So you seem to put a lot of weight on his physical presence. Why is it so important for him to physically be there? I'd say he did "lead the charge", just not physically. Because it's common practice in law to differentiate between active participation and authorship of a crime, between i...

if he personally led the charge together with that crowd against the congress, then broke through its defences, entered the chambers and put on some kind of substitution of election validation process, claiming Trump won. So you seem to put a lot of weight on his physical presence. Why is it so imp...

I'll unpack the question, maybe that helps you understand it and also why I'm asking it: Should there be a law on the basis of which Trump would be DQ'd from running for office? "Should there be a law ..." means do you think it would be best if there existed a law. Yet another way of putt...

I'll unpack the question, maybe that helps you understand it and also why I'm asking it: Should there be a law on the basis of which Trump would be DQ'd from running for office? "Should there be a law ..." means do you think it would be best if there existed a law. Yet another way of putti...

I'm asking if you think there should be. My god this isn't rocket science

You start your post with "no" and then contradict that in the rest of your post. I didn't characterize your opinion as "no laws should exist that bar people from running for office". Where exactly do you disagree with: There shouldn't be any law on the basis of which Trump would ...

Why should I substitute for the US legislative power and decree what electoral rights should a felon have, when they already have laws for this? Because I asked you to. It's a thought experiment. Also, you effectively said they don't have laws for this. You can interpret the law however you want, r...

Coincidence that they happened to disrupt the session where they validated election results, right? Of course, it's actually not a coincidence, and there's a lot of evidence to prove that this "protest" was in fact intended specifically to disrupt this session and prevent the election fro...

Do you think the excerpts from the constitution that I gave are evidence we can use to define the word "office" within the context of interpreting the constitution? And if not, why not? They're using the office term in two different contexts, in those passages you quoted: one when referri...

What of the passage in article 2 that I quoted, where the presidency is quite explicitly referred to as an office? And the example I gave about offices being put in direct contrast to representatives in the house(s)? Do you not consider them evidence towards the presidency being an office? Why not?...

This comes across as if you didn't read or didn't register what I wrote. Can you be more specific about where you disagree? And answer the question I asked? As far as I can see I explained why I think it's formulated this way. If I need to clarify something let me know. The argument was questioning...

You can, of course, because it's plainly included in that. If being president is not holding a civil office of the US, then what is? I'd really like an answer to that question. What do you think "office" means here? The reason that senators and congresspeople were mentioned separately see...

OK, my take is that it's a big omission not to specify that someone who participated in an insurrection can't run for the office of president. It's the most important position in the US political system, can't just have it subsumed under some generic category like public office. You can, of course,...

fightinfrenchman wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2023, 02:28

As this discussion was taking place this news broke, which will likely lead to another set of totally legitimate legally creative and politically motivated charges against Trump

[...]

FTFY

I haven't come across this argument in the opinion, maybe I skimmed over it. Do you mean it's been argued by a judge? Or just some people on the internet? Yeah, I've read some opinions written by lawyers that are not Trump fans, on the contrary, and they argued along similar lines, that this articl...

It's also been argued that this constitutional provision was strictly added back when they were dealing with confederates, then later it fell out of use, as they were pardonned. So reviving a constitutional article that originally was meant specifically for confederates to argue that it applies in ...

I expect silly arguments like that from Trump's attorneys, not from judges, especially in a case as important as this. You should lower your expectations across the board. Makes life easier Disagree. I think It would make life lonelier. Imo there's a good chance the lower court actually did it on p...

I expect silly arguments like that from Trump's attorneys, not from judges, especially in a case as important as this. Maybe the district court, which should be ashamed of itself regardless, thought it best to leave this matter up to the higher courts and used this as a kind of cop out argument. To ...

So apparently the district court argued it doesn't apply to the president because the presidency is not an office of the US. This to me just seems like an absolutely bonkers position. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any ...

It's not like red states couldn't get legally creative about reasons to ban Biden from featuring on ballots in their states. Why do you think this? They couldn't. Do you think this insurrection thing is some kind of gimmick dems came up with to disqualify Trump? It in fact happened and does and sho...

Ruling in favor of Trump would surely, surely lead to extreme tensions right? My expectation is that the SC will overrule this decision but also reject Trump's absolute immunity claim so the right will claim they are biased against him anyway This seems reasonable to expect. But if they reject Trum...

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 m...

Theoretically. Highly unlikely they would actually do that I'd say. They have already signalled they would. There was an X/Twitter screencap of a Republican account mentioning this possibilty of not running primaries and deciding the presidential candidate by caucus. Is that your entire basis for &...

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/19/us/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment.html?smid=nytcore-android-share If SCOTUS rules against Trump in this one it's actually over for him This ruling is for the primaries. Theoretically Republicans could just not run a primary in Colorado and ask that ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/19/us/p ... roid-share

If SCOTUS rules against Trump in this one it's actually over for him