- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution bans anyone who āengaged in insurrection or rebellion againstā the U.S. from holding office.
A Florida lawyer is suing Donald Trump in an attempt to disqualify his current run for president. Lawrence A. Caplanās Thursday lawsuit claims that the ex-presidentās involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot would make him ineligible to run again, thanks to the Constitutionās 14th Amendmentāa Civil War-era addition aimed at preventing those who āengaged in insurrection or rebellion againstā the U.S. from holding office. āNow given that the facts seem to be crystal clear that Trump was involved to some extent in the insurrection that took place on January 6th, the sole remaining question is whether American jurists who swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution upon their entry to the bench, will choose to follow the letter of the Constitution in this case,ā the lawsuit says, also citing Trumpās alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. Legal experts say itās an uphill battle to argue in court, since the amendment has hardly been exercised in modern history. āRealistically, itās not a Hail Mary, but itās just tossing the ball up and hoping it lands in the right place,ā Charles Zelden, a professor of history and legal studies at Nova Southeastern University, told the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
archive link to South Florida Sun Sentinel article: https://archive.ph/1BntD
i find this very strange. itās like theyāre saying no one really knows what the amendment means because it hasnāt been used in a while. iām not a lawyer, so my opinion doesnāt really mean much on this. i but i donāt see how itās that vague (although it is a little vague). i also donāt see why the legal strength of an amendment should depend so much on how often itās been used.
iām not saying theyāre wrong, i just donāt understand why itās like that.
Itās not obvious what it means to āengage in insurrectionā without case law defining what that means. What exactly does āinsurrectionā mean? What types of actions are required for this law to apply?
Itās much more of a gamble.
7 people were convicted already of seditious conspiracy, so either of the conspiracy charges connecting the former president with directing their actions would be pretty strong evidence.
Maybe. Thatās what the courts will need to decide. And without prior precedent supporting your argument itās not as strong as perhaps you think.
agreed - I think it needs a conviction to occur before anyone can argue this.
Except the conviction wonāt be for insurrection, but for some other related offense so heāll get away with it on this technicality.
The thing is, itās pretty clear to basically everyone else. Weāre supposee to have confidence in the people who interpret these things for us, but thatās pretty clearly gone too. Iām pretty frightened about where weāre headed because at some point people will get fed up that no one is getting real consequences and start handing them out themselves.
Well, itās clear to everyone who isnāt a Trumper, but you need to remember that the law doesnāt always follow āitās clear to everyone.ā Due to various reasons, that law can hinge on technicalities and tests. So while we might agree that Trump engaged in insurrection, proving that he engaged in insurrection in court would be more difficult. Not impossible, mind you, but more difficult. And depending on the judge and evidence, Trump could be found, via a technicality, to have not engaged in insurrection as far as the law goes.
I donāt disagree. I think the real problem us that weāre supposed to trust the impartiality of the people making those technical legal determinations. Itās become obvious thatās a total fiction.
This is just the way of the law and the justice system. Youāve got to prove it.
Is it? Are you sure?
Itās explained in great detail in the federalist papers.
āLittle more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equippedā
The thing that isnāt clear to everyone all at once is which people are getting away with heinous things with zero consequences. What is clear is that a certain level of society has no consequences. Eventually one side or the other will get fed up and things will get really bad. Whether theyāre going after the actual problems is another thing entirely, and the odds are probably better that theyāll be going after the wrong people.
Either way, I see the lack of consequences as the ultimate fuse in this powder keg. One of the main functions of government is to systematize and standardize consequences for unacceptable behavior, and we all agree to abide by rules we donāt necessarily agree to so that at least itās somewhat consistently applied. In theory. But if government refuses to even give the appearance of doing that, people will take it into their own hands. Human nature has been the way it is way longer than our oldest institutions.
thatās a good point and it helps me understand the problem a bit better. as someone outside the legal system though, it still seems like any sufficiently robust definition of insurrection should cover what he did on january 6th. but i guess having precise definitions is important in a legal setting and that problem still remains.
From what Iāve heard, the 14th amendment was written in a vague manner because the people passing it didnāt know what form a future insurrection would take. Would it be a full fledged Civil War Part 2? Would it be an uprising? Would it be a state government refusing to follow federal law and threatening to arrest anyone trying to enforce it?
Say they defined insurrection as ācitizens taking up arms against America,ā then many of the January 6th folks would be guilty, but would Trump? After all, he didnāt technically go down there with a weapon.
The vagueness keeps it open to any form of insurrection, but it also makes it hard to tell what counts as insurrection.
It doesnāt say convicted, it says āengaged inā and I believe it prevented former Confederates from taking office. So it seems like thereās a pretty big precedent backing it up.
And then there are other amendments like the 2nd Amendment with the puzzling and vague āwell-regulated militiaā language that never seems to be a problemā¦
Donāt ignore the fact that it was fought in the courts for decades to get where we are now.
Now we have an amendment that hasnāt been tested in the courts because no president has been enough of a corrupt, fascist, scumbag to require its use. So, itās going to have to go through the courts.
I only hope someone in every state brings a case.
Thatās my hope as well. All it takes is for Trump to be removed from the ballot in one or two swing states to have him lose the election.
(Just to be clear to the studio audience, Iām not in favor of āriggingā the system on a technicality so Republicans lose / Democrats win. This is a matter of keeping a criminal defendant insurrectionist and mis-handler of highly classified information out of perhaps the most powerful position in the world.)
For my part, Iām done trying to be civil with the opposition. They donāt want to play fair, they donāt want democracy to survive, and they want to see the people I care about die.
The Republican party exists today to burn the world down. They have to be destroyed or weāre all lost.
Because half the people actively ignore that bit- including many judges.
Part of it us the lack of caselawwhich is used fairly heavily for arguments in court
Itās hard to see how this guy, or any other individual, has standing to sue over this. To sue someone you have to be able to prove that you personally were harmed in some way. And broad āthis harms the electorate, and Iām part of the electorateā claims usually do not work.
Except when it comes time to strike down debt relief.
Yeah š
If that is the case, that is absolutely broken.