It relies on everyone agreeing that Trump’s actions equates to insurrection. So it’s assuming the conclusion.
He isn’t even being charged with the crime of “insurrection.” There are legal definitions of the term and he hasn’t met them, according to rhe Special Counsel at least. So it’s extremely hard to make the case that his actions in particular amount to disqualifying actions legally, for him.
There’s easy evidence that he shouldn’t be president, you just shouldn’t vote for him in the primary or the general, but the bar for saying he is currently legally barred from running is so high and the argument essentially assumes the conclusion. If you assume that yes he did commit insurrection, he is barred…but how does one say that is legally the case if he has not been found guilty of that in a court of law?
True. Remember this was originally written for congressmen and senators from the South who started the Civil War. They didn’t need to be convicted of treason, they did it openly. That’s why the amendment was written that way.
When you openly try to stop an election (not some secret spy “treason”), it should 100% apply. Just like former slaves didn’t need to go to court to be freed. The 13th Amendment (and the Emancipation Proclamation) just freed them.
As far as I’m concerned, he should be disqualified regardless. I’m actually afraid if he gets back in office, he will find a way to declare Marshall law and then subvert the constitution all together. Allowing him to become king of America. And making us all his subjects. I wouldn’t even put it past him to disband congress and scotus
Why is it weak?
It relies on everyone agreeing that Trump’s actions equates to insurrection. So it’s assuming the conclusion.
He isn’t even being charged with the crime of “insurrection.” There are legal definitions of the term and he hasn’t met them, according to rhe Special Counsel at least. So it’s extremely hard to make the case that his actions in particular amount to disqualifying actions legally, for him.
There’s easy evidence that he shouldn’t be president, you just shouldn’t vote for him in the primary or the general, but the bar for saying he is currently legally barred from running is so high and the argument essentially assumes the conclusion. If you assume that yes he did commit insurrection, he is barred…but how does one say that is legally the case if he has not been found guilty of that in a court of law?
His actions are covered under 14a s3 without a conviction based on this one part:
By refusing to call in the national guard, and then promising to give pardons to all who were convicted fall under that clause
True. Remember this was originally written for congressmen and senators from the South who started the Civil War. They didn’t need to be convicted of treason, they did it openly. That’s why the amendment was written that way.
When you openly try to stop an election (not some secret spy “treason”), it should 100% apply. Just like former slaves didn’t need to go to court to be freed. The 13th Amendment (and the Emancipation Proclamation) just freed them.
As far as I’m concerned, he should be disqualified regardless. I’m actually afraid if he gets back in office, he will find a way to declare Marshall law and then subvert the constitution all together. Allowing him to become king of America. And making us all his subjects. I wouldn’t even put it past him to disband congress and scotus
Under aid or comfort, he literally said we love you in a statement on TV… Lol