Who Are The Real Insurrectionists?

[Rightguide]

As I have maintained for some time now: The Democrat Party is the most destructive force in America today.


Who Are the Real Insurrectionists?
Victor Davis HansonVictor Davis Hanson|Posted: Jan 06, 2022 12:01 AM

After all, who is trying to federalize election laws in national elections contrary to the spirit of the Constitution? Who wishes to repeal or circumvent the Electoral College? Who wishes to destroy the more than 180-year-old Senate filibuster, the over 150-year-old nine-justice Supreme Court, and the more than 60-year-old, 50-state union?

Who is attacking the founding constitutional idea of two senators per state?
The Constitution also clearly states that "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside." Who slammed through the impeachment of former president Donald Trump without a presiding chief justice?

Never had a president been either impeached twice or tried in the Senate as a private citizen. Who did both?

The Left further broke prior precedent by impeaching Trump without a special counsel's report, formal hearings, witnesses, and cross-examinations.

Who exactly is violating federal civil rights legislation?

https://townhall.com/columnists/vic...06/who-are-the-real-insurrectionists-n2601486

 

[KeithD]

People like you are the real insurrectionists.

 

[pecksniff]

As I have maintained for some time now: The Democrat Party is the most destructive force in America today.


Who Are the Real Insurrectionists?
Victor Davis HansonVictor Davis Hanson|Posted: Jan 06, 2022 12:01 AM

After all, who is trying to federalize election laws in national elections contrary to the spirit of the Constitution?

The Help America Vote Act would not "federalize" elections. No more than the Voting Rights Act did.

Who wishes to repeal or circumvent the Electoral College? Who wishes to destroy the more than 180-year-old Senate filibuster, the over 150-year-old nine-justice Supreme Court, and the more than 60-year-old, 50-state union?

There's nothing insurrectionary in any of that. The Constitution has been amended before, and can be amended to abolish the EC. The filibuster is not in the Constitution, is of no defensible use at all, and can be abolished by a simple change in Senate rules. There is nothing sacred about a nine-judge SCOTUS, and no good reason why DC or Puerto Rico should not be states of the Union.

Who is attacking the founding constitutional idea of two senators per state?

I gladly will should the opportunity arise. A one-house legislature is better anyway.

The Constitution also clearly states that "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside." Who slammed through the impeachment of former president Donald Trump without a presiding chief justice?

The Chief Justice, that's who. He wouldn't preside. But he does not get to block the process.

Never had a president been either impeached twice or tried in the Senate as a private citizen. Who did both?

The House of Representatives, as the Constitution authorizes.

The Left further broke prior precedent by impeaching Trump without a special counsel's report, formal hearings, witnesses, and cross-examinations.

None of that is constitutionally required, and they did the best they could under the circumstances. There was all of that in the first impeachment. And what's that bullshit about "the Left"? They're hardly even in Congress. The Left =/= the Democrats.

Who exactly is violating federal civil rights legislation?

Not the Democrats.

 

[ll74]

The people who attacked the Capitol to overturn the election and who are actively seeking to give that same power to legislators in many states

 

[pecksniff]

https://townhall.com/columnists/vic...06/who-are-the-real-insurrectionists-n2601486

Haven't you figured out by now, that most of the articles you post turn out to be wrong in some important way, and that the main reason for that is the sources you get them from?

Avoid Townhall. You'll spare yourself a lot of embarrassment. The present thread is nothing but.

 

[Rotadom]

The ones on video from J6 being arrested and locked up for being traitors to our Nation.

And the OP.

 

[jaF0]

Election laws, processes and procedures for federal offices should be established and overseen by non-partisan civil service election officials at the federal level.

 

[pecksniff]

Election laws, processes and procedures for federal offices should be established and overseen by non-partisan civil service election officials at the federal level.

At present, of course, they are mostly run by elected and partisan officials at the county level. Even the state secretaries of state have only very limited oversight.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

The ones on video from J6 being arrested and locked up for being traitors to our Nation.

And the OP.

No one is being held for that.

 

[GothTalk]

I love how all the leftist who want to undermine our democracy, change it an do anything to force their ways upon all, are so quick rush in and show us all that article knew exactly what was up and hit dogs are a hollerin'!!!

 

[pecksniff]

I love how all the leftist who want to undermine our democracy, change it an do anything to force their ways upon all, are so quick rush in and show us all that article knew exactly what was up and hit dogs are a hollerin'!!!

There is nothing "insurrectionary" in anything the author is talking about. Those are all things we get to do, by ordinary constitutional and political processes, and there is nothing at all in any of them that would "undermine our democracy," etc. How is democracy undermined by eliminating the filibuster? By expanding the SCOTUS? By admitting Puerto Rico to the Union?

 

[WillJ8787]

The Help America Vote Act would not "federalize" elections. No more than the Voting Rights Act did.



There's nothing insurrectionary in any of that. The Constitution has been amended before, and can be amended to abolish the EC. The filibuster is not in the Constitution, is of no defensible use at all, and can be abolished by a simple change in Senate rules. There is nothing sacred about a nine-judge SCOTUS, and no good reason why DC or Puerto Rico should not be states of the Union.



I gladly will should the opportunity arise. A one-house legislature is better anyway.



The Chief Justice, that's who. He wouldn't preside. But he does not get to block the process.



The House of Representatives, as the Constitution authorizes.



None of that is constitutionally required, and they did the best they could under the circumstances. There was all of that in the first impeachment. And what's that bullshit about "the Left"? They're hardly even in Congress. The Left =/= the Democrats.



Not the Democrats.

He obviously never saw Mel Brooks in the Ten Commandments....I have these 15....Ooops....10 Commandments.

 

[WillJ8787]

Haven't you figured out by now, that most of the articles you post turn out to be wrong in some important way, and that the main reason for that is the sources you get them from?

Avoid Townhall. You'll spare yourself a lot of embarrassment. The present thread is nothing but.

I've been trying to tell Righturd and Bobo this for the longest time...if ya wanna be taken seriously get some properly sourced info. from reputable organizations.

Words have meaning....and Wrongturd words are vacant of any serious meaning.

 

[GothTalk]

There is nothing "insurrectionary" in anything the author is talking about.

Those are all things we get to do, by ordinary constitutional and political processes, and there is nothing at all in any of them that would "undermine our democracy," etc.

Bullshit, and bullshit.

How is democracy undermined by eliminating the filibuster?
By expanding the SCOTUS? By admitting Puerto Rico to the Union?

Because you don't have the votes for those things.

And trying to legal run arounds on them to force them, is undermining democracy.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

The left tells us the agenda every day: Dismantle all of America's insttutions and raise them again in the image of the Woke. Of course they're the insurrectionists, it's baked into their worldview.

 

[WillJ8787]

Looks like some major butt hurt is impending...lol!

 

[pecksniff]

Bullshit, and bullshit.




Because you don't have the votes for those things.

And trying to legal run arounds on them to force them, is undermining democracy.

None of those things will happen if the votes aren't there. Nobody is trying any "run arounds."

 

[pecksniff]

The left tells us the agenda every day: Dismantle all of America's insttutions and raise them again in the image of the Woke. Of course they're the insurrectionists, it's baked into their worldview.

Only, that is in no sense insurrection. None of it can happen except through constitutional processes. Nobody is making plans to take over the Winter Palace.

 

[WillJ8787]

Lol ...voting = insurrection

And

Insurrection at the Capitol = Patriotic

...with this crowd....well, we have the jail capacity for them.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Only, that is in no sense insurrection. None of it can happen except through constitutional processes. Nobody is making plans to take over the Winter Palace.

I rest my case.

 

[phrodeau]

More overwrought hyperbole against a straw man. Must be Tuesday.

 

[Rotadom]

No one is being held for that.

If you don't believe they are traitors, you're one of them.

 

[Rightguide]

Haven't you figured out by now, that most of the articles you post turn out to be wrong in some important way, and that the main reason for that is the sources you get them from?

Avoid Townhall. You'll spare yourself a lot of embarrassment. The present thread is nothing but.

You never attack the message, only the messenger when the message contains facts that refute your narrative. Townhall is a conservative source, so you have to try and gaslight us into believing that only the left knows the truth. Why don't you refute the facts stated in the article instead of lying about the veracity of Townhall as if it was universal common knowledge outside of your tiny ignorant circles?

 

[Rotadom]

You never attack the message, only the messenger when the message contains facts that refute your narrative. Townhall is a conservative source, so you have to try and gaslight us into believing that only the left knows the truth. Why don't you refute the facts stated in the article instead of lying about the veracity of Townhall as if it was universal common knowledge outside of your tiny ignorant circles?

That article and your thread are based on whataboutism and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone with an above room temp. IQ.

 

[pecksniff]

You never attack the message, only the messenger when the message contains facts that refute your narrative.

There aren't any such facts in this one.

Ad hominem is not always a fallacy. The most important piece of information in any message is the name of the messenger.

You and the rest of the Lit RWs will be doing yourselves a favor if you studiously ignore things like Townhall and Breitbart. There is never anything even worthy of discussion in such sites.