North Carolina’s attorney general’s office argued Tuesday that 19th-century congressional actions granting amnesty to Confederate soldiers did not apply to modern day insurrectionists.
have you no shame?
Nothing in the constitution sez I can’t run someone over in my car
So wait by trying to use this law as a defense isn’t Cawthorne admitting he is an insurrectionist?
Yes, but it’s not like that will hurt him. If anything, it makes him more appealing to the traitors.
I still can’t believe his tutti-frutti lawyer went there, and that cawcaw let him do it. There’s a perfectly good way to bounce this political stunt that does not involve declaring him a forgiven traitor: cawcaw has not been indicted let alone convicted of any insurrection-type crimes. You can’t exclude him from office based on your opinion he committed sedition, any more than you can bar cancun cruz from the presidency based on your opinion that he’s likely to become a mexican citizen.
Rather typical RW reasoning: “if you don’t get convicted for doing something that supports the cause, then it was perfectly legal and was within your rights as a ‘merican patriot’. If you do get convicted, then it was a travesty done by a left wing conspiracy and the next R President should give you a pardon.”
Nice to see you again jsfox!
I can’t believe we’re discussing this and not whether his sentence for treason was a little too harsh
The court should let the case proceed and if there is any discovery that Cawthorn must produce, it will be enlightening on how much influence the Russians had on him as well as any leverage. The intent of the 14th Amendment is clear that it was past tense. Maybe it was an error to forgive the Confederacy because its malice and hatred was never killed at the root.
I am still thinking that cawthorne’s lawyer is way too connected and too much of a high profile heavy hitter to be involved in this bat shit crazy case. It just doesn’t add up.
Unless… his lawyer and his federalist society buddies are on this case in order to throw cawthorne under the bus (a la the Lincoln lawyer) and in so doing piss in Trump’s pool. If cawthorne is disqualified from running then it stands to reason that others saying similar things from the same dias should share the same fate.
So, basically, he is saying he did it, but that it was ok. Not very smart for a defense.
Exactly what I’ve been thinking.
Judge: “Just so I’m crystal clear on the argument, counselor, the Amnesty Act was passed to provide relief to insurrectionists and traitors following the Civil War and your position is that Mr. Cawthorn is an insurrectionist and traitor who should be subject to the Act? That is what you are saying, correct? Can we stipulate in any future proceeding, then, that Mr. Cawthorn admits to insurrection and traitorous behavior which meets the standards of the Amnesty Act? Because that might save us a lot of time.”
Back here on earth, cawcaw is not on trial, and the only discovery needed is to ask the plaintiffs for evidence of cawcaw’s conviction(s) for sedition or other insurrection-type crime.
If he can prove he fought in the civil war … then that activity will not be considered in the examination of his eligibility.
The NC law is much looser. There doesn’t have to be any conviction. The plaintiffs will make the case that Cawthorn’s actions on and leading up to 1/6 were part of an insurrection. Cawthorn will have to argue and provide evidence that his actions were not part of or in support of the 1/6 insurrection.
If the board rules against him, he can appeal to the State Board of Elections. If they rule against him, then it’s off to the courts – with any ruling against him along the way, he misses the window to be on a ballot. That’s what his lawyer should be arguing – and getting a stay on anything that would keep him from filing.
The NC law is dead meat the first time it excludes someone from the ballot on grounds not in the constitution.
Lost his legs, lost his woman, and now, he’s about to lose his seat. Oh, well. At least he still has his sparkling personality.
Well, kind of along the lines of, “We’re not saying he was, but if he was, he’s covered.” But basically, yes. I mean, why even dream up using this as a defense unless you already believe that most reasonable people see Cawthorn’s actions as seditious?
how is the amnesty act not in violation of the constitution rather than the other way around here?
That’s what I thought - thanks for clearing it up.