To Impeach Trump or?? Consequences for Inciting Insurrection.

I really don't know.

 

M'kay. So?

 

I believe his deferment was well known before Cohen came into the picture. And, I don't know of any "draft" that's popular...that's why they call it a draft.

 

A conspiracy to overthrow the 2020 Presidential election, by shutting down the election count going on in the Capitol via the VP presiding over a joint session of Congress as stipulated by the Election Count law. IF proven, it would probably b charged under the Seditious Conspiracy law...the penalty for which is a fine and up to 20 years in prison, if convicted.

 

During WW2, the cause was self-evident; during Vietnam, the cause was not self-evident. It wasted a lot of precious life, with no real benefit to the country.

 

The evidence for this conspiracy claimed by liberals is what exactly?

 

I was never in favor of the Vietnam War, but I served in the U.S. Army in Europe during it and supported it while in uniform. Remember, that was during the so-called "Cold War" and LBJ's policy was based on the "domino theory" and the now questionable "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution." It was largely a personal, individual decision on whether or not to serve, leave the country (many fled to Canada) or try and dodge the draft through a student or medical deferment or by joining a military branch not likely to be sent into combat (such as the Reserves or National Guard). Although not sent to a unit bound for Vietnam, I could have been sent there at any time, so I was not faced with the decision to serve in Vietnam or avoid serving there through some means. I left service at the end of my enlistment, while the war continued. IOW, I think I would have served there if I'd been ordered there, but was never faced with having to make that choice between serving and avoiding service there via deferments or some other form of avoidance.

 

At the moment, the timeline of events such as when the rally was scheduled, remarks su ch as "it's going to be wild," the time of the President's speech, coinciding with the joint session inside the Capitol building, the attempt to focus on the importance of Pence's actions, the twitter announcing to the Capitol mob protesting outside of the building, that Pence had failed...implying that it was now up to the mob to stop the joint session, etc. And, the subject statements of people ranging from arrested Capitol invaders that they were only doing what the President asked them to do to former Majority Leader McConnell's (hardly a "liberal") statement that the President had invoked the attack on the Capitol by his speech. Plus the lack of National Guard support and the absence of the Acting Defense Secretary, the mixed reaction of the Capitol Police, etc., etc.

I believe that's sufficient to open an investigation. Time will tell whether it is enough to convict on impeachment or to obtain a Grand Jury indictment. Personally, I think it likely for more incriminating evidence to b brought forward now that the President is out of office.

 

At age of 17, I was already enrolled for the fall quarter at my state university, so when I registered with the draft board at age 18, I was already listed as SD1, which as I recall, means "student deferment 1". A lot of those 3 or 4 years older than me ended up in Vietnam though, in the 1965 to 1969 time frame, and a lot of them came back all messed up, or didn't come back at all. Later on, a lot got ill from agent orange. It was a very inequitable war for those who didn't have the means to get to college, or who got stuck with a low lottery number when that came out. All the things you mentioned happened as well.

 

In so doing, the Democrats lay the seeds of their own demise. By the measure of which you impeach, you will be impeached.

 

Lost a friend, after the war, who'd served in the Marine Corps, as a grunt manning a machine gun post on a hill. His position was inadvertantly sprayed with Agent Orange and he subsequently died, after returning to civilian life. It was a nasty war (what war isn't?). In some ways, it was due to trying and maintain our position as the inheritor of the former European Colonial Empires.

 

He never served in any military branch and had no political or government experience meaning not holding any public office. He's a real estate mogul, and had a TV show "The Apprentice" Other than that, He's a grandstander.

 

None of those things disqualify him from being POTUS. I'll tell you who is disqualified for being either POTUS or VP though; Kamala Harris, that's who. She's not a natural born citizen.

 

Didn't...he served one term. But a lot of people may have been looking for some government experience the next time they voted. Why don't you think Harris qualified?

 

There's this little thing called the US constitution, which says that one has to be 35 years old and a natural-born-citizen to be eligible for president or VP. The Courts have long established that a natural-born citizen is one born on US soil to citizen parents. Harris was born on US soil but to foreign parents.

 

How does that benefit Trump?

 

I don't think so. Why don't you quote the Court decision? I think as long as you are born on U.S. soil, you are counted as a "natural born citizen." Look at United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 that states anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.

 

https://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/

The link is quite lengthy, but the end result is quite brief. A natural-born citizen is one who is born on US soil to citizen parents. It's been that way since before the Constitution was even ratified, and it continues that way today, and beyond.

 

I think you misunderstood the article from "The Post & Email." The article is making an argument for requiring the parents of the child to also be citizens, but admits that that is NOT what the Court ruled in "United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649" written in 1898. Note that of the cases cited, that was the one with the latest date, making it established law.

From the article: "The Court gave the novel interpretation to jurisdiction and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country...". The author of the article doesn't dispute the law, but doesn't agree with the Court's 1898 decision and presents the other earlier Court decisions as the mainstay of the argument against existing law.

This is a big argument in regard to "anchor babies," which is a right-wing term for foreign parents who come to the U.S. on a short term basis (say a tourist visa) to have a child, who then qualifies as a U.S. citizen.

 

Established law of what? Birthright citizenship? So? Birthright citizenship isn't "natural-born-citizenship.

Think of it this way: The Wong Kim Ark and Kamala Harris cases are "one-in-the-same." Both were born on US soil to foreign parents, and both were given "birthright citizenship." However, neither is a "natural-born citizen," because neither was born to citizen parents. Thus, neither would be qualified to run for the presidency or vice presidency.

Remember, "natural-born-citizenship" applies to only two people in all of the US; the president and VP. So by extension, it has to be a higher grade of citizenship than just "birthright citizenship," which applies to anyone born on US soil, regardless of who their parents were.

Natural-born-citizen = born on US soil to citizen parents.

 

You're simply wrong. You probably think Obama was an illegal President as well, although he served eight years. You seem to be confusing what you would like to be true with reality. Harris is the legitimate Vice President. If the law were changed to the way you prefer, it would be different.

 

No that's what you're doing. You're imposing upon the constitution what you want it to be, not what it actually is.

Without a doubt, Harris is an illegitimate VP. Not because I say so, but because the constitution says so; as I clearly outlined to you in my previous post.

 

I quoted the last Supreme Court decision on the subject...which still stands as law. If it didn't, there would be no right-wing problem with "anchor babies." Try and present factual arguments for your arguments, rather than what you'd like the law to be.

 

You quoted the law of birthright citizenship, not the constitutional statute of natural-born citizenship. So don't pretend that you've accomplished anything other than to prove your own intransigence.

Born on US soil = citizenship.
Born on US soil to citizen parents = natural-born-citizen.

 

I quoted the Supreme Court decision which is currently law. I assume you read...so look it up yourself and read it. With a few exceptions, if you're born here, you're a U.S. citizen. Harris was born here. Her parents were foreign students...her father from Jamaica; her mother from India. Harris is a natural citizen. She was not "naturalized" - i.e. made a U.S. citizen through a Congressionally mandated process (i.e. people who apply for citizenship, wait for a period of time and then pass a citizenship test, all in order to become a citizen through a naturalization process).