As the Colorado Supreme Court wrote, January 6 meets the bar for insurrection ā€œunder any viable definitionā€ of the term. The legal scholar Mark Graber, who has closely studied the Fourteenth Amendmentā€™s history, argues that ā€œinsurrectionā€ should be understood broadlyā€”an act of organized resistance to government authority motivated by a ā€œpublic purpose.ā€ That certainly describes the Capitol riot, in which a violent mob attacked law enforcement and threatened members of Congress and the vice president in order to block the rightful counting of the electoral vote and illegally secure the victory of the losing candidate. The historical record also suggests that the amendmentā€™s requirement that a prospective officeholder must have ā€œengaged in insurrectionā€ should also be understood broadlyā€”meaning that Trumpā€™s speech on the Ellipse that morning and his encouragement of the rioters while they smashed their way through the Capitol more than fit the bill.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    161Ā·
    10 months ago

    Youā€™re incorrect. This isnā€™t ancient history. We have contemporary accounts of the Congressional debates regarding the 14th Amendment:

    ā€œThis is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present; and I should like to have that point definitely understood,ā€ Van Winkle said at the time.

    Itā€™s also worth noting that there was just a single reference in the Senate debate to the fact that the president and vice president were not explicitly mentioned in Howardā€™s draft as ā€œofficer(s) of the United States,ā€ the way members of Congress and state officials had been itemized in the text. Would the disqualification clause of the amendment not cover the top posts in the executive branch?

    ā€œWhy did you omit to exclude them?ā€ asked Maryland Democratic Sen. Reverdy Johnson.

    Maineā€™s Lot Morrill jumped in to clarify.

    ā€œLet me call the Senatorā€™s attention to the words ā€˜or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,ā€™ā€ Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/framers-14th-amendments-disqualification-clause-analysis/story?id=105996364

    EDIT: Looks like @syllogi is a fan of the trash trying to ruin our country.

    • Zagorath
      37Ā·
      10 months ago

      It looks like you think I agree with the District Courtā€™s decision. I donā€™t. In fact Iā€™ve explicitly said I donā€™t in another comment in this thread already.

      The notion that the president would not be an officer of the US is a complete farce. It also has nothing to do with the reason I think rule of law would involve not disqualifying Trump until after he is found guilty in his DoJ or Fulton County case, or possibly one of the other ones. Because that would be the finding that tells you, as a matter of law, he aided an insurrection.

      • Jaysyn@kbin.social
        101Ā·
        10 months ago

        I think rule of law would involve not disqualifying Trump until after he is found guilty in his DoJ or Fulton County case

        That didnā€™t have to happen to disqualify Confederates. The Fulton Co., case wouldnā€™t disqualify Trump, regardless.

        Never mind that there has already been separate findings of fact that Jan 6th was an insurrection & that Trump aided & abetted it.

        Rule of law would be following the Constitution.

        The actual language of the 14th Amendment is self-executing & some of the plainest language in the entire document.

        Congress must vote to remove the disability, not Congress must vote to remove the officer.