Where Was the 14th Amendment When Barbara Boxer was Challenging Election Results?
After illegally proposing to use the 25th Amendment against President Trump (it covers medical disability, not political opposition), Democrats would now like to use the 14th Amendment to remove Republican senators who joined election challenges.
Specifically 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.
Of course if election challenges are considered insurrection and rebellion, then that's a basis for removing the Democrats. More formally, there's the time that former Senator Barbara Boxer and much of the Congressional Black Caucus joined in an election challenge.
But, as usual, it's "different" when Democrats do it.
The abuse of the 14th Amendment targeting Senator Ted Cruz would be another grotesque abuse of power and a coup by Democrats. Just don't look for any moderate Democrats to stop this illegal behavior.
The party's all out of them.
Manchin said the Senate should explore the option after a violent mob, riled up by President Trump and convinced by Republicans such as Hawley and Cruz that the election was fraudulent, ransacked the Capitol in one of the darkest points in American democracy.
“That should be a consideration,” Manchin responded when asked if the 14th Amendment should be triggered. “He understands that. Ted’s a very bright individual, and I get along fine with Ted, but what he did was totally outside of the realm of our responsibilities or our privileges.”
Challenging the election results is outside Senate privileges? Interesting legal theory. Much like Democrats now insisting that challenging election results isn't covered by the First Amendment.
Except, as usual, when they do it.
Would Manchin like to explain exactly what Senator Cruz said that led to the riot? Nah. Republicans challenging election results is now considered "fighting words" whereas when Democrats do it, it's in the finest traditions of our country.
Nothing Senator Cruz specifically said matters. He can be accused of insurrection because violence occurred while he was engaging in a wholly non-violent political argument.
Which means that every Democrat politician who supported Black Lives Matter can be accused of insurrection for supporting the movement even without any violent rhetoric, even if the violence happened after their remarks.
These are the new Democrat rules. And Republicans should, instead of playing defense, make that clear.