Personally I’m glad though slightly unnerved that it takes a conservative SCOTUS to protect democracy from people who are determined to destroy it and replace it with corporatism/fascism
Unfortunately, the conservative SCOTUS has shown itself to be quite willing to be inconsistent in service of conservative goals.
What is interesting is that it seems they may not challenge the insurrection allegation instead choosing to focus on whether or not the president is an officer. It’s almost like saying yeah he did engage an insurrection, but that part is irrelevant because the president is not an officer.
If the president is not an officer, who is??
What is interesting is that it seems they may not challenge the insurrection allegation instead choosing to focus on whether or not the president is an officer. It’s almost like saying yeah he did engage an insurrection, but that part is irrelevant because the president is not an officer.
Is not one who holds Office in the United States government an Officer of said United States? How is this even a question? (Yes, I realize the President is not explicitly mentioned in the 14th amendment—a really fucking stupid oversight, IMO.)
What is interesting is that it seems they may not challenge the insurrection allegation instead choosing to focus on whether or not the president is an officer. It’s almost like saying yeah he did engage an insurrection, but that part is irrelevant because the president is not an officer.
Yeah, I think most would agree with that. Just found it interesting they would try to address that without addressing the claim of insurrection.
can they even legally do that? A court in Colorado found that he did engage in insurrection. Can the Supreme overrule that conclusion? I don’t think so. I’m not sure why though but I think it’s some legal thing they can’t do.
Yeah, I think most would agree with that. Just found it interesting they would try to address that without addressing the claim of insurrection.
Right? It says it right there:
“No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States…”
An officer in this context is obviously meant to mean anyone one who holds ANY office under the United States. Hence the president is an officer that is bound by this rule. If the framers meant to exclude the President from this clause they would have said “no person, except the president, shall hold any office under the US.” That they didn’t means they intended that the president is included in this restriction.
Is not one who holds Office in the United States government an Officer of said United States? How is this even a question? (Yes, I realize the President is not explicitly mentioned in the 14th amendment—a really fucking stupid oversight, IMO.)
I just read this article, by Lawrence Lessig, no less, which disagrees. And I am finding myself to be somewhat swayed by his argument.
Right? It says it right there:
“No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States…”
An officer in this context is obviously meant to mean anyone one who holds ANY office under the United States. Hence the president is an officer that is bound by this rule. If the framers meant to exclude the President from this clause they would have said “no person, except the president, shall hold any office under the US.” That they didn’t means they intended that the president is included in this restriction.
I can see why. I just get hung up on the framers of the 14th then, if you buy his argument, they meant to exclude the president from the rule. By that logic a president can engage in insurrection and still be qualified to hold office. That just doesn’t make sense. Thanks a lot framers
I just read this article, by Lawrence Lessig, no less, which disagrees. And I am finding myself to be somewhat swayed by his argument.
Texans are now threatening to ban Biden from their ballots.
I get it. The whole thing sucks. The definitely not the son of an orangutan declared the election fraudulent (without evidence) and so therefore all this shit. Fuck everything. I’m so fucking done with humanity.
I can see why. I just get hung up on the framers of the 14th then, if you buy his argument, they meant to exclude the president from the rule. By that logic a president can engage in insurrection and still be qualified to hold office. That just doesn’t make sense. Thanks a lot framers
I understand the sentiment. The next year is going to be very interesting to say the least. This is a test and really if we fail and Trump is allowed to run, and wins, and takes office, it feels like it would be the end of our democratic republic. It will still continue sure but I feel it would be the end of the promise of this country, the end of many of its citizens faith in our Constitution and our government.
It will be a long end but it will be the first (or second) step towards our demise. This is the end game Putin imagined in 2016. Shaking the faith of US citizens in their country. And Trump helped him do it. And the GOP went right along with it in the furtherance of maintaining their power, no matter the damage to the nation.
For all of Gorsuchs flaws, this seems like something he’d be willing to do. I actually have a strong faith in his ability to flip on smth like this