this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
55 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10181 readers
545 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mentioned in another comment but I think conviction should be the bar. During reconstruction, we bypassed due process on this because it obviously applied to anybody holding office in one of the seceding states. Now that we're in territory the amendment wasn't directly written for, it's appropriate to review the interpretation.
One of the arguments of the defense was that the specific wording of the amendment meant it didn't apply to the President. If we go with the specific wording of the amendment, we get pretty far from the intended effect of the amendment. The court agreed that the amendment applied to the president despite some discrepancies, but disagreed on whether due process would be violated by limiting the ballot.
I disagree. The language obviously applies to the president and that take you’re citing essentially says “yes the president can attempt a coup it’s fine” which is just nuts. If you want to move the bar to conviction you need an amendment.
The take is nuts. The amendment clearly applies to all state and federal politicians, judges, and beurocracts. It seems silly that it wouldn't apply to the highest position as well, even if a literal interpretation wouldn't include the president. The court agreed with that interpretation.
During the civil war, the president was Lincoln. Obviously he's not involved in insurrection. As a result, the amendment didn't clearly include the president. After the civil war, the government officials of the Confederacy was a matter of public record. So you obviously didn't require them all to stand trial before barring them from office. The amendment was written to keep confederate officials from regaining power. It was general enough to include any insurrection. Now we're in territory the amendment wasn't directly written for so it makes sense to interpret it with the original intent in mind. The standard for insurrection isn't clearly defined so the courts are exercising their ability to interpret it. If they didn't have this ability, any gun control legislation would require an amendment.
In all of the indictments Trump has received relating to the election, he hasn't been indicted for insurrection. Which tells me the prosecutors don't feel they can prove it in a criminal court. I believe even Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Rule of law should trump political ideals.
You're still not acknowledging the fact that the amendment doesn’t say if you’re convicted in a court of law, which we’ve seen is too slow anyway, it says if you engaged in insurrection. Which has nothing to do with being convicted especially when anyone that is reasonable can see the goal of J6 was to keep Trump in power. You cannot tolerate that behavior and keep a republic. I’m not saying to toss Trump in jail I’m just saying he shouldn’t be allowed to hold office because he clearly meets the standard set in the constitution by the voters.