Here is where you get lost. State Legislatures, who set STATE laws, MUST, MUST, MUST consider the US CONSTITUTION before setting a law. State Courts MUST, MUST, MUST consider the US CONSTITUTION when interpreting their STATE LAWS. You have said they previously that they *do not/should not* consider the US Constitution which is false.
State constitutions cannot usurp the constitutional rights put forth in the US
onstitution. So you can't withhold someone's due process. The standard for t
US is that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
The state used the Congressional January 6th findings, and the findings of
a Federal Court in DC, to determine that there was an insurrection. People have been found guilty of Seditious Conspiracy... plotting an insurrection.
People were indeed found in violation of the 14th Amendment without trial
and without being found guilty in past. They were stripped of office
and/or unable to hold office until pardoned (1868) and until Congress passed
an act officially reinstating their rights to hold office (1870s).
During the debate for the 14th, it was stated that Congress wanted to be
sure that people like Jefferson Davis could not hold office. Davis was indicted, but was *never* tried, but the ammendment was meant to keep him
from office. They also specifically discussed that the amendment should prevent Jefferson Davis, or any other confederate, from holding the Office
of President.
The fundamental reason why the US had a legal system that people envied was be
use of this. Innocent until proven guilty. Everyone was suppose to be charge
and defend themselves...
Again, people have been found in violation of the 14th Amendment without
trial, and it was meant to keep persons like Jefferson Davis -- indicted
but never tried -- from holding office. Congress was clear about that
during debate.
Like OJ... Who was clearly guilty in most reasonable estimates... Was found to
e not guilty and he walked home a free man.
OJ wasn't involved in inciting an attempt to prevent the transition of
power or to prevent the execution of US law.
The difference here is that no one has been charged with anything remotely to
with insurrection... No one.
Persons have indeed been charged with, found guilty of, and sentenced to
prison for things very much tied to insurrection, and not remotely so. See the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers.
I sent you a clip as to what Ran Paul thinks about this insurrection business.
It doesn't really matter what he thinks because Trump's team didn't call
him to testify. They did call at least one other Congressperson whose testimony helped the petitioners more than helping Trump (Congressman Buck).
I would also defer to Rep. Troy Nehls, R-TX, who was there on the floor and who spoke with rioters through a broken window on a door. The tape of this, taken by a rioter, was just used in his trial as evidence to find him guilty. This same Congressman would, days later, condemn their actions and, on tape,
tells them that they "ought to be ashamed" of themselves.
As an aside, state constitutions and laws often mimic their federal counterparts word for word, and several of the laws brought up during the Colorado ballot trial are ones that do so.
* SLMR 2.1a * Windows isn't crippleware: it's "Functionally Challenged"
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)