173
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
173 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10162 readers
88 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Does anyone seriously think this will pass Supreme Court scrutiny? I expect an 8-1 decision that will stop this silliness. As much as you hate Trump, surely you can think forward enough to see what an awful precedent would be set which would come back to bite you later?
No, the precedent is needed. When you lead an insurrection against the USA, you shouldn't be allowed to run for ANY office.
Just don't do an insurrection and you won't be barred from office based on the insurrection clause. I get some conspiracy theorists will try to paint everything as an insurrection now but if were at the point where that shit would fly I'm not sure whats stopping them from doing it already.
We've been begging the dems to stop playing fucking nice with these idiots for years. I'm all for consequences for actions. Jan 6 was definitely an attempt at subverting our elections. Trump definitely participated in it and encouraged it. To not enforce the constitution would open the doors for worse.
Do you think people will just accuse candidates of insurrection willy nilly? I mean I bet Republicans would since they're trying to impeach Biden for literally nothing. But I don't think those will pass scrutiny. But Trump absolutely committed actions that could be considered aiding insurrection. Hense the 14th amendment cases.
The precedent of following US Constitution? That would be indeed a horrible thing.
The precedent was already set by the 40th United States Congress.
how so? I see from your link that such an entity did exist.
They passed the 14th amendment and used it to bar a number of senior Confederates from office after the civil war
Thank you. I see it in section 3. I was vaguely aware something like that happened after the civil war but did not realize it was part of an amendment. Its blows my mind to think the republican party did all this back then.
Ah, the old ‘60s/‘70s repub-demo switcharoo!
The irony here is that Trump and the Republicans worked really hard to stack the SCOTUS with originalists, because that tends to play well with a conservative Republican agenda.
But it also upholds the Insurrection Act. Remember that SCOTUS may be conservative, but they’re not all Republican lackeys. In order to decree this unconstitutional, SCOTUS would have to make a majority decision that what Trump did doesn’t fall under insurrection. I can see them wanting to stay out of THAT one completely, refusing to make a finding that would create SCOTUS precedent; that means they would leave these decisions in place in order to preserve future flexibility.
No, they wouldn't. They would just have to accept a due process argument, essentially that the opinion of a CO state judge is not the appropriate venue or process for determining if someone is an insurrectionist. Probably calling for either Congress or criminal courts to establish that.
This is notably different than the CSA, as CSA officers were openly and publicly members of an organization that openly and publicly waged a war against the US.
What do you call storming an election certification and killing a cop?
I'm not arguing that Jan 6 isn't an insurrection. I'm arguing that Trump was too much of a pussy to openly and publicly lead it himself.
His speech at the rally that came before the march that came before the attack almost certainly is 1A protected speech and not incitement in part because the bar for incitement in the US is extremely high. Virtually anything short of "Hey you, go do this crime right now!" fails to be incitement.
He beat feet before the next part happened though. You can't point to him openly and publicly leading the insurrection, because he didn't - he probably organized and arranged it but not in a way that there is no question of fact. There's a whole chain of steps necessary to get from random in the Capitol on Jan 6 to Trump, and most of those intermediate steps are not in the open.
There was no question of fact with the CSA officers blocked from holding office though - they were public officials in an organization engaged in open war against the union.