Chelsea Manning / Bradley Manning / xychelsea - #WeGotThis

  • Thread starter Thread starter GS 281
  • Start date Start date
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Heh, I voted for them in the senate primary because I thought it was funny. They can't take the senate seat because of their crime.

They can run, but don't actually qualify for the position.
 
Marvin said:
Heh, I voted for them in the senate primary because I thought it was funny. They can't take the senate seat because of their crime.

They can run, but don't actually qualify for the position.
Click to expand...

Qualifications for the senate are to be over 30, a US citizen (for more than 7 years) and to inhabit the state in which you are running. Nothing in there against being an oath-breaker.

It used to be that the senate would refuse to seat or would threaten to expel such a person, but recently that has taken a backseat to partisan politics. The dems were making noises that if Senator Menendez were convicted of corruption he shouldn't have to leave. They could certainly use the same logic that Trump did, that the voters knew what they were getting in for when they voted.

Of course it's all sort of aside from the point since Manning only has a slightly better chance than Wu of winning (still about zero).
 
Blue Jerkop said:
Qualifications for the senate are to be over 30, a US citizen (for more than 7 years) and to inhabit the state in which you are running. Nothing in there against being an oath-breaker.

It used to be that the senate would refuse to seat or would threaten to expel such a person, but recently that has taken a backseat to partisan politics. The dems were making noises that if Senator Menendez were convicted of corruption he shouldn't have to leave. They could certainly use the same logic that Trump did, that the voters knew what they were getting in for when they voted.

Of course it's all sort of aside from the point since Manning only has a slightly better chance than Wu of winning (still about zero).
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the fourteenth amendment prevent him from taking the seat?
Section 3. 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.
Click to expand...
 
Marvin said:
Wouldn't the fourteenth amendment prevent him from taking the seat?
Click to expand...

Oh, the Confederate politician thing. Didn't think of that.

But Manning couldn't insurrect his way out of a ham sandwich and was found not guilty of 'aiding the enemy' (one of the few charges he was not convicted of).

Now, could the Congress refuse to seat him under the auspices anyway? Sure. But they could also easily seat him if they wanted to. lol imagine the REEE that would erupt from the twittersphere if the dems got the senate but refused to seat Manning based on an Amendment passed to prevent General Lee from getting elected to Congress.
 
Blue Jerkop said:
Oh, the Confederate politician thing. Didn't think of that.

But Manning couldn't insurrect his way out of a ham sandwich and was found not guilty of 'aiding the enemy' (one of the few charges he was not convicted of).

Now, could the Congress refuse to seat him under the auspices anyway? Sure. But they could also easily seat him if they wanted to. lol imagine the REEE that would erupt from the twittersphere if the dems got the senate but refused to seat Manning based on an Amendment passed to prevent General Lee from getting elected to Congress.
Click to expand...
Chelsea Manning was convicted of violating the Espionage act. The fourteenth amendment was used against Victor L Berger for an alleged violation of the Espionage act.
 
When was he a member of Congress, an officer of the United States, a member of any State legislature, an executive or judicial officer of any State?

"Officer of the United States" essentially means someone appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Even in military terms, he was never an officer. He was at most a PFC (E-3) and is now just E-1.

It's the fact that he's technically still military that's his problem. He'd have to drop his appeal to fix that, and I doubt that CAAF is going to expedite his appeal to make things easy for him.

Marvin said:
Chelsea Manning was convicted of violating the Espionage act. The fourteenth amendment was used against Victor L Berger for an alleged violation of the Espionage act.
Click to expand...

Victor L. Berger had been a member of a State legislature.
 
Marvin said:
Chelsea Manning was convicted of violating the Espionage act. The fourteenth amendment was used against Victor L Berger for an alleged violation of the Espionage act.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like I said, they could use it if they wanted an bullshit excuse (as much as it was with Berger- I wonder if he's the only example in 100 years) but it would be an affirmative act to keep him out, unlike the basic qualifications like age\citizenship\etc. and I'm not sure a democratic Congress would want to do that IF he somehow got elected.
 
AnOminous said:
When was he a member of Congress, an officer of the United States, a member of any State legislature, an executive or judicial officer of any State?

"Officer of the United States" essentially means someone appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Even in military terms, he was never an officer. He was at most a PFC (E-3) and is now just E-1.

It's the fact that he's technically still military that's his problem. He'd have to drop his appeal to fix that, and I doubt that CAAF is going to expedite his appeal to make things easy for him.



Victor L. Berger had been a member of a State legislature.
Click to expand...
Earlier in the thread, @GethN7 said:
GethN7 said:
A member of the US military is considered an employee of the Department of Defense and since they must swear on oath of affirmation to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution, they are legally considered considered an officer of the United States in regards to whom their actions represent, regardless their actual military rank.
Click to expand...
What do you think of that analysis?
Blue Jerkop said:
Yeah, like I said, they could use it if they wanted an bullshit excuse (as much as it was with Berger- I wonder if he's the only example in 100 years) but it would be an affirmative act to keep him out, unlike the basic qualifications like age\citizenship\etc. and I'm not sure a democratic Congress would want to do that IF he somehow got elected.
Click to expand...
Yeah, technicalities aside, it does seem like it'd be mostly a question of politics, not so much law.

It'd be pretty petty politics to try to keep him out of office, and I'm sure most members of congress know that it wouldn't look good. But honestly, considering how petty many people have been during Trump's term thus far, I'd say it'd be the pettiness they deserve.

Edit: Or well, would it just take someone to raise the issue to force the 2/3rds vote? Because if so, that makes things way easier.
 
Marvin said:
Earlier in the thread, @GethN7 said:

What do you think of that analysis?
Click to expand...

It's right. You do swear an oath. However, you're still not someone who, having taken an oath, was then a member of Congress, an officer of the United States, a member of any State legislature, or an executive or judicial officer of any State.
 
Fucking lol, idiot couldn't even be fucked to post something on the Twatter encouraging people to get out and vote. Thank you for your time and efforts!

lost.jpg
 
The whole campaign seemed like a scam. Looking through the filings, all they did was raise money and then pay a few people salaries for God knows what. Didn't spend a dime on advertising, printing, offices, anything. Just paid some people money and called it a day.
 
Richard Stabone said:
The whole campaign seemed like a scam. Looking through the filings, all they did was raise money and then pay a few people salaries for God knows what. Didn't spend a dime on advertising, printing, offices, anything. Just paid some people money and called it a day.
Click to expand...

I wonder what is currently Chelsea doing for a living? Does he have a job? Who would hire him? I mean he has some IT skills, but, who would want to hire him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom