Trending Content
| +34 | ADHD ! | 19 | 7h | |
| +34 | Non-Competes Banned | 43 | 9h | |
| +30 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 4d | |
| +20 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 4d | |
| How do I become Sigma | 15 | 2d | ||
| +16 | Underage intern, drinking? | 7 | 4d | |
| +15 | Can someone justify why is million written mm or MM? | 14 | 6s | |
| +15 | Secretive vs Universal Prestige? | 8 | 3h | |
| +9 | Winning - The Hindsight Insight We Actually Need | 1 | 2d | |
| +9 | What does the richest self-made woman you know do for a living? | 8 | 2h |
Career Resources
Insanity. The constitution very clearly lays out what constitutes an insurrection is and how the 14th Amendment works. It explicitly doesn't include the President and they are resorting to a novel legal theory (e.g. throwing various interpretations at the wall and seeing what sticks) to try and twist it to apply here. No court has overseen a formal charge with evidence presented as to whether or not there was an insurrection. Congress put together a special oversight committee specifically to try and do so and it failed. What has happened thanks to 10s of 1000s of hours of video being released, contradicting the snippets MSM ran with for years now, is that many people who were arrested have been completely exonerated (after being held without trial for months, some in solitary confinement e.g. torture) when footage showed police literally waving groups of people in, opening the doors for them, and escorting them throughout the building.
A lower court in CO held a civil trial from the bench (no jury, no discovery, no evidence from the defense, and no semblance of cross examination) and the judge, appointed by a Democrat governor (who has stated he wants to see Trump taken down) proceeds to rule that Trump can't be removed from the ballot but just tosses on top a completely unsubstantiated verdict that he did engage in insurrection, opening the door for the higher appeals court to turn around and reverse the ballot ruling. To emphasize how insane this is - this is a State civil court making a ruling on something that happened in Washington DC with respect to the duly elected President at the time of the incident (how does a President insurrect a government he is the chief executive of?). This appeals court is making a highly politicized decision over a President and trying to apply law that has literally no model for them to apply, impacting the entire Federal election system in the process. It is a complete overstep of the separation of powers and Federalism. These State courts lack both the jurisdiction and the mechanisms to even try a case like this let alone make a ruling which subsequently effects the entire country. I have friends and family who are lifelong Democrats that are appalled by precedent this sets if allowed to stand. Only way this is resolved cleanly is if SCOTUS steps in and formally states that the CO courts have no jurisdiction and that their rulings are wholly without merit.
The past year and change has cumulatively been the most disgusting abuse of lawfare I have ever seen. Thank goodness we have unelected judges appointed by political adversaries getting to decide who the opposing party can and can't vote for in a primary election, sans any sort of guilty conviction. Truly "protecting democracy" in America.
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
If a President is not included in this paragraph, then a President can't be held accountable for contributing an insurrection, which does not make much sense
It makes perfect sense, you just don't / refuse to understand and accept it. The President is not included in that paragraph so as you said, he can't be held liable, chiefly because it's ontologically impossible for a President to insurrect a government they are the Chief Executive of. This language precedent is already established in prior SCOTUS rulings that the President is not an officer of the US, those are appointed by the President. He's obviously not a Representative or Senator in Congress either, so it is correct that this amendment does not apply to the President. It was written as part of Reconstruction and designed to prevent former Congressman, Senators, and other govt. officers that defected to the Confederacy from pursuing office after the Civil War - it could not be more illogical to try and apply that in this instance.
You're also assuming there was an insurrection. There wasn't. It was a bad riot, yes, but to compare that to the 100s of 1000s that died in a bloody civil was as though they're in any way equivalent is moronic. There's a reason only the media keeps the insurrection narrative going. Neither Congress nor a single DA has attempted to charge Trump with even inciting an insurrection, let alone engaging one, because there is no legal basis for that argument. The rioters weren't even armed and yet you want to argue they were going to overthrow the US govt. simply by standing in a building? Laughably silly take.
You have no authority on the definition insurrection or whether Trump engaged in one. The idea that an insurrection has to be of a certain size or effectiveness has no basis in the law at all. We know that there are liberal legal scholars who believe an insurrection occurred but there are also conservative legal scholars who share the same view. To take a totally dismissive position when legal authorities state the opposite view is absurd. At the very least you should acknowledge another point of view. According to you, there is only one view here and you have the correct view
I am perfectly willing to hear the point of view that he engaged in insurrection. Frist charge him, build a case, and present it. If that can't be done, then your opinion on this matter is meaningless because the fundamental basis of our law is innocent until proven guilty. It's nowhere within the purview of a civil court to state as a given that a defendant is guilty of a criminal act when a criminal court has made no such declaration.
The process of the law is being used as the punishment because they're either unwilling or unable to actually produce a case that has any teeth. And even if he did engage in insurrection, there is no mechanism in any Constitution, State or Federal, to charge a sitting President of anything outside of impeachment. Is that a flaw in the law? Perhaps, I would personally love to see Trump, Obama, Bush, and Clinton all rot in a cell for the various war crimes they've committed around the globe. But it's on Congress to actually pass an amendment that would make that possible in the first place, not some random judge in a State to actually interfere in an election by trying to bar the front-runner of a major party from being on the ballot.
You can read the extensive comments by Baude and Paulsen. Their focus is on whether or not an insurrection occurred and whether or not section 3 applies to the President
We are going to find out if the SCOTUS believes in states rights. They had conviction about states rights with their decision that over turned Rowe V. Wade. I have a feeling that the SCOTUS will use the federal supremacy clause and ignore states right in this case.
It's not a State's rights issue because States don't have this right in the first place. If a President committed a crime in DC, a random DA and judge in Colorado can't suddenly charge and find me guilty of that crime. It's neither in their jurisdiction to even bring the case in the first place (i.e. they have no standing) nor is it in their purview given a lower court cannot charge the sitting President with anything (he is literally immune from criminal prosecution). To pile on top of this, a civil court judge in Colorado can't just unilaterally state that someone is guilty of committing a crime if there has been no conviction to that fact, especially if there hasn't even been a trial nor evidence presented to support that statement of fact. You don't even need to be a lawyer to see how dumb this take is, it's basic understanding on par with law 101 courses you could take at a community college.
Voluptatem natus quasi beatae. Iure dolor id laudantium ullam quasi qui laboriosam ipsum. Et ipsum repellendus aperiam rem magnam voluptas. Et eos aspernatur facilis sequi nihil.
Recusandae in minima deserunt aliquam maiores. Suscipit ipsam voluptates ut est. Fuga veritatis ea ullam ab esse vitae. Vel et error et aut consequatur corporis amet. Et est minus corporis sunt eaque ipsa velit.
Consequatur explicabo occaecati iure molestias aut temporibus. Optio molestias enim asperiores sed corrupti minus. Maxime aut et dolorum voluptatem est quidem qui.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...