The Washington Post's Jason Willick and The UnPopulist's Andy Craig discuss if Trump deserves to be convicted for insurrection before being denied ballot access
Read Vik and Akhil Amar’s Amicus brief posted at Amarica’s Constitution Blog. They are imminent Constitutional scholars. Akhil Amar taught a few of the Supreme Court Justices constitutional law at Yale. His blog analyzes the failings of the Court in oral argument on both history and constitutional analysis. History has forgotten the initial insurrection that tried to prevent Lincoln from assuming office, a precursor to the Civil War, that was much like January 6. The effort by Buchanan’s administration to aid the South while still in office was very much in the thoughts of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3.
How is a violent attempt by supports of a President to physically prevent the lawful transfer of power to the lawfully elected incoming administration not an insurrection? Whether it was planned or a spontaneous uprising, it culminated in a violent attack on the Capital intended to prevent Biden from assuming office. Some people may have just been rioting, but others were trying to keep the electoral ballots from being counted and certified. To call it a riot is to miss the point of January 6 entirely.
The argument that there needs to be one national solution to the question of whether states can disqualify Trump from the ballot in a presidential election misapprehends the nature of presidential elections under the Constitution. That election is governed by state electors subject to state laws. There is no national election for President, but fifty state elections on the same day. Lincoln was not on every state ballot, nor was Nader or Perot. Our right to cast ballots for the Presidential elections comes from state law, not the Constitution, or congressional legislation. Vik Amar sets this out very clearly in a link in Amarica’s Constitution. The Amar brothers are big fans of Baude, Paulson on some others regarding Section 3. They argue for a “50 state” solution,” I.e., the Constitution leaves it up to each state to determine whether or not a candidate is qualified to be on the Presidential ballot.
As for it being “anti-democratic” for some states to disqualify Trump from the ballot, Trump tried to disenfranchise over half the Country in 2020 by trying to illegally remain in office. The removal of oath breaking insurrectionists from the ballot favors democracy in accordance with our Constitution. Allowing a popular insurrectionist demagogue to remain on the ballot after breaking his oath to “defend” the Constitution is parrot of what Section 3 was intended to prevent because of the threat to our Constitutional democratic norms.
Thanks for this it was a great exchange and very helpful in better understanding the issues.
I used to have a lot of opinions on this subject but it is several pay grades above my head. I am pretty much inclined to simply accept whatever the Supreme Court decides. Which is big of me since one doesn't really have a choice?
One thing that struck me is that perhaps we need to have a more expansive concept of what an insurrection is. One not tied to a 19th century experience and more aligned with 21st century capabilities. Sure the violence at the Capitol was disturbing but had everything else Trump & Co. done from Election Day to January 6 occurred without storming the Capitol would have been any less of a real insurrection? A coup, is a coup, is a coup. Shouldn't the fake elector scheme and attempts to have election officials change the vote tallies be sufficient evidence?
My greatest hope is that the decision they make is as close to unanimous as possible. A hope that was sparked in the hearing before the court.
I'm glad they first discussed the insurrection bit. It has bothered me since it began to be called that.
I've been in countries twice that had coup d'etats. Both involved lots of armored personnel carriers, army guys, etc. No bloodshed, but lots of arms. Another country had a decades long insurgency with sporadic shootings, banditry, artillery, etc. I don't picture people walking between rope lines and stealing lecterns as an insurrection. Way too much hyperventilating by people who've never seen violence.
Should Trump go scot free? Hell no, he's on tape trying to steal the election in Georgia, a much worse offence to me than causing a riot.
Should he be able to run? At this point yes. He's ahead in the polls, you can't deny people the vote. The time to arrest him would have been Jan 21 of 2021.
Read Vik and Akhil Amar’s Amicus brief posted at Amarica’s Constitution Blog. They are imminent Constitutional scholars. Akhil Amar taught a few of the Supreme Court Justices constitutional law at Yale. His blog analyzes the failings of the Court in oral argument on both history and constitutional analysis. History has forgotten the initial insurrection that tried to prevent Lincoln from assuming office, a precursor to the Civil War, that was much like January 6. The effort by Buchanan’s administration to aid the South while still in office was very much in the thoughts of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3.
How is a violent attempt by supports of a President to physically prevent the lawful transfer of power to the lawfully elected incoming administration not an insurrection? Whether it was planned or a spontaneous uprising, it culminated in a violent attack on the Capital intended to prevent Biden from assuming office. Some people may have just been rioting, but others were trying to keep the electoral ballots from being counted and certified. To call it a riot is to miss the point of January 6 entirely.
The argument that there needs to be one national solution to the question of whether states can disqualify Trump from the ballot in a presidential election misapprehends the nature of presidential elections under the Constitution. That election is governed by state electors subject to state laws. There is no national election for President, but fifty state elections on the same day. Lincoln was not on every state ballot, nor was Nader or Perot. Our right to cast ballots for the Presidential elections comes from state law, not the Constitution, or congressional legislation. Vik Amar sets this out very clearly in a link in Amarica’s Constitution. The Amar brothers are big fans of Baude, Paulson on some others regarding Section 3. They argue for a “50 state” solution,” I.e., the Constitution leaves it up to each state to determine whether or not a candidate is qualified to be on the Presidential ballot.
As for it being “anti-democratic” for some states to disqualify Trump from the ballot, Trump tried to disenfranchise over half the Country in 2020 by trying to illegally remain in office. The removal of oath breaking insurrectionists from the ballot favors democracy in accordance with our Constitution. Allowing a popular insurrectionist demagogue to remain on the ballot after breaking his oath to “defend” the Constitution is parrot of what Section 3 was intended to prevent because of the threat to our Constitutional democratic norms.
Thanks for this it was a great exchange and very helpful in better understanding the issues.
I used to have a lot of opinions on this subject but it is several pay grades above my head. I am pretty much inclined to simply accept whatever the Supreme Court decides. Which is big of me since one doesn't really have a choice?
One thing that struck me is that perhaps we need to have a more expansive concept of what an insurrection is. One not tied to a 19th century experience and more aligned with 21st century capabilities. Sure the violence at the Capitol was disturbing but had everything else Trump & Co. done from Election Day to January 6 occurred without storming the Capitol would have been any less of a real insurrection? A coup, is a coup, is a coup. Shouldn't the fake elector scheme and attempts to have election officials change the vote tallies be sufficient evidence?
My greatest hope is that the decision they make is as close to unanimous as possible. A hope that was sparked in the hearing before the court.
I'm glad they first discussed the insurrection bit. It has bothered me since it began to be called that.
I've been in countries twice that had coup d'etats. Both involved lots of armored personnel carriers, army guys, etc. No bloodshed, but lots of arms. Another country had a decades long insurgency with sporadic shootings, banditry, artillery, etc. I don't picture people walking between rope lines and stealing lecterns as an insurrection. Way too much hyperventilating by people who've never seen violence.
Should Trump go scot free? Hell no, he's on tape trying to steal the election in Georgia, a much worse offence to me than causing a riot.
Should he be able to run? At this point yes. He's ahead in the polls, you can't deny people the vote. The time to arrest him would have been Jan 21 of 2021.