The US crlminal code contemplates the crime of insurrection. Should not therefore an insurrectionist be defined as a person who has been convicted in court for the crime of insurrection? If it is left to political bodies at state or federal level to decide who qualifies as insurrectionist, are not we sliding in the crude majoritarianism that is deplored in the discussion?
Long before Jan 6, it was clear that Trump's adversaries (and the entire [self-interested] administrative caste) would do anything legally that they could to keep this guy out of office (while they lecture us on "hate"). Those adversaries have merely become part of the toxic political climate created (arguably) by Trump himself.
Keep Trump off the ballot? Are you afraid that he could actually win the '24 election, fair and square (possibly even including the popular vote)?
And what if he does? What will the "resistance" do then? Will he take office as smoothly as Biden did in 2021? Or will we see something more like the Summer of Floyd (when I witnessed the sacking of Oakland Chinatown, among many such episodes) -- retribution for 1619, "by any means necessary"?
Was Jan 6 an "insurrection" like the Confederacy? Was there an attempt to institute a hostile government that, in turn, sought to overthrow the United States? Or was this a "protest that turned violent," and that played itself out within the American system -- and that saw Biden take the Oath of Office, on-schedule, when all was said and done?
I voted twice for Obama, yet I'm raising these questions. There are many other voters like me. Consider that (and the power of Lincoln's words, quoted above) before deploying all your legalese.
For me the whole problem of whether and how Section 3 is executed is what the Supreme Court must decide. It seems that the remedy for overcoming disqualification is in the hands of Congress. So it seems to me that it is Congress that needs to pass enabling legislation which will define the meaning of insurrection within the text, the standard of evidence required, clarify who the decider is (state election officials seem to be ones who should decide) for those seeking a federal office. Obviously a conviction for insurrection would be helpful as evidence justifying removal but not necessary. All that is needed is that there is sufficient evidence upon which to make the disqualification. This evidence can be challenged in courts and either upheld or dismissed.
The Supreme Court should order Trump back on the ballots, and no future candidates disqualified, until Congress clarifies how Section 3 is to be (fairly) enforced and outlining the mechanism by which Congress is given the opportunity to override the disqualification.
It seems that the Congressional delegation of Colorado and Maine (for example) should present the disqualification in the form of a bill to Congress as a privileged motion (?) that would be debated and voted on as soon as brought to the floor. The Constitution requires a 2/3 majority of both houses. In our hyperpartisan and closely divided Congress that is hardly likely to happen.
So because it is highly unlikely that Congress will do what is required to make Section 3 viable and fair in the 21st century it will remain essentially meaningless except as an historical artifact of the Reconstruction era.
The US crlminal code contemplates the crime of insurrection. Should not therefore an insurrectionist be defined as a person who has been convicted in court for the crime of insurrection? If it is left to political bodies at state or federal level to decide who qualifies as insurrectionist, are not we sliding in the crude majoritarianism that is deplored in the discussion?
“With malice toward none, with charity for all"?
Long before Jan 6, it was clear that Trump's adversaries (and the entire [self-interested] administrative caste) would do anything legally that they could to keep this guy out of office (while they lecture us on "hate"). Those adversaries have merely become part of the toxic political climate created (arguably) by Trump himself.
Keep Trump off the ballot? Are you afraid that he could actually win the '24 election, fair and square (possibly even including the popular vote)?
And what if he does? What will the "resistance" do then? Will he take office as smoothly as Biden did in 2021? Or will we see something more like the Summer of Floyd (when I witnessed the sacking of Oakland Chinatown, among many such episodes) -- retribution for 1619, "by any means necessary"?
Was Jan 6 an "insurrection" like the Confederacy? Was there an attempt to institute a hostile government that, in turn, sought to overthrow the United States? Or was this a "protest that turned violent," and that played itself out within the American system -- and that saw Biden take the Oath of Office, on-schedule, when all was said and done?
I voted twice for Obama, yet I'm raising these questions. There are many other voters like me. Consider that (and the power of Lincoln's words, quoted above) before deploying all your legalese.
For me the whole problem of whether and how Section 3 is executed is what the Supreme Court must decide. It seems that the remedy for overcoming disqualification is in the hands of Congress. So it seems to me that it is Congress that needs to pass enabling legislation which will define the meaning of insurrection within the text, the standard of evidence required, clarify who the decider is (state election officials seem to be ones who should decide) for those seeking a federal office. Obviously a conviction for insurrection would be helpful as evidence justifying removal but not necessary. All that is needed is that there is sufficient evidence upon which to make the disqualification. This evidence can be challenged in courts and either upheld or dismissed.
The Supreme Court should order Trump back on the ballots, and no future candidates disqualified, until Congress clarifies how Section 3 is to be (fairly) enforced and outlining the mechanism by which Congress is given the opportunity to override the disqualification.
It seems that the Congressional delegation of Colorado and Maine (for example) should present the disqualification in the form of a bill to Congress as a privileged motion (?) that would be debated and voted on as soon as brought to the floor. The Constitution requires a 2/3 majority of both houses. In our hyperpartisan and closely divided Congress that is hardly likely to happen.
So because it is highly unlikely that Congress will do what is required to make Section 3 viable and fair in the 21st century it will remain essentially meaningless except as an historical artifact of the Reconstruction era.
I’m waiting for Aaron’s episode explaining the pivotal role of the ‘57 Chevy in modern libertarianism.