The Biden DHS Provides a Rationale for Lawsuits to Prevent People from Running for Office.
Democrats in DC have pursued several paths to 2022 success in spite of their poor record.
A failed take over of elections to impose nationwide the lax election practices they implemented in 2020.
Lawsuits against redistricting plans done by Republican legislatures in order to increase Democrat seats.
Their latest scheme is to bring lawsuits to disqualify candidates for “supporting insurrection.”
This plan is to base lawsuits upon the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, Section 3, which states:
“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.”
This prevented former civil officials and military officers who joined the Confederacy from serving in office.
House Democrats impeached Pres. Trump on 1/13/21, charging “incitement of insurrection.”
The 14th Amendment Section 3 became a hot topic after the Senate acquitted President Trump on 2/13/21.
Click on “Enforcing the 14th Amendment’s Bar on Insurrectionist Officers and Candidates” from 2/15/21.
This process expanded under Marc Elias, a former Clinton and DNC lawyer involved with the Steele dossier and manipulating state voting laws throughout the country before the 2020 election.
Elias stated: “My prediction for 2022: Before the midterm election, we will have a serious discussion about whether individual Republican House Members are disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from serving in Congress. We may even see litigation.“
Like a Free Speech For People suit to keep NC Congressman Matthew Cawthorn off the 2022 ballot.
Cawthorne has filed a counter-suit. He commented: “… this is about the future of our very nation. If they’re able to set this precedent in North Carolina, they will be able to keep anybody who had valid and legitimate concerns about what happened in the 2020 election from being able to ever hold office …”
Department of Homeland Security issued this 2/7/22 National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin:
“The United States remains in a heightened threat environment … including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors.
These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest.
Key factors contributing to the current heightened threat environment include:
(1) The proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions: For example, there is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19. … Malign foreign powers have and continue to amplify these false or misleading narratives in efforts to damage the United States.”
Could you be considered a “Domestic Threat Actor”? Maybe so if you’ve publicly shared:
2020 election integrity concerns, or vaccine mandate opposition, or CDC Covid-19 narrative questions.
Your statements could be alleged to be helping “malign foreign powers” to “damage the United States.”
If you decide to run for office you too could be in for the experience visited on Matthew Cawthorn:
A lawsuit intended to prevent you from serving “as 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.”
This will continue until the US Supreme Court has to issue an opinion clarifying when First Amendment speech ends and “engaging in insurrection” begins.
The sooner we bring such a suit, and push it to the Supreme Court, the better.
posted by GST Chairman Ray Chadwick