this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
232 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19241 readers
2436 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The case turns on the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, which bars those who had taken an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” from holding office if they then “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cosmic_slate@dmv.social 34 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

Who's joining me in the betting pool for an (unfortunate) ruling of "only Congress can decide insurrections"?

I hate how uselessly vague the Constitution is. That "insurrection" needs to be defined and how there's no defined process to properly categorize these crimes is baffling.

At times it feels like the Constitution has as much care and thought put into it as a rushed English essay cranked out in the bathroom stall 15 mins before class.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 57 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You can't be clear enough when it comes to language when dealing with somebody interested in willful misinterpretation. That's the problem here.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's very concerning to me because at what point does one stop pretending to be governed by rules if one refuses to acknowledge the meaning of words?

At some point you're just making things up.

[–] bestagon@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

We’ve been making things up this whole time. The only reason any of this works is because we all agree it does

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 29 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The thing is, the 14th Amendment, Section 3 isn’t vague on this point:

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.

Look at the wording - it’s clearly intended to be an automatic disqualification. The only way you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that the Office of the President is exempt from this section is by jumping through frankly absurd and facile semantic hoops.

But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Pointedly, the only way Congress should be involved (per the relevant section) is in rescinding the disqualification.

But I’m sure the Tribunal of Six will be more than happy to just say “fuck you, we don’t care”. At which point… well, they’re only appointed for life, and they did somewhat recently vastly broaden the scope of the 2nd Amendment, and political violence is on the rise, so I wouldn’t be shocked if one or more people decided enough is enough and conducted a “citizen’s kinetic impeachment”, as it were.

Regardless of how things ultimately turn out, things are definitely 10/10 fucky, and I absolutely hate it.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Alright, I'll play devil's advocate:

Yes, you are correct in your description of what Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says, and what it should mean. However, there is no legal (as opposed to a dictionary or layman's) definitions on what "insurrection" or "rebellion" are, whether the events of January 6th meet either of those definitions, what the definition of "engaged" is, whether the actions Trump took (or didn't take) meet that definition, and (as you already pointed out) whether the President is considered "an officer under the United States."

Failing any one of those conditions means Trump wins:

  • SCOTUS could say that merely trying to stop Congress from counting votes instead of dismantling the entire system of government doesn't rise to the definition of "insurrection" or "rebellion."
  • SCOTUS could say that inciting your cult to attack Congress or failing to take action to stop them doesn't constitute "engaging."
  • SCOTUS could say that Colorado erred in its interpretation of the Presidency as an "Office."

As you said, this is facile and semantic, but the unfortunate truth is that our legal system absolutely runs on semantics. We are heading for a Bush v. Gore Redux, especially when you consider how many of the current SCOTUS justices had a hand in that decision.

(And no, Trump shouldn't be allowed to run because traitors usually aren't able to do much of anything.) (edit: had to fix this sentence.)

[–] cosmic_slate@dmv.social 2 points 11 months ago

This is what I was getting at.

  1. Insurrection or rebellion is not defined well
  2. Who actually makes the determination if someone is accused of insurrection or rebellion?

I don't like the possibility of this being leveraged against a Dem in a swing state because something like abortion advocacy got distorted into "rebellion" against future generations or something.

[–] macaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 11 months ago

And then there’s the historical folks squabbling about how you can’t change the constitution. The country changes but we’re all still working on late 1700s language, plus amendments.

[–] neptune@dmv.social 4 points 11 months ago

They never meant the document to last this long. It's literally written inside the Jefferson memorial.