Home » Appeals Court Denies Madison Cawthorn’s Amnesty Act Claim

Appeals Court Denies Madison Cawthorn’s Amnesty Act Claim

by admin

Madison Corthorn

The Federal Court of Appeals pardoned Civil War supporters to protect today’s lawmakers from candidacy allegations that the Civil War era law participated in an attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6. I decided not to do it.

A group of North Carolina voters challenged a candidate who would soon become a former member of parliament. Madison Corthorn (RN.C.), Donald Trump An ally spoken at the so-called “Stop Stealing” rally of the former President on January 6, prior to the violent violation of the Houses of Parliament.

According to voters, Corthorn ran for violating the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits members of the House of Representatives from “rebelling or rebelling” against the United States or giving “help and comfort to their enemies.” I lost the qualification to do.

Corthorn accused him of being protected by the Amnesty International Act of 1872, even if he was deemed to have participated in the riot attempt. The post-Civil War law granted amnesty to the former South Army, which was forbidden to hold public office under the Article 14 amendment.

US District Judge Richard E. Myers IITrump’s appointed person, I agreed Together with Cawthorn, he discovered in March that the Expost Faction was applied retroactively (to those who fought the coalition in the civil war) and positively (to elected officials like Cawthorn). The judge then granted the representative’s request for injunction.

North Carolina voters have appealed, and on Tuesday, three judges from the Federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned the lower court, saying, ” [Amnesty] Serves as a radical elimination of all 14th Amendment Failures in the future. “

An important part of the Amnesty International law on which Cawthorn relies “refers to the” political obstacles “imposed in the past tense, rather than the new obstacles that may arise in the future,” the court said.

The following Amnesty International analysis can be read like a grammar lesson.

The past tense is “backward”. It’s not what has happened yet, it’s what has already happened. Of course, we must not only consider the text as modern readers do, but also the “clear meaning at the time of enactment”. However, Congressman Corthorn does not claim that the basic rules for this use have changed in the last 150 years. Perhaps there is good reason (“This declaration is past tense and cannot be mentioned by a fair interpretation of future involvement.”). [citations omitted]..

Typical Cawthorn does not directly refute this simple grammatical principle. Instead, he states that “imposed” acts as a “participle” because it occurs in an adjective phrase that modifies “disability,” as used in the Amnesty Act of 1872. Appellee True enough, but it doesn’t matter. Participles are a form of verb, and there are both “past” and “present” types, as Cawthorn’s representative finally admits. [Webster’s Third International 1646] A “participle” is defined as a “word that has the characteristics of both a verb and an adjective.” esp: English adjective. .. .. It has the function of an adjective and at the same time shows the characteristics of words such as tense, voice, and ability to take things. Here, Congress adopts the past tense, indicating its intention to lift only the obstacles “imposed” by then. [citations omitted]

According to the Court of Appeals, Amnesty International’s law focused only on the immediate issues when the law itself was passed.

“”[T]His available evidence suggests that Congress, which enacted the Amnesty International Act of 1872, naturally focused on the pressing issues of the time raised by hordes of former South Army seeking forgiveness. I’m doing it, “the judge wrote.

However, the judge struggled to point out in expressing support for the January 6 attack that he had made no decision as to whether the Fourteenth Amendment actually violated Article 14. ..

“We do not express an opinion as to whether Congressman Corthorn was actually involved in a’rebellion or rebellion’or was eligible to serve in Congress,” the judge wrote. “We are not solely that the Amnesty International Act of 1872 does not categorically exempt all future rebels and rebels from the political obstacles created by Article 14-3 of the Constitutional Amendment. Holds. “

Opinion was written by the 4th US Circuit Judge Toby J. Haytens, Joe Biden Appointed person.judge James Andrew Win, Barack Obama The appointee joined Hatens’s opinion and wrote an opinion that he agreed with.judge Julius N. RichardsonTrump’s appointed person wrote another consent.

The judge overturned the judgment and remanded it to the district court.

Please read the following opinions.

[Image via YouTube screengrab/PBS.]

Any tips you should know? [email protected]

You may also like

Leave a Comment