The Supremes

[bolverk 28885]

11 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I thought the Constitution gave states the right to determine how electors were assigned. In my mind, this falls under that.

Wasn't Lincoln kept from being on the ballot in several southern states? If so, what was the legal basis for that?

[DixonHur 10805]

8 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I thought the Constitution gave states the right to determine how electors were assigned. In my mind, this falls under that.

I'm certainly not a constitutional lawyer, or even a regular lawyer, but the argument that stood out to me was that the 14th was intended to limit the authority of states, not enhance it.

But to @DDD Dad's points, I'm not sure who is supposed to enforce the 14th.  He shouldn't be president again, and I don't think it should be left to the voters in this case, but who should make the call?  And what's that process look like?  Who would have standing?

[Js1 82350]

6 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

Wonder how this will be with him losing all the muslim/middle eastern voting block 

All of? 

Way to assume he's going to lose the entirety of it.  What's the thing about not assuming a minority group votes as a monolith? 

The first "test" will be the Michigan primary and specifically, what the Dearborn vote looks like. 

I also stand by what I said - the Muslim voters who are refusing to vote for "Genocide Joe" are either trolls or non-voters.  

[DixonHur 10805]

6 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

Wonder how this will be with him losing all the muslim/middle eastern voting block 

I don't know how any muslim/middle easterner could vote for MAGA.  Do they really think the folks who were trying to ban them from the country, and calling them all terrorists would be more sympathetic to them?  Would the evangelicals sudden abandon their support for Israel?  

I suspect that at best they will hold their collective noses and vote Biden...at worst they will just not vote.

[Your Mom 4748]

8 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I don't know how any muslim/middle easterner could vote for MAGA.  Do they really think the folks who were trying to ban them from the country, and calling them all terrorists would be more sympathetic to them?  Would the evangelicals sudden abandon their support for Israel?  

I suspect that at best they will hold their collective noses and vote Biden...at worst they will just not vote.

That’s too much logic. People vote against their own interests by the millions every cycle. 

[Gatorubet 29391]

2 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

But they aren’t going to disqualify him. The concern that other states will then say Biden is ineligible for X reason and remove him from the ballot is legitimate. 

if those disingenuous corrupt fucks are trying to impeach a cabinet member for not controlling the border - when they have suddenly decided not to agree to a bi-partisan border control bill for political reasons - there is exactly nothing stopping red state regards from declaring that Biden engaged in sedition by not controlling the border.

Because you know they would.  The flip-side of letting states decide that issue would result in MAGA AGs disqualifying Biden.  

[Smax 3799]

13 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I don't know how any muslim/middle easterner could vote for MAGA.  Do they really think the folks who were trying to ban them from the country, and calling them all terrorists would be more sympathetic to them?  Would the evangelicals sudden abandon their support for Israel?  

I suspect that at best they will hold their collective noses and vote Biden...at worst they will just not vote.

 

I don't think they will vote maga, they'll just stay home which is essentially the same but EVERY interview I've seen of muslims about this issue, they are insisting they will not vote for him because of Palestine. 

We have 10 months, things will most certainly change but I just wanted to throw that out there for those tallying votes in the heads, Biden most like wont have that voting block or atleast as many as he did in 2020

[Neonmoon 38126]

37 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I had to take a call right after the question was asked so I didn't hear the answer, but I see two very big possibilities. Starting with this....

.... This is a reasonable interpretation, and I saw that for two reasons:  First, when written, it would be reasonable to assume they believed that a) someone who had committed insurrection couldn’t possibly win an election (e.g., they couldn’t fathom that the confederate states would have enough voting power to get someone like Davis elected as President as opposed to winning a Senator/Rep) and/or b) if someone who had committed insurrection WAS elected as president (which was ultimately made possible by flaws with the electoral college), then shouldn’t they be allowed to take office? Isn’t that the ultimate goal of a democracy? If the “majority” of the country believes a person should be president in spite of a constitutional clause, then isn’t that the will of the people saying they don’t agree with that part of the Constitution anymore? In other words, if they are supported by the “majority” then shouldn’t that be reason enough to allow them to take office? The second point someone falls apart when you compare it to age and birthplace limitations that everyone agrees can’t be superseded, but I can’t entirely disagree with the argument that those restrictions aren’t fundamentally different than the insurrection clause in their purpose, although I personally believe “committed insurrection” is a much more disqualifying reason than someone being 34 years old or born in Canada and lived all but the first few days of their lives in the US. I guess the point I’m making is that if someone like Trump could be re-elected, then isn’t that the entire point of our Democracy? Even if it means the end of it?

Having said all that, I want it to be absolutely clear that I don’t think he should be permitted to hold the office, I don’t believe he should be allowed to live another day outside of a jail cell, and according to the constitution, should probably be executed for treason.
 

  

Actually, he went with a different direction. 

Quote

Section 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"

The language "Hold any office, civil or military" covers the President because the President holds an office. Therefore, they didn't need to specifically list it out, as opposed to "elector of President and Vice President" did need to be listed because an elector is not an officer nor does an elector hold an office. They are appointed. Similarly, the language "Senator or Representative in Congress" also had to be listed out because they don't hold an office either, according to the constitution they hold a seat. 

 

[Rimbo 25212]

42 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

umm... no.

neither summer nor child.

 

[Woland 695]

Except that Biden can now campaign heavily on the Republicans refusing to vote in favor of the very border deal they proposed. "You want a secure border? Vote Biden!"
Trump has already lost the blue collar workers who got him elected in 2016. The GOP has no issues left to run on other than "Vote Trump because Trump." That's literally all they have left, because enough of the current GOP got to power solely because they were riding Trump's coattails. The rest were either run off or quit, or chose to ride the tiger. 骑虎难下 - it's easy to ride a tiger; it's the dismount that's difficult.
I'm hoping Trump is on the ballot on November, because he will lose. AGAIN. Moderate Republicans will either stay home or vote Biden; all but Trump's most dedicated will vote, and even they are being told by Trump himself not to bother. The rest of us, especially women, are highly motivated to vote. Oh and a good bit of his base skipped the vaccine and died from COVID.

Right-wing media has cultivated the idea that no matter how bad Trump may be, Biden is ten times worse. “I’d rather have someone other than Trump, but I’ll never vote for Biden. Biden is destroying America and must be stopped.”

[Rimbo 25212]

1 minute ago, Woland said:

Right-wing media has cultivated the idea that no matter how bad Trump may be, Biden is ten times worse. “I’d rather have someone other than Trump, but I’ll never vote for Biden. Biden is destroying America and must be stopped.”

Pretty much describes what you think about Trump, doesn't it?

The difference is, when you actually go to the border, when you go to your job, when your gay uncle is worried about having to move to a red state for his job, when your niece is in the ICU because she couldn't get a life-saving abortion, when there's money in your pocket that wasn't there 4 years ago, that's going to have a much bigger impact than all the fear-mongering in the world, subconsciously and over millions of voters.

It's what has happened every single time.

[Dnaguy 11538]

58 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

interesting because of MN

Is that Somalis or Sommeliers?

[tx 3 putt 74759]

 

 

[tx 3 putt 74759]

 

[Dnaguy 11538]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I mean…wouldn’t there need to be spurious reasons listed in constitution to use as disqualification criteria?

 

2 hours ago, Born to Run said:

Biden is leading an insurrection by allowing a flood of illegal voters with open border policy.

That would be largely unopposed in red states like Texas.

The constitution precludes Biden from running bc Hunter Biden is obvious quartering a brigade in his jockey’s. 
This violates the 3rd amendment and therefore Joe Biden is ineligible.

QED red state _______.

['stache 21489]

15 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

Odd that a billionaire lives by the fucking airport.

[C-Man 26535]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

I'm certainly not a constitutional lawyer, or even a regular lawyer, but the argument that stood out to me was that the 14th was intended to limit the authority of states, not enhance it.

But to @DDD Dad's points, I'm not sure who is supposed to enforce the 14th.  He shouldn't be president again, and I don't think it should be left to the voters in this case, but who should make the call?  And what's that process look like?  Who would have standing?

It's all so confusing. The states CAN decide where it stands as it comes to abortion but NOT if an insurrectionist can be left off the ballot for POTUS.

Edited February 8 by C-Man

[C-Man 26535]

18 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

This is funny: 

I'd go further and say the fact his mouth is moving means he's lying.

[Dnaguy 11538]

2 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

I know it’s not the same as due process in a criminal trial, but realistically there probably does need to be a higher threshold for determining someone committed insurrection and is ineligible to be on the ballot in a federal election than just simply having some state’s Secretary of State say so.  

I do t agree with this and here’s why:

A single state is a single state. It no more affects the presidential outcome than any other in so far as the # of electors it has. 
Presidential races come down to who wins a majority of electors. Not votes. In addition, elections for a president fall on a per state basis. They should be able to determine if the person on the ballot meets the federal standard. There is no mechanism for visa versa as set up by the constitution. Nothing says the Supreme Court determines eligibility. And states run there elections. So you have to then let states determine if a person meets the eligibility. If they get it wrong the Supreme Court can say so… but then again…. They have to give a reason other than ‘what if x state’ abused this. Because if x state did abuse it, the Supreme Court could strike it down.

So this lazy ass court needs to either agree insurrection happened or not. Period. They are the final arbiters. 
 

AND even if the Supreme Court says that a person is an insurrection it’s, congress can override that via the mechanism described in the 14th amendment. So if the will of the people is to have someone on the ballot it has a remedy.

im a fucking STEM person. Leave it to lawyers to screw up what IMO seems to be a pretty obvious meaning / outcome.

[tx 3 putt 74759]

10000% truth !

 

[Red Five 40108]

The answer, or easiest answer, is that he should have been convicted by the senate, and thus ineligible to run again. But, you know, cowards. 

[Dnaguy 11538]

In addition, the idea of the ‘standard’ or baseline being criminal prosecution or the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ threshold for insurrection is so far beyond what should be applied here.

Why? Because going to jail is depriving someone of liberty.

Thats why it’s such a high bar.

Civil courts have a lower bar. And that’s depriving someone of property. 
 

What is it really to keep someone from running for president?! It takes non of your rights away. You don’t have a right to run for president.

Whats the big fucking deal? So what boohoo if the US government says I can’t run for president.

of course, however, Trump is different because he needs to run for president to avoid going to jail. He wants to run for president so he can avoid accountability and to exact revenge on his enemies.

Removing him from the ballot is no more antidemocratic as anything else that precludes someone from running for president. I want to vote for my daughter but she’s only 7. Am I being disenfranchised? 
 

Once again we are here arguing over rules and facts that no one else BUT Trump could somehow maneuver the game to be. It’s as if we’re arguing that a CB held a receiver on a play that’s already been blown dead bc the offense false started. Except in our scenarios the refs are contemplating overruling the false start so they can assess the penalty on the defense.

We have a Ken Marr Supreme Court!

[Dnaguy 11538]

17 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

I think they are going to decide how a state must determine whether to disqualify someone for “insurrection”.  But saying the state can decide however they want that someone is guilty of insurrection (a federal question, btw)and then the Supreme Court will determine on a case by case basis whether that was legit is not a workable system.

There probably does need to be a criminal conviction as a predicate to justify claiming someone is an insurrectionist, frankly.  It’s like disqualifying someone from voting even if he’s never been convicted of a felony because “Come on, we all know he’s a felon.”

You and the Supreme Court keep saying that it’s a federal question on whether someone is an insurrectionist… but where does it say that?

the 14th amendment says you can’t hold an office if you engaged in it… but it doesn’t say who is the arbiter. And considering that states run elections it can be them!

If the writers of the amendment wanted congress to determine it, they would have put that in. How ever they only said congress can OVERRIDE that an insurrectionist can hold office. I think that’s a huge distinction.

_And the idea that the Supreme Court couldn’t handle states excluding folks from running is laughable.

If a state abuses the system a district court or appeals court can throw it out and the Supreme Court doesn’t have to hear the case. President elections only happen once every 4 years. It’s not a huge fucking lift.

The judges and these legal minds are arguing over some kid of weird future that isn’t current reality or even likely to exist.

Its so maddening!

[Dnaguy 11538]

3 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Because insurrection is a crime.  If the 14th Amendment said you couldn’t hold office if you murdered someone, would we really interpret that to mean the standard is some bureaucrat outside the criminal justice system saying “The courts may disagree, but I sure think that guy is a murderer.”

If the 14th Amendment tied disqualification to “being a bad guy” instead of referencing a specific criminal act, it would be different.

Insurrection is not a crime.

Treason is a crime.

The insurrection  or ‘aide and comfort’ in the 14th amendment is a political act.

The constitution has nothing to do with crime only in that it precludes someone from excessive punishment (cruel and unusual)

There is no criminal code in the constitution.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2672]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

Wasn't Lincoln kept from being on the ballot in several southern states? If so, what was the legal basis for that?

MFer was too fuckin' woke.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2672]

1 hour ago, Woland said:

Except that Biden can now campaign heavily on the Republicans refusing to vote in favor of the very border deal they proposed. "You want a secure border? Vote Biden!"

Bold strategy, given the shape of the border during Biden's watch.

The border strategy needs to be about how the Republicans didn't help solve the problem, and then Biden needs to pivot to the job creation and the economy. 

[Dnaguy 11538]

4 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Insurrection is a federal crime.  The Constitution isn’t the sole source of federal law, and it doesn’t have a separate glossary that says insurrection means something different than the crime of insurrection.  

Crimes are crimes because congress passed a law against it.

You can’t go to jail for violating the constitution unless you’ve violated someone’s specific civil rights…. But that’s only bc congress passed a law saying that was a crime.

[YGIFS 19443]

23 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

Insurrection is not a crime.

Treason is a crime.

The insurrection  or ‘aide and comfort’ in the 14th amendment is a political act.

The constitution has nothing to do with crime only in that it precludes someone from excessive punishment (cruel and unusual)

There is no criminal code in the constitution.

Uh, do you even Westlaw, bro?  We have mountains and mountains of federal criminal and civil statutes.  I have many, many leatherbound volumes in my office which smells of rich mahagony.  

[Dnaguy 11538]

Ok just so I can be 100% factual.

Treason is a crime and the only crime that is outlined in the constitution. 
Trump didn’t actually commit treason bc he didn’t wage war against the USA or give aide and comfort to those who were.

Bit no other crime is outlined in the constitution.

 

[Dnaguy 11538]

1 minute ago, YGIFS said:

Uh, do you even Westlaw, bro?  We have mountains and mountains of federal criminal and civil statutes.  I have many, many leatherbound volumes in my office which smells of rich mahagony.  

But those are crimes independent of the actual constitution. Congress had to pass those. And they had to agree with the constitution. 
If you violate the constitution, you haven’t committed a criminal act.

However, you may have violated a federal law that was written to protect the constitution. Does that make sense?

If you enslave another human, you will have broken the law bc you’ve violated the civil rights act or other laws around unlawful detention etc.

You won’t be prosecuted for breaking the 13th amendment.

Thats my distinction. 

[Captainant 26861]

3 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

The fundamental question is still the definition of insurrection and who gets to decide.  The Constitution doesn’t define insurrection or specify a mechanism for determining when it has occurred.  However, other federal law does.  And interpreting the federal constitution and whether someone has committed insurrection against the United States are both pretty clearly federal questions.

Why would we assume that insurrection as the term is used in the Constitution is meant to be some wholly undefined concept that a state Secretary of State can Calvinball with whatever definition they decide is right (since the Constitution doesn’t explicitly define it)?  Why would it not be the concept of insurrection as it is actually fleshed out in federal law?  

When you look at building specs or genome sequences or whatever STEM field you’re in, and a term is used in a summary page but is defined more thoroughly elsewhere, do you just say, “Well, this term could mean anything!  And, moreover, someone that works on a different part of the project should try to define it themselves instead of using the definition we have in the annex.  Maybe 50 of them will have 50 different definitions!”

You're trying to argue that interrupting the constitutionally mandated counting of votes in order to introduce your own slate ISN'T insurrection? Weird take.

[YGIFS 19443]

That's largely correct based on of the few law school grades i got that were good (CivPro & ConLaw).  Almost nobody has ever been arraigned in court on a charge of "Violation of the 19th Amendment.", or whatever.  

However, we have literally thousands of laws in the U.S. code that are derived from the Constitutiion and its amendments.  An incredibly obvious example is bootlegging.  

[DDD Dad 14060]

34 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Uh, do you even Westlaw, bro?  We have mountains and mountains of federal criminal and civil statutes.  I have many, many leatherbound volumes in my office which smells of rich mahagony.  

Why would leather smell like wood?

[YGIFS 19443]

No, the office in which the leatherbound books are kept smells of rich mahagony.  Do you even Ron Burgundy, bro?  

[David Dennison 17657]

39 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

Ok just so I can be 100% factual.

Treason is a crime and the only crime that is outlined in the constitution. 
Trump didn’t actually commit treason bc he didn’t wage war against the USA or give aide and comfort to those who were.

Bit no other crime is outlined in the constitution.

 

The 13th Amendment outlaws slavery and empowers Congress to enforce its prohibition.

Edited February 8 by David Dennison
Oh, I see what you're getting at. Carry on.

[DDD Dad 14060]

1 minute ago, YGIFS said:

No, the office in which the leatherbound books are kept smells of rich mahagony.  Do you even Ron Burgundy, bro?  

Ambiguous modifiers, bro.  Be better.

[tx 3 putt 74759]

 

 

[Dnaguy 11538]

29 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

That's largely correct based on of the few law school grades i got that were good (CivPro & ConLaw).  Almost nobody has ever been arraigned in court on a charge of "Violation of the 19th Amendment.", or whatever.  

However, we have literally thousands of laws in the U.S. code that are derived from the Constitutiion and its amendments.  An incredibly obvious example is bootlegging.  

No doubt.

But the rub is that one not need to violate the LAW of insurrection to have violated constitutional definition of insurrection. If anything the constitutional definition can be more ambiguous or loosely defined and the criminal be more narrow…. Just not visa versa.

The thing that sucks here is that bc there is a law definition of insurrection that people and seemingly these justices want to apply it to the constitution and that’s not how this should work.

Taking a very originality perspective should lead one to come to the conclusion that Bc the amendment doesn’t spell out a specific def, that the court should defer to those judges or lower government officials who decide what a constitutional definition of insurrection is unless it is so egregious so as to in no way be determined to be insurrection. For them to overrrule Colorado is super activist IMO is antithetical to just calling balls and strikes.

 

[Dnaguy 11538]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The 13th Amendment outlaws slavery and empowers Congress to enforce its prohibition.

Yes you’re right. But if congress didn’t pass a law to enforce it, violating it wouldn’t result in a criminal offense. You’d still be able to sue for your freedom but just because it exists doesn’t make having slaves a crime. Separations of powers means congress must make a law against it and the executive branch has to then enforce it.

[tx 3 putt 74759]

Very good point ….

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23245]

Wild how we’re all living through an ongoing constitutional crisis and not many people give a shit. 

[YGIFS 19443]

This distinction is well above my paygrade.  But we actually, in all practicality have, not two---but three---sets of laws.  Civil.  Criminal.  Of which we're all familiar.  The taking of one's assets or the taking of one's personal freedoms.  Even the stupids among us pretty much understand this.  However, there is a third parallel, however narrow, set of laws.  And they are those which connect the Constitution to Office Holders (be they appointed or elected).  To me, and this is a rant for another time, there is a distinction between me saying you committed an insurrection act and we can fine you.  Or you did it, and we can jail you.  There is precedence, caselaw, and proceedings for such punishments.  But there is a third rail that only applies to a handful of Americans at one given time.  You may not be guilty in the sense of we can take your money or you have to serve time, but did you do something that prohibits you from a non-God given right, like hold high elected/appointed office?  I'll leave it to the smarter people on here to flesh that out.

But I come back to something that most Americans don't want to hear.  We never really built out this third mechanism, even despite the Civil War, because of the Founders and Reconstructionists prize lack of imagination.  They just didn't simply envision needing to write this shit up because while there were loyalists to Britain or the Confederacy among them, they never thought in their wildest absinthe-infused dreams, a sitting U.S. President would pull half this shit.  let alone all of it.  

Decades from now, we're gonna be sitting here on some version of this site bitching and moaning about how unfair these new A.I. laws or whatever are, and how we should have seen the changes coming on the horizon.  But the truth is our rules and regs and even just moral compass lag, utterly and egregiously, our capacity for wrongdoing.  There's no strict constructionist or constitution-as-evolving-document on either side that marries Trump and legal penalties together than is compelling either way.  We simply just did not see this kinda shit coming.  And we're left holding said bag of shit and I don't know how the fuck we get out of this alive.  

Edited February 8 by YGIFS

[Dnaguy 11538]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Wild how we’re all living through an ongoing constitutional crisis and not many people give a shit. 

 

Huh? What’s cost intuition crisis? 

[David Dennison 17657]

22 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Wild how we’re all living through an ongoing constitutional crisis and not many people give a shit. 

I feel kinda bad because the older I get, the less I care.

[DixonHur 10805]

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

10000% truth !

 

I agree with the sentiment, but not sure what it has to do with this case.

[SquishMitten 10368]

6 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Perceived legitimacy.  Without it the court is neutered.  He absolutely cares about that.  

No, it’s not neutered. It has the same authority regardless of anyone’s opinion of it. 

[David Dennison 17657]

23 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

No, it’s not neutered. It has the same authority regardless of anyone’s opinion of it. 

Who enforces that authority?

[SquishMitten 10368]

2 hours ago, Dnaguy said:

But the rub is that one not need to violate the LAW of insurrection to have violated constitutional definition of insurrection. If anything the constitutional definition can be more ambiguous or loosely defined and the criminal be more narrow…. Just not visa versa.

The thing that sucks here is that bc there is a law definition of insurrection that people and seemingly these justices want to apply it to the constitution and that’s not how this should work.

Taking a very originality perspective should lead one to come to the conclusion that Bc the amendment doesn’t spell out a specific def, that the court should defer to those judges or lower government officials who decide what a constitutional definition of insurrection is unless it is so egregious so as to in no way be determined to be insurrection. For them to overrrule Colorado is super activist IMO is antithetical to just calling balls and strikes.

 

I’ll agree with where you started that it shouldn’t be vice versa, but I don’t follow the rest of your arguement. The Constitution is what it is. I think we can all agree that Congress then generally gets to further define what certain things mean, and SCOTUS gets to decide if what Congress enacts is in line with the intent of the Constitution. But when the Constitution doesn’t perfectly state its purpose (e.g., you can’t be President if you weren’t born here), there’s nothing to debate. Insurrection is not perfectly defined; thus, Congress has the authority to spell it out more specifically. There are criminal statutes that more succinctly define it (admittedly, I’m making an assumption on that point based on other posts, but I think the point is valid whether that is true or not).  When enacted, everybody knew exactly what it meant so they shortsightedly didn’t spell it out perfectly. Unfortunate, but I get it. We’d hopefully do it better now, but imagine if there was a Constitutional amendment tomorrow that said “anybody who participated in an attack to disrupt the certification of elections is barred from holding office” (or something along those lines), and a hundred years from now, a group of mouthbreathers attacked the Supreme Court building while they were hearing oral arguments on an election case. Would that count under the law I just hypothesized? 
 

Fuck it. I’m tired and don’t want to write anymore. I’m sure there’s obvious points/counterpoints in my argument that I skipped over because they seem obvious to me. I hate the orange POS, but I don’t think SCOTUS should affirm CO’s ruling as is. If in the next case they decide he’s immune, then we’re officially turbo fucked 

[Dnaguy 11538]

2 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I’ll agree with where you started that it shouldn’t be vice versa, but I don’t follow the rest of your arguement. The Constitution is what it is. I think we can all agree that Congress then generally gets to further define what certain things mean, and SCOTUS gets to decide if what Congress enacts is in line with the intent of the Constitution. But when the Constitution doesn’t perfectly state its purpose (e.g., you can’t be President if you weren’t born here), there’s nothing to debate. Insurrection is not perfectly defined; thus, Congress has the authority to spell it out more specifically. There are criminal statutes that more succinctly define it (admittedly, I’m making an assumption on that point based on other posts, but I think the point is valid whether that is true or not).  When enacted, everybody knew exactly what it meant so they shortsightedly didn’t spell it out perfectly. Unfortunate, but I get it. We’d hopefully do it better now, but imagine if there was a Constitutional amendment tomorrow that said “anybody who participated in an attack to disrupt the certification of elections is barred from holding office” (or something along those lines), and a hundred years from now, a group of mouthbreathers attacked the Supreme Court building while they were hearing oral arguments on an election case. Would that count under the law I just hypothesized? 
 

Fuck it. I’m tired and don’t want to write anymore. I’m sure there’s obvious points/counterpoints in my argument that I skipped over because they seem obvious to me. I hate the orange POS, but I don’t think SCOTUS should affirm CO’s ruling as is. If in the next case they decide he’s immune, then we’re officially turbo fucked 

If you take an originalist POV, the ambiguity is on purpose and must be perceived in a manner as to give it a WIDE latitidude.

That's why this is all Calvinball.

Alito, Thomas, K-dawg, ACB, J Robs, and G-money should all look at this in the frame of: "The writers of the 14th amendment had all the political will, latitude, and incentive to write this as they deemed fit. They could have been very, VERY, limited in their scope of what the 14th amendment should be. Should it be for those convicted? Should their be a very fine definition of 'insurrection'? Would one need to be found guilty in some sort of impeachment like trial?.

The answer to all of these is no.

The writers wrote:

"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."

Engaged in.

Not convicted of.

Not proven beyond a reasonable doubt of.

Hell, the 'given aid and comfort to the enemies' is so incredibly broad in its language that it shows just what they wanted IMO.

They didn't want or thought the union could withstand the odiousness of anyone who would not uphold the constitution. Hard stop.

And the idea that we'd allow someone who stoked a plot to storm the capital and try to stop the certification of an election AND (and here's the real damning part IMO) engaged in a plot to field illegitimate electors so as to install himself as president is something of an anathema of what the intent of the 14th is and WAS.

Any pedantic parsing that the justices pontificate is nothing short of vile, villainous, and vacillating.

It's a total microcosm of our times.

A time where statesmen are lacking.

There is no courage in our leadership.

OUr government is all cock and no balls because we're so far removed from a true existential struggle for what it is to be an American citizen.

My grandfathers who fought WW2 knew what this country stood for.

My parents and boomers who inherited a prize do not.

GenX could give a shit.

My millennial brethren are just bitter on the promise we were told that hasn't materialized.

And GenZ doesn't know if they should swipe left, care, make a TikTok about it, or play roulette on their last score b/c it might just have Fentylnol in it.

 

The answer is obvious, IMO, if we open our eyes to the reality / scope fo the problem.

We're so wrapped up, however, in our own deluding bullshit to see it or even more sadly ... to care.

[Satchel 6889]

To listen to Supreme Court Justices wring their hands about a state being allowed to potentially decide an election when the Supreme Court allowed a state to decide an election in Bush v. Gore is mind blowing.