We need to stop blaming the problems of the US on individuals, not Thomas, or the SC or any Senator, or even Trump.Â
There have been a dozen elections to change course, and voters have always consistently chosen for politicians who clearly have malicious intent either to punish the Democratic Party for perceived failures (such as recently on inflation) or because Republicans promise to address their 1 or 2 main issues.Â
It's voters who are destroying our country, the politicians we get from the Right are the result of how they vote.Â
The Democrats have played along too. Look how many of the leadership have supported Trump and how many of the average democrats excuse Trumpâs unlawful ascension to power. The Dems love the status quo more than the constitution or the people.
Trump and MAGA are to blame for starting the insurrection, the democratic leadership are to blame for intentionally aiding the insurrectionists after the fact.
The 14th amendment says that he is disqualified from holding office. Ever since his insurrection turned violent on J6, heâs been disqualified:
âNo 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.â
No agency needs to have accused him. Accusations are neither here nor there, as they are not mentioned in the amendment. Biden could have accused Trump, through a process of Biden conducting executive due process. Much as Lincoln moved to suppress the confederates after he conducted executive due process and found the confederates to be in a state of insurrection and subject to suppression.
Ok. If you cant tell Im not a legal scholar. But I dont see how Trump could be disqualified without being accused and found guilty. Im mean who has the legal authority to find that he commited this disqualifing act and then enforce the disqualification? Because if there is such a person or body that could find him disqualified, then Biden's term was the time for it to happen. I believe the supremes judged that he couldnt be removed from individual states ballots.
Are 25 year olds disqualified from running for president without being accused and found guilty?
Election officials have the authority to find that he engaged in insurrection and doesnât meet the qualifications for office, so canât lawfully appear in the ballot. Elections officials bar people from various ballots all the time. Itâs so normal it doesnât make the news. Elections officials like the Secretary of State of Maine, who ruled Trump was an insurrectionist and disqualified from the ballot.
Judges can also rule on the issue in civil court, and find that J6 was an insurrection, and that officials should be removed from office for participating. Just exactly as a judge ruled it was an insurrection and had Couy Griffin removed from office for his J6 involvement. Judges can also rule that Trump incited the J6 attack and that the attack was insurrection, as two courts did when they heard the case against Trump in Colorado. The state supreme court ruled he was disqualified from office as a result.
The only thing the Supreme Court did to throw a wrench in things, was that they invented a requirement that Congress had to approve legislation that enforced the disqualification, when the constitution requires no such thing. The amendment requires an act of Congress to remove the disqualification, not to enforce it. The executive branch can just enforce the disqualification.
Just as they can if the person isnât 35 years of age. Just as they can if the person isnât a natural born citizen, or a resident of the US for 14 years. Just as they can if the person has already been twice elected president. Just as they can if an official previously on oath to the constitution âshall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies [of the constitution].â
Ok. Thankyou for bearing with me. The age of an individual is pretty simple to prove, and is a required qualification. Now Im not arguing whether or not Trump commited insurrection, but proving someones age and proving insurrection seem like 2 completely different things. I can prove my childs age quite easily but diserning why my child struck their sibling can take a lot of questions between the two and still end up mystery. Anyways if Trump was obviously quilty and disqualified, why was he still permitted to run and win and assume office a second time. Was it simply becuase the supreme court decision? Did congress even vote?
Thanks for your comment about bearing with you. I appreciate it. You seem to be asking in good faith and so Iâm MORE than happy to explain it in good faith. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to do so. Most people are emotionally tied to the answer that lets them check out and cop out. Weâre in some bad times and itâs about to get a whole lot worse, and burying our heads in the sand wonât make it better. So I appreciate you asking and trying to figure it out. Now back to the show:
Trumpâs incitement of the insurrection is also pretty easy to prove. He did so publicly. Countless times. Like, a lot. A lot a lot.
Trump so publicly incited the attack, with claims of election and voter fraud, that he filed ~24 cases claiming it. He had NO EVIDENCE. None.
None.
So much so that case after case was tossed out. He knew he was lying. He knew he had no evidence. He did it anyway to rile up his base.
But the really telling cases are those that were heard. Iirc it was Michiganâs court that said they would normally dismiss the case for lack of evidence, but that the importance was so great that they decided to hear the case. Where they promptly ruled Trump had no evidence and was making baseless claims.
Evidence of Trumpâs involvement was abundant. The 14a clearly applied and multiple government officials/judges heard the merits of the issue and ruled Trump was an insurrectionist.
Trump was still allowed to run because, as I said from the tip, Biden was an incompetent and complicit traitor. Trump getting away with unlawful activity is not proof it was lawful activity.
It became an unlawful insurrection when it turned violent. He met the qualifications for office until J6.
But then, I can read the law objectively and let the Framers rule the issue through what they wrote and what legislative intent they gave us in the Congressional Record. Iâm not grinding an ax, Iâm going off objective facts of history and the law as written.
Itâs generally accepted as no, it is not insurrection if it is not violent, that would be just regular crime; but the definition doesnât specify it. But once there is violence, it is defined insurrection etc. The original dictionary gives an extended coronation of what it is and isnât, as compared to other, similar terms.
âINSURREC'TION, noun [Latin insurgo; in and surgo, to rise.] 1. A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.â From 1828.
Britannica has it as
âinsurrection, an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt.â
•
u/Yashema 4d ago
We need to stop blaming the problems of the US on individuals, not Thomas, or the SC or any Senator, or even Trump.Â
There have been a dozen elections to change course, and voters have always consistently chosen for politicians who clearly have malicious intent either to punish the Democratic Party for perceived failures (such as recently on inflation) or because Republicans promise to address their 1 or 2 main issues.Â
It's voters who are destroying our country, the politicians we get from the Right are the result of how they vote.Â