#section 3

[wcspriter]

I wonder why they never went back to the bigger bedroom to talk when the rabbit folks were downstairs. That would have been an extra awkward conversation to explain.

[oni-official]

Someone smuggled an entire beehive into Section 3 headquarters….

As in an actual beehive….

AD: Oh, you've gotta be pollen my leg.

Midas: How bad could it possible bee?

Director: ...

AD: ... sorry, we'll go...

Midas: ... deal with it.

Director: Good.

Director: Now, buzz off.

Director: Un-bee-lievable.

[contemplatingoutlander]

Why are U.S. courts afraid of the 14th Amendment? Because it’s radical.

"The 14th Amendment has once again proven too bold for the judges empowered to interpret it. Political forces are at play again, this time fearful of a backlash if Trump is removed from the ballot. As this case makes its way through the appellate process and, most likely, to the Supreme Court, it should be understood in the context of how the timidity and unwillingness of judges to acquiesce to the judgment of the 14th Amendment’s framers effectively derailed our democracy’s promise after Reconstruction and until the mid-20th century. We must ensure that it does not do the same in the 21st."

--Sherrilyn Ifill, visiting professor, Harvard Law School

This is an important article about why the 14th Amendment was written and why judges are afraid to use it to ban Trump from running for office. Consequently, this is a gift🎁link so people can read the entire article even if they don't subscribe to The Washington Post.

Below are some excerpts.

Judge Sarah B. Wallace’s decision that Trump engaged in insurrection but is nevertheless qualified to run for office is emblematic of the often outright resistance courts have shown to the 14th Amendment’s guarantees and protections. This instance applies to Section 3, which bars any participant in a rebellion against the government of the United States from holding public office. But almost from its inception, all the amendment’s radical provisions have inspired fear and timidity in jurists of every stripe. I use the word “radical” deliberately. The 14th Amendment was conceived of and pushed by the “Radical Republicans” in Congress after the Civil War. They were so named because of their commitment to eradicating slavery and its vestiges from American political life. A number had been abolitionists, and all had seen the threat that white supremacist ideology and the spirit of insurrection posed to the survival of the United States as a republic. Although the South had been soundly defeated on the battlefield, the belief among most Southerners that insurrection was a worthy and noble cause, and that Black people — even if no longer enslaved — were meant to be subjugated to the demands of Whites, was still firmly held. The 14th Amendment was meant to protect Black people against that belief, and the nation against insurrection, which was understood to constitute an ongoing threat to the future of our country. Frederick Douglass, the formerly enslaved abolitionist who rose to become one of the most prominent voices of the Reconstruction period, had no illusions about the persistence of the “malignant spirit” of the “traitors.” He predicted that it would be passed “from sire to son.” It “will not die out in a year,” he foretold, “it will not die out in an age.” [color emphasis added]

I encourage you to read the full article, which goes into detail about how the US judicial system has been afraid to actually adhere to both the spirit and letter of the 14th Amendment, and in so doing has done a major disservice to Black Americans for well over a century, and to our nation as a whole.

[thecountofs]

Halo: My Time In ONI

Section III's: Infrastructure Inspections and Bookkeeping Field Team ensures the UNSC's various watersheds don't leak.

[jordibloem]

Planet JB - section III - 21 Cold Stars in Between

[paper-bag-exploration-syndrome]

Flaws

Doccier masterpost for Elizabeth and all sections it's highly recommended that you start at section 1 if you've never encountered her doccier before. Everything is chronological.

This is section 3.

Masterpost of everything regarding CivilTale (and Elizabeth)

-––———————————————————––-

WARNINGS

Mention of bullying.

-––———————————————————––-

★1: Elizabeth, due to her mistreatment, bullying, and the way she was raised, always judges a book by it's cover.

Tall? Scary. An adult? Best do as they say. Crooked, yellow, or sharp teeth? A junkie!!! Fancy clothes? BE ON YOUR BEST BEHAVIOR. Casual clothes? Poor and undignified.

(She wishes she could dress like that... It's obvious she's insecure when she subtly side eyes casually dressed people when they walk by.)

Darker clothing? Sad.. Lighter clothing? Happy!!

(Her family was old fashioned, and so she was raised on style+look stereotypes- But she ain't racist! Don't worry bout that being canon. EDIT: yeah about that)

★2: Elizabeth always goes with the majoritys opinion on something because she never had the time nor peace to figure out her own until now. (In her likes and dislikes section, those are things she will figure out by herself and accept as part of herself slowly.)

★3: During the earlier arcs (this doccier in general) she was more pathetic and or cowardly during high stress or scary situations. Priotizing her survival, and not having an attachment/bond to the people of the underground yet.

She usually fawns, or flees during scary, overstimulating, and or high-stress situations. However in the future, Undyne and Papyrus find out just how little backbone she has, and take it upon themselves to toughen her up.

★4: She imprints on things she finds interesting or respects. (Like how she follows Sans around.) This also includes her morals. She's still learning about herself and the world after being so closed off from it, hence; imprinting.

★5: Elizabeth is fucking racist

-––———————————————————––-

Last section: Backstory TW: Child abuse, abuse, bullying, emotional neglect, neglect, running away, and a murder plot.

Next section: Appearance

[originalleftist]

In the next few hours or days, one of two things will happen: Trump and fascism will win, or Harris and America will.

Either way, the next step should be a general strike. Only the demands would change.

If Trump- demand Democrats refuse to recognize it on the grounds that he's an insurrectionist, and ineligible for office under the 14th Amendment, Section Three (Fuck SCOTUS and their made-up law, there is no requirement that only Congress can disqualify, and never has been).

If Harris wins- strike to compel the Supreme Court to honour those results when Republicans challenge in court. Perhaps only the threat of a strike would be necessary, until we get a sense of how willing SCOTUS is to collaborate in flipping the race to Trump.

Biden should also immediately open the flood gates on arms to Ukraine, and give permission to strike in Russia, in response to Russia's terrorist attack (bomb threats at polling places) on our electoral system tonight, and terrorist threats against British, US, and Canadian airlines.

What people should NOT do, MUST not do, is panic, despair, or lash out in random acts of violence. That will be ineffective, wasteful, and simply make it easier for the fascists to portray themselves as the patriots "protecting" America.

Be calm, deliberate, resolved, and strategic- however hard that is.

[porterdavis]

14th Amendment Section 3

Now, I'm no lawyer. My main interaction with the law has been trying to avoid it, but I have thoughts:

People and pundits are pooh-poohing the findings of Colorado and Maine courts, now joined by Illinois, that determined Trump was disqualified from their ballots by violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In their minds, no state-level action should be allowed to play such a large role in a national election.

But Section 3 of the 14th has been in the Constitution so revered by conservatives for over 150 years. The three states mentioned had trials heard by judges where all parties could present their case. All three found Trump had violated the terms of Section 3. The law is clear, he must be disqualified.

If the conservatives can feel entitled to disregard an article of the Constitution to serve their needs, I suggest others can take a more nuanced look at other Amendments. Perhaps the Second? Maybe we can disregard any interpretation of it that allows possession of firearms wily-nilly?

Good for the goose, sauce for the gander.