonic plague from their pet cat, according to county health officials.www.foxnews.com
I thought the camps were for Dems and their lackeys in the media.Trump also doesn't say anything about camps in this clip, although there have been reports that he's thinking of sites near the border to assist in the deportation process. But if we are talking about camps, what are those things that the Biden team has for illegal aliens? Party tents? I don't think so. Why doesn't the Biden team talk about their camps for illegal aliens?