1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Sen Manchin wants to remove Sen Cruz and Sen Hawley using 14th amendment

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by Scott Downey, Jan 17, 2021.

  1. Scott Downey

    Scott Downey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2019
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    568
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Dem Senator: Hawley, Cruz Could Be Removed From Senate Under The 14th Amendment
    Coming from a supposedly moderate democrat senator.
    So if they are removed, who appoints replacements? Likely the state Republican governors.

    Power mad Democrats are insane they are squashing any resistance or ideas that Biden was fraudulently elected, even though in the past they have strongly objected to republican wins as fraud. And of course this what they are all about, the power, and why are they afraid of the people now versus last summer's rioters. Maybe they fear the people, so they turn DC into a military occupation zone with checkpoints, shutting down the city with shoot to kill orders.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Scott Downey

    Scott Downey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2019
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    568
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    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.

    So there you see it, republicans and democrats are of course enemies, who gave aid and comfort to "insurrectionists", who are simply anyone who questions the validity of Biden's election publicly. However the constitution allows for such discussions and debate to occur.

    So then who are the oppressors here, who are not following the constitution?? Which gives house and senate members the right to contest said election....

    When you don't have a thinking brain your simply prey to the contentions and evil intentions of fake people and fake news.
     
    #2 Scott Downey, Jan 17, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2021
  3. SGO

    SGO Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2020
    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    282
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    From the NY Times!

    link: Opinion | Democrats Have Been Shameless About Your Presidential Vote Too

    By Derek T. Muller

    Mr. Muller is a law professor at the University of Iowa who specializes in election law.

    • Jan. 6, 2021
    As Republicans in Congress prepare to formally contest the outcome of the 2020 presidential election on Wednesday, many of them have cited precedent for their effort: similar complaints lodged by Democrats in other presidential elections. After Republican victories in 2000, 2004 and 2016, for instance, Democrats in Congress used the formal counting of electoral votes as an opportunity to challenge election results.

    But the history of Democratic efforts to contest the outcomes of presidential elections is not a history worth emulating. On the contrary, it only underscores that the certification of a president-elect’s victory by the House and Senate is an improper forum for the airing of political grievances and an inappropriate occasion to readjudicate the decisions of the states concerning things like vote tallies, recounts and audits.

    While Congress has the power to decline to count electoral votes, it has done so only in extreme situations in the aftermath of the Civil War — when, for instance, a state was deemed to lack a functioning government. The Electoral Count Act of 1887, which sets the rules for Congress to count electoral votes, was enacted with the presumption that state procedures are trustworthy. The act instructs Congress to defer to state judgments when a state resolves controversies over the appointment of electors.

    The act also requires broad political consensus to decline to count electoral votes. It instructs that on Jan. 6 after a presidential election, the president of the Senate (typically the vice president) presides over a session of the two chambers. If a member of Congress wishes to object to counting a state’s electoral votes, a member of the House and a member of the Senate must sign a written objection. The chambers separate for up to two hours of debate. If majorities of both chambers agree to the objection, the objection stands. If not, the votes are counted.

    Subscribe for $1 a week.

    In January 2001, Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida objected to counting his state’s electoral votes because of “overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout.” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas referred to the “millions of Americans who have been disenfranchised by Florida’s inaccurate vote count.” Representative Maxine Waters of California characterized Florida’s electoral votes as “fraudulent.”


    ON POLITICS WITH LISA LERER: A guiding hand through the political news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.
    Vice President Al Gore presided over the meeting in 2001. He overruled these objections because no senator joined them. Part of the reason they didn’t join, presumably, was that Mr. Gore conceded the election a month earlier.

    In January 2005, in the wake of Mr. Bush’s re-election, Democrats were more aggressive. Senator Barbara Boxer of California joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio to lodge a formal objection to Ohio’s electoral votes. The objection compelled Congress to spend two hours in debate, even though Mr. Bush won Ohio by more than 118,000 votes.

    Representative Barbara Lee of California claimed that “the Democratic process was thwarted.” Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York said that the right to vote was “stolen.” Ms. Waters objected too, dedicating her objection to the documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, whose 2004 movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” painted a dark (and at times factually debatable) picture of the Bush presidency.

    [​IMG]
    A Farewell to the Trump Aesthetic

    [​IMG]
    They Can’t Leave the Bay Area Fast Enough

    [​IMG]
    The Lusty Creativity of Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem


    The motion failed, but not before 31 members of the House, and Ms. Boxer in the Senate, voted to reject Ohio’s electoral votes — effectively voting to disenfranchise the people of Ohio in the Electoral College.

    In January 2017, after Donald Trump’s victory, Democrats in Congress once again challenged the election outcome. Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts cited “the confirmed and illegal activities engaged by the government of Russia.” Ms. Lee of California argued that Michigan’s electoral votes should be thrown out because “people are horrified by the overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in our elections.” She also cited “the malfunction of 87 voting machines.”

    There were objections against the votes in at least nine states. To his credit, Vice President Joe Biden rejected each objection on procedural grounds, stating that “there is no debate” and “it is over.”

    Then as now, each member of Congress was within his or her rights to make an objection. But the objections were naïve at best, shameless at worst. Either way, the readiness of members of Congress to disenfranchise millions of Americans was disconcerting.

    The last time Congress threw out all of a state’s electoral votes was in 1873. In addition to rejecting a portion of votes from Georgia (cast for a recently deceased candidate, Horace Greeley), Congress rejected Louisiana’s electoral votes because it concluded that the state lacked a functioning government, and it rejected Arkansas’s electoral votes for similarly grave reasons. Rejecting a state’s electoral vote is a disfavored remedy for extreme situations.

    More recent efforts by Democrats to throw out electoral votes went nowhere in large part because the losing candidates — Mr. Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton — had conceded the election and did not encourage Congress to reject the vote. This election is different, of course: Mr. Trump continues to argue that the election was “stolen” and “rigged,” and that “ballot stuffing” took place, and Vice President Mike Pence has indicated support for efforts to challenge the election outcome in light of those claims.

    But there is no evidence to support those claims. State officials have certified the election results. Without more evidence (and none seems likely to come out), the electoral votes from every state should be accepted by all members of Congress — including all Republicans.

    Derek T. Muller (@derektmuller) is a law professor at the University of Iowa.

    The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

    Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. Scott Downey

    Scott Downey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2019
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    568
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Lately having much less respect for Manchin as he is just like the others in his party, none of them know or follow the constitution or they would not be saying they can do this.
    Just ignorant people hoping to deceive the public and their fellow congress members. See that is how liberal judges get their hooks in here, they interpret the clear contextual wording of the constitution, twisting it to mean something it never does, and the democrats love that.
     
  5. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Manchin will not cross the aisle no matter what. He is a hardcore Democrat. Romney will vote with the Democrats. Cruz and Hawley challenged the honesty of Biden’s vote totals along with a hundred million other Americans. Manchin just showed how trifling he is.

    Some of what went on at the Capitol was a police trap.
     
  6. Scott Downey

    Scott Downey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2019
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    568
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    He is playing the part of the fool here.
     
  7. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,337
    Likes Received:
    974
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What’s wrong with shoot to kill orders. I would not make DC a police state but I would set up parameters and signs telling any crowds to stay behind the lines because crossing the lines will be severely dealt with. Snipers and drones in the air, prepared to shoot are effective as well. What I don’t want to see is what happened Jan 6 with cops being intimidated and overwhelmed. Nor do I want to see a paramilitary sniper drop politician because they think they can or have been hired to do so.
     
  8. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    17,430
    Likes Received:
    486
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Some Democrats run as moderate, or Blue Dog, or whatever, but when push comes to shove, they all vote hard left. Any Christian who votes for Democrats is voting against the interest of our Christian Ministry.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Faith:
    Baptist
    He seems unrehearsed.
     
  10. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    29,716
    Likes Received:
    1,305
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Here is my simple question - if the Dems insists there was not cheating in the election, why are they so afraid of an investigation?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,684
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Faith:
    Baptist
    More senseless musings. They will do nothing.
     
  12. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    29,716
    Likes Received:
    1,305
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is similar to the woman who accused a young man of stealing her phone.
    If he had come over and talked to her - then she would have seen that it was not her phone.
    A lot of trouble would have been avoided. Granted, maybe she over-reacted - but he did as well.
     
  13. robustheologian

    robustheologian Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    165
    Faith:
    Baptist
    :Biggrin
     
  14. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,684
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Manchin must have forgotten democrat objection in the Senate for the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections.

    Typical hypocritical democrat.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...