Can Harry Reid be impeached using the 14th amendment?

Question

Amendment 14
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.

Answer 1

yes he could if there were anyone on the hill with the balls to push for it. he gave aid and comfort to the enemy when he said this war was lost.....

Answer 2

On each of those 4 things that he is trying to accomplish: 1) A ban on semiautomatic weapons would essentially be an extension of the already extant automatic weapons ban, since most semiautomatic weapons can be modified to act as automatic weapons. Frankly, it doesn't do significantly more than the status quo to ban guns. 2) Gun shows are one of the few places where guns can be purchased without having to go through background checks and psychiatric evaluations. This is significant because it's a loophole in the system that has ensured that people who are likeliest to go out and cause harm with guns can easily get a hold of them. 3) The same is true of private gun sales. 4) This one's being overblown. Let's face it, there's scant little chance that even Democrats as a group could rally together on this issue - there are an awful lot of pro-gun Democrats out there. As it stands now, though, there's absolutely no chance that anything will change. It's worth having the option available to modify gun legislation. You would never see a complete ban, it's simply not possible, even after the terrifying events in Connecticut. So all that results from this is that certain guns are taken off the market, and while it's worth us having the conversation about those guns, I think it's worthwhile to have a "no" side in that discussion as well as a "yes." With the current status in the Senate, there isn't a "no" side because there's no way to achieve a "no" vote on anything.

Answer 3

I don't believe congressional efforts to end the war can be equated with engaging "in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." However I do respect the fact that you are reading the constitution and have seemingly formed your own opinion as opposed to the majority who sit in front of the keyboard with Fox News on the tv and Limbaugh on the radio simultaneously, while endlessly regurgitating everything they see and hear.

Answer 4

If George W. Bush hasn't been impeached and removed yet, then you stand little chance of getting the majority leader of the United States Senate impeached and removed. If you're willing to sacrifice King George, we'll sacrifice Senator Reid.

Answer 5

"shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Would you care to explain how this applies to Reid? No? Didn't think so.

Stupid question.

Answer 6

Only if he "physically engaged" in any insurrection or rebellion and or aided the enemy. As far as his verbal insurrections and offensive rebellious statements are protected under Freedom of Speech.

Answer 7

The meaning of 'insurrection' is not that broad. No.

Answer 8

nope. he did not break amendment.

what aid and comfort to whom did he give. you are nuits.


you love this war, go enlist and demand the draft my son was a soldier. they have been drafter. only a few do the job for so many. shame on you.

that is NOT fair.

Answer 9

That's a good one... Harry Reid, "the disability".

.

Answer 10

Nope, but keep trying - it's very entertaining.