No entry into Capitol
-
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/19/text
SECTION 1. PROHIBITING PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CERTAIN OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO ATTEMPTED TO UNDERMINE AND OVERTURN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FROM ENTERING UNITED STATES CAPITOL.
The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, and the United States Capitol Police shall take such actions as may be necessary to prohibit President Donald John Trump, Steve Bannon, Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino, Peter Navarro, Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, Kenneth Cheseboro, and Rudy Giuliani from entering the United States Capitol.
I thought the GOP was the stupid party. :man-shrugging:
-
Ironically (if that's the right word), I don't have a problem with those who attempted to overturn the election results from entering the Capitol. Allowing them back in shows how their attempts didn't alter how our government runs.
-
Ironically (if that's the right word), I don't have a problem with those who attempted to overturn the election results from entering the Capitol. Allowing them back in shows how their attempts didn't alter how our government runs.
@89th said in No entry into Capitol:
Ironically (if that's the right word), I don't have a problem with those who attempted to overturn the election results from entering the Capitol. Allowing them back in shows how their attempts didn't alter how our government runs.
The people mentioned in this bill were convicted of (checks notes...) no crimes.
Sounds pretty close to a bill of attainder to me.
A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of people, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person's civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself.
-
Ironically (if that's the right word), I don't have a problem with those who attempted to overturn the election results from entering the Capitol. Allowing them back in shows how their attempts didn't alter how our government runs.
@89th said in No entry into Capitol:
Ironically (if that's the right word), I don't have a problem with those who attempted to overturn the election results from entering the Capitol.
Not sure if you meant to further qualify the above with "with violent means" or something along those lines, but ...
What if we compare this to "school shootings", how about municipalities or school boards banning those convicted of school shootings from entering specific school premises?
How about we compare this to violent protests/riots at state capitols or court houses, and state legislatures want to ban those convicted of such violent protesters or rioters from entering state capitols or court houses (except when arraigned)?
-
@89th said in No entry into Capitol:
Ironically (if that's the right word), I don't have a problem with those who attempted to overturn the election results from entering the Capitol.
Not sure if you meant to further qualify the above with "with violent means" or something along those lines, but ...
What if we compare this to "school shootings", how about municipalities or school boards banning those convicted of school shootings from entering specific school premises?
How about we compare this to violent protests/riots at state capitols or court houses, and state legislatures want to ban those convicted of such violent protesters or rioters from entering state capitols or court houses (except when arraigned)?
@Axtremus said in No entry into Capitol:
@89th said in No entry into Capitol:
Ironically (if that's the right word), I don't have a problem with those who attempted to overturn the election results from entering the Capitol.
Not sure if you meant to further qualify the above with "with violent means" or something along those lines, but ...
What if we compare this to "school shootings", how about municipalities or school boards banning those convicted of school shootings from entering specific school premises?
How about we compare this to violent protests/riots at state capitols or court houses, and state legislatures want to ban those convicted of such violent protesters or rioters from entering state capitols or court houses (except when arraigned)?
Who of those listed has been convicted of anything?
This has no real purpose other than to try to keep the public's attention on 1/6.
I like 89th's view. It shows that they had no effect on the workings of our government.
-
@Mik said in No entry into Capitol:
So much of what the Democrats offer is Constitutionally unacceptable.
I'm fairly confident that respect for the constitution is highly correlated with political affiliation. Actually I'm confident that your typical woke person would hear a dog whistle if someone claimed to respect the constitution.
