The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Trump Is Disqualified from Being on Any Election Ballots
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment bans anyone from holding any federal office who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and who then breaks that oath by engaging in "insurrection or rebellion against the same." Donald J. Trump is precisely such a person.
Trump took the Presidential oath of office at noon on January 20, 2017. Then, knowing that he had lost the 2020 election, he engaged in an "insurrection" on January 6, 2021.
Trump tried to persuade Vice President Mike Pence and Members of Congress not to count certain state electoral votes, which had been validly cast. He lied to the American people for years that the election had been stolen and continues to repeat those lies even to the present day.
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-enforcing. It is "the supreme Law of the Land" binding on each of the 50 State Secretaries of State and their subordinates who draw up primary or general election ballots.
State Secretaries of State and their subordinates may not list on their election ballots as candidates for President anyone who is not eligible to hold the office of President. To be eligible to hold the office of President, one must be: 1) a natural born Citizen; 2) thirty-five years or older; 3) a Resident of the United States for fourteen years; and 4) a person who has not broken their oath of office to support the Constitution by engaging "in insurrection or rebellion against the same."
No jury verdict is required to determine whether a candidate who seeks to run for the presidency on a primary or general election ballot is: a natural born citizen, who is 35 years of age, and fourteen years a resident of the United States. Likewise, no jury verdict or act of Congress is required to keep a Secretary of States and their subordinates from printing ballots with the name "Donald J. Trump" on them.
Keeping Trump off the ballot after his conduct on January 6, 2021 does not deprive him of life, liberty, or property in the same way that a criminal or a civil jury verdict could. It is a privilege to be eligible to run for President of the United States and that privilege does not extend to constitutional oath breakers who engage "in insurrection or rebellion against the same."
Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English defines "insurrection" as follows:
INSURREC'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.
Donald J. Trump in a nationally televised debate with President Biden refused to renounce the Proud Boys and said: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by." Trump then falsely denied that he had lost the 2020 presidential election, urged his followers to assemble at noon on January 6, 2021 on the Ellipse outside the White House, and he then whipped a mob of some extremists, and many naïve conservatives, into a frenzy urging them to march on the Capitol as Congress was certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump told his followers: "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," he said.
Trump then watched the riot that he had had launched play out on national television without sending a Tweet or any other kind of similar message urging his supporters to behave peacefully. He did this even though one Tweet from him would have caused the insurrection he incited to stop—immediately ending, for example, the calls "to hang Mike Pence."
This meets the constitutional definition of "insurrection" even though so far Trump has not been criminally charged with inciting an insurrection. Remember that an insurrection is: "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." The Fourteenth Amendment bans either inciting an insurrection or a rebellion. Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection, even if he may not have meant to cause a rebellion.
Some will no doubt say that the voters should be the judges of Trump's insurrection, but that it not what the Constitution says. The Constitution says that only Presidents who follow their oath of office, which includes taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, are eligible to be on the ballot and to run for re-election.
The Constitution is undemocratic in preventing non-Native born Americans who are under the age of 35 on January 20, 2025 from being on the ballot for President next year. But, we live in a constitutional republic, not an Athenian democracy of mob rule.
Chris Christie is legally injured by Donald Trump's name being on the ballot. They draw from some similar voters. Christie should sue, if necessary, to get Trump's name off the ballot. Then the Supreme Court can open the dictionary and tell us what we all already know—that Trump incited an insurrection and is disqualified from being on any primary or general election ballots next year.
UPDATE: For much more detail on these matters, see Will Baude's & Michael Stokes Paulsen's The Sweep and Force of Section Three, forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I’ll take “things that won’t happen” for $100, Alex.
I can think of little that would arouse the violent ire of Trump supporters more than his being kept off the ballot, regardless of how justified constitutionally that would be. After all, they didn’t care about the Constitution after the last election.
I could think of little that OUGHT to raise the ire of anyone who gives a damn about the legitimacy of our system of government than keeping a candidate with so much support as Trump off any ballot.
Given your idiot comment about Trump supporters supposedly not caring about the Constitution (as opposed to whom?) I think we can safely assume that the class of people who give a damn about the consent of the governed does not include you. And the realization that people like you had the power to both instigate and block proper investigation of the irregularities in the 2020 election largely justifies what Trump supporters did afterwards. No insurrection took place, but perhaps one ought to have and blocking Trump from the ballot would fully justify one.
You know who else had a lot of support but should have been kept off the ballot?
Try it and see what happens- The only insurrectionists on January 6 were Pence -Congress- DOJ, and the FBI. The problem with this country is there are too many attorneys, and about 75 % are evil and not held accountable for their actions. The Attorneys of this country want to make the law interpret the law, and enforce the law - Judge - Jury, and executioners. Where does the people's constitutional presidential choice fall into the equation? The attorneys in DC have implemented a two-tier legal system where they can pick and choose who will be THEIR choice, not the PEOPLES. Only to make sure they continue on with THEIR profiting and lawlessness off the back of our nation!
Another keyboard warrior threatening violence.
Is that a stock phrase you like to use? At no point in his writing did he in any sensical way threaten violence.
Am I threatening 'violence' right now?
Can you seem any more like a bot with pre-programmed responses?
Precisely my thought, over and over, as I've read numerous posts of his (hers?). It's all lazy, fingers-in-his-ears, "I know you are but what am I?" kind of banter that doesn't even reflect an actual point of view (even though he's clearly chosen "a side"). With a defender like Martinned, there's no point to being opposed. You're poking at sludge.
It is a rote response, but it is a response to another rote response 'Try it and see what happens' is empty and tiresome to read in and of itself.
'My side has been treated unfairly and soon will kill you' is like the song of the GOP these days. And it's lost a lot of it's spice; I don't see how you can be annoyed at the people saying shut up to that and not the commenters saying that in the first place.
Well, to be fair, I do. I am annoyed by stuff on my side all the time but don't engage, compared to doing so eagerly when it's the other side's yahoo being a yahoo.
You cannot simultaneously claim to defend the Constitution while throwing all-in with a huckster who tried to suspend it. It doesn't work that way any more than trying to punch a girl into falling in love with you.
You seem, to be implying that the Constitution is absolute.
Given the Democrats' obsession with gun grabbing and destroying free association so that your pet sexual deviants can have "civil rights," your pretending to care about the Constitution is funny.
Personally, I think "insurrection" is a stretch for what amounts to attempted but unsuccessful election fraud, IF even proven in court. In addition, our legal system routinely overlooks the context of our Constitution, the 14th was written with the Confederate rebels in mind.
The question is, what do you do about the successful election fraud the Ds committed?
Is the "insurrection" not an "insurrection" if it succeeds?
Out of curiosity what about Jan 6th would you consider fraudulent? What makes you feel that it does not rise to the level of insurrection as defined above?
This is quite ridiculous. I have another section of the 14th amendment for you. Section 5. Section 3 is not self executing. Congress has the authority to enforce Section 3 and President Trump has not been charged or convicted of an insurrection under the law, despite the feverish dreams of those suffering from TDS. (assuming the presidency is even with the scope of Section 3, which may not be the case). Actually quite shocked at this post. Rather embarrassing for a professor of law.
If the Capitol police had any semblance of competency and simply closed the doors to the building in the face of a group of unarmed cosplayers would anyone take this "insurrection" talk seriously?
Weren't the doors closed? I sort of remember seeing rioters use implements like police shields to break into the building. Am I imagining things?
I seem to remember the Capitol Police waving people in and even giving a few impromptu tours.
No one believes this anymore... if they ever did.
I think that some police let the rioters in at at least one entrance for fear of worse given that they were undermanned, but in general you're right - not that Currentsitguy's memory is that good...
In general Randal is generally wrong.
His "we don't believe our lying eyes, and NO ONE does" take on this is typical.
Both things happened, you know. The initial attackers busted in, then they hustled the barriers out of the way, and people who arrived later thought the Capitol was open.
Officers calmly posed for selfies and appeared to open gates for protesters during the madness of the Capitol building insurrection
"The US Capitol Police Force is under fire for the way it handled Wednesday's insurrection at Capitol Hill, as officers were filmed taking selfies with rioters and appearing to help them move back barricades and open doors. "
"Both things happened, you know."
Does he? Then he's a liar, so say so.
Correct. Most of the visitors were waved in by UNIFORMED Capitol Police.
"The initial attackers busted in, then they hustled the barriers out of the way"
Who were those initial attackers? Are they the ones that have been imprisoned without trial for 2-1/2 years, or are they the ones that have never been charged? I assume that's because they were provocateurs working for the government.
Only have video evidence of it. Not as good as...I guess info you're pulling out of your ass here.
I seem to remember the Capitol Police waving people in and even giving a few impromptu tours.
You don't have to remember it. There are thousands of hours of video--not all of which are locked away-- in which you can just SEE it happening.
Randal's right--there's no need to take it on faith and believe it--when you can watch the video and see that it's provably true.
No. The doors were never fully closed, instead the group manning them failed to even attempt to close them until after the first wave was already at the doorway.
To fully understand the utter failure of the Capitol police on J6 one must consider this: The Capitol building is a large primarily stone and masonry structure on top of a hill. In other words a fort. The Capitol police additionally had a series of metal barricades for establishing a perimeter. However, those barricades were incompetently positioned and lightly staffed, meaning that the first wave of protesters shoved them open like sets of saloon doors. Given the total lack of resistance by the officers manning the barricades, most protesters would not have even known that they were intended to create a buffer zone around the building, instead of merely directing traffic.
Then, as the true rioters approached the building itself they were allowed to “breach” the “defense” (both being generous uses of the words) before the police simply gave up and fled to side rooms, leaving the main hallways largely unmanned (or simply manned passively with a confused officer just kinda standing around). In select few of these side ways did officers stand their ground in any fashion (Ashley Babbit), mostly they just went into rooms and closed the door.
So how did this happen? Why was no one fired? How did a bunch of unarmed clowns sack a fortress it would have taken Sanata Anna’s army 100 years to overtake, when ostensibly it was being manned by an organized police force equipped with state of the art weaponry and riot control gear?
The head of the capitol police, among others, was fired.
Who claims that the FBI and DHS failed to provide him with intelligence information prior to J6 relating to the possible severity of the riot.
Watch the Tucker Carlson interview that Fox News suppressed
Insurrection? LOL. I've seen scarier citizen incivility (inside a government area) in the parking lot after a Philadelphia Eagles game.
I concur with your comment about the Eagles and further challenge you to find an active parking lot with more civility anywhere, really. Parking lots are rough. Don’t even get me started on roadways.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. Who thinks the Supreme Court would rule that Trump is prohibited from running for President due to Section 3?
It depends on where in the process it occurs. If it’s a question of Trump R or any D they’ll rule for Trump. If it’s a matter of Trump or some other acceptable GOP getting the nomination, Trump’s toast. Sorry I have such a low opinion of the majority of the Court, but that’s on them.
Now, who has standing to take it to court?
The Justices who were in the Dobbs majority would vote for Trump being able to run. As for standing, I'm thinking of the Democratic Presidential nominee.
What's the Dem nominee's injury?
Good question. There is no right to be President. Injury would be nigh impossible to demonstrate.
Trump has standing if he is ever kept off a ballot.
No, no... the Constitution means what Supreme Lord Justice Calabresi says it means. Who are these pretenders in robes to tell him that he's wrong?
It's very clear that every Secretary of State in each state in the country has the unfettered authority to decree that a candidate is ineligible for the crime of insurrection. I'm sure that the SoS in ten states will look forward to decreeing that Joe Biden's uninvited touching of the hair of minors is an "insurrection" that cannot be tolerated. And, of course, because the 14th Amendment is "self executing" and their judgment shall not be questioned, it shall be so!
All it takes is the SOS in PA and MI.
And you'd have a shooting civil war..
Right you are. This would be a horrible thing to do. Trump's actions as a president if he is elected in 2024 are not as great a threat to our nation as the actions his opponents are taking to prevent him from running, from being elected, and from acting as president.
This is a case of "we have to destroy the country in order to save it."
No. Like the rest of the constitution, it means what it means. Not what anyone says it means. There are times when a particular actor's orders must be respected whether or not they are based on the correct understanding of the law. But this does no violence to the law itself.
Courts decide cases between specific parties - they exist to give orders; opinions are just an explanation of why they decided as they did. The pope has his magisterium, but SCOTUS has no such prerogative. Not everything can even get into court, and thus they may not be the ones to decide.
Section 3 was last treated as self executing for a few years after the Civil war. It is not irrelevant that the people being disqualified were the beaten down and utterly defeated losers of that war.
It is mind bogglingly dangerous to our civic peace to treat any significant faction of society in that way under normal circumstances. Convict him in a criminal trial of the relevant offenses, or drop it, if you don't want a civil war, or if we're lucky, just something like the Iris Troubles.
Not to mention the claim of "insurrection" is so weak, it could be applied to Biden for not sufficiently acting to stop BLM riots. Or for his policies that lose Supreme Court cases.
Sometimes, you see professionals like this guy who show up and remind everyone that lawyers are just normal people with a restricted job, and that they are just as likely to be smart or dumb as any plumber or road worker.
The BLM riots happened on Trump's watch, Toranth.
Not all of them, no.
That's weak pedantry, Brett.
"You were just right, that doesn't mean anything!"
Yes that is indeed what pedantry means.
As is calling 1/6 an insurrection.
Just sayin'.
How is that pedantry? It's pretty important whether it's an insurrection or not, and it's not really some technical edge case either.
It was not one.
To refer to it as one stretches the definition of insurrection to utter meaninglessness.
So not pedantry, you just wanted to stamp your foot and say no.
They made zero attempt to take over the government. Kind of a key component of, you know, an insurrection.
If you want to go ahead and define insurrection down to "Event I did not much care for", knock yourself out. Do not whine when others do not play along.
They made zero attempt to take over the government. Kind of a key component of, you know, an insurrection.
Except for all the proof they planned to take over the government via their social media. Oh, and their actions. And what Trump asked them to do. And the powerpoint from the Trump people on what to do, and how the mob would pressure Pence, in his official capacity acting for the government.
In this, and a number of other posts, you declare things that are shockingly wrong.
You seem to not know what's happened in the real world for quite some time. You just kinda post what you want to have happened.
Ah, Sarcastro trying to do away with that pesky First Amendment thing.
If I say I'm going to rob a bank, yet I do not do so nor try to do so --- was a crime committed?
You plan to do a crime, that can go to intent when you do a crime.
They're not charged with spicey social media posts, but that is evidence of what they tried to do. And it was try and overthrow the government.
Sarcastro is demonstrating "shockingly wrong" as usual. Notice that even the government prosecutors are not charging anyone with trying to take over or overthrow the government, or planning to do so, or any of the other things you are trying to claim they did.
There was a 'conspiracy' to "obstruct an official proceeding" - the exact same thing that the Women's March did multiple times during the Kavanaugh hearings. Less, even, than the #DisruptJ20 'movement'. Sane people don't call those insurrection - do you?
It was an attempt to change control over the government by force. That doesn't sound like a stretched definition at all.
Oh?
Exactly who did exactly what, that would change control of the government by exactly what force?
There was a powerpoint, Toranth. You can look up the Trump people's shitty plan to overturn the election.
And they were supported by insurrectionist Democrats posting bail for murderers, looters, and arsonists.
"Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" in Seattle was an explicit insurrection: taking over government buildings, establishing their own rule, barring the borders of the zone from rightful law enforcement and government.
Where are the treason trials?
Did Trump encourage, participate in, or assist the BLM riots in any way?
No. Some lawyers are politicians smart enought and determined enough to rub an acorn and produce a spruce tree.
"Sometimes, you see professionals like this guy who show up and remind everyone that lawyers are just normal people with a restricted job, and that they are just as likely to be smart or dumb as any plumber or road worker."
Amazingly put
you are conflating the BLM riots with January 6th? Both groups are wrong but they are not equivalent events. While asinine I am not aware that the BLM riots attempted to disrupt any legal precedings much less prevent the results of an election from being counted.
No, instead they just tried to burn down a Federal court house, secede from the US, and attack the White House causing the president to be placed in the bunker.
And the Congress has had 150 years to repeal it.
Funny how all these conservatives insist on original intent or text, etc. but the moment this leads to adverse consequences, they never even heard of Queeg.
The point is that the only time they ever treated it as self executing was when the people being disqualified under it were utterly helpless and powerless.
Later, the only case where Section 3 was applied outside the immediate aftermath of the Civil war, was Victor Berger. Berger was a Socialist who’d been convicted of espionage.
He was allowed on the ballot. Disqualification from the ballot was NOT treated as self-executing.
Votes for him were counted. Again, no self-execution.
He won, but Congress refused to seat him.
Then his conviction got overturned, and what happened? Yeah, Congress relented and seated him.
THAT is how Section 3 was handled when you hadn’t just had a civil war, and were dealing with a crushed enemy.
Berger ran for office while under indictment. He was convicted after the election (February 20, 1919). It was eventually overturned on appeal, but after the conviction, Congress found him disqualified.
It's a single instance & the long article covers it. It doesn't provide a compelling case one way or the other.
The provision was applied for years after the Civil War. States today have laws that set forth qualifications to be on the ballot. A person 25 can't run for president and so on. The 14A sets forth one such qualification.
"It is not irrelevant that the people being disqualified were the beaten down and utterly defeated losers of that war."
Okay. So it's "not irrelevant." Whatever that means.
"It is mind bogglingly dangerous to our civic peace to treat any significant faction of society in that way under normal circumstances."
Okay. That isn't happening here. For instance, the people are not being denied representation in Congress until they meet certain conditions. Federal military troops aren't occupying the states. Military governors aren't standing in until new official state legislatures are established. And so forth.
"Convict him in a criminal trial of the relevant offenses, or drop it, if you don’t want a civil war, or if we’re lucky, just something like the Iris Troubles."
Why would states (not the federal government, states) determine he was disqualified be so horrible? If anything it would seem a softer landing than prosecuting him of federal crimes.
You have three conservative Federalist Society types here providing originalist arguments that a provision of the Constitution applies to him. It is a tad troubling that you fear civil insurrection if the Constitution is enforced. What other provisions of the Constitution should we ignored out of fear of public unrest?
"Federal military troops aren’t occupying the states. Military governors aren’t standing in until new official state legislatures are established. And so forth."
That's my point! How the hell does anyone think they'd get away with this under today's circumstances, where the faction being denied their candidate ISN'T under federal occupation? You can get away with obnoxious crap like that when the people you're doing it to are defeated, subject to military trial if they resist.
You can't get away with doing as he proposes during normal times, if you want them to STAY normal times. He's casually discussing what amounts to a political casus belli!
"You have three conservative Federalist Society types here"
Who dislike Trump enough that they don't care if they bring the country down in flaming ruins if that's what it takes to be rid of him.
Watching people who bray about freedom and democracy defending the guy who tried to overthrow an election has such a 'I'm not a Nazi but I'm going to take their side because you're being mean to them' vibe.
Then why wasn't Trump charged with insurrection or rebellion? An oversight?
Because they can't come anywhere near proving it by normal legal standards, that's why.
I could easily argue that Cuntala aided and abetted insurrectioniusts by raising bail money for them.
I will not argue this, because unlike Steven Calabresi, I am honest.
I could argue that insurrection encompasses aiding and abetting those who commit insurrection, which includes paying or soliciting bail for the accused insurrections who destroyed property and attacked people in Portland, Kenosha, Minneapolis, and the White House.
I could argue that this means Cuntala is disqualified, for she did raise bail money for these so-called insurrectionists.
I will not argue this, because unlike Steven Calabresi, I am honest.
Funnily enough, the DOJ hasn't seen fit to charge anyone with insurrection.
You'd think that for all of the insurrection-y talk of Trump under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment, you'd think that someone would have committed an insurrection.
Obviously Trump is evil and guilty, and we don't need to worry about totalitarian narrative control, because the government loves us.
/Sarc
The extended article (over 100 pages) by two Federalist Society conservatives explains the meaning of “insurrection” in some detail and it covers what Trump has been indicted for.
(It also is to be noted that the provision has a lower standard of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt as decided by a unanimous jury. It can be applied in a civil proceeding. One more reason in such and such a case a lesser wrong would be charged.)
The extended article (over 100 pages) by two Federalist Society conservatives explains the meaning of “insurrection” in some detail and it covers what Trump has been indicted for.
No, it doesn't.
It starts with a conclusion and works it backwards as a justification.
You haven't read it, of courss. Just disagreeing with it is enough for a blind idiot god such as yourself to declare it biased and bad.
Sarcastro attacking someone for not reading an article is truly amusing.
Any article that dismisses as "not clear" the inconvenient Supreme Court rulings opposing their theory, just so they can proceed as if it didn't exist, isn't exactly persuasive.
I mean, they base everything on the idea that insurrection is "concerted, forcible resistance to the authority of government to execute the laws in at least some significant respect" - a definition so broad as to sweep up all the BLM protesters, and anyone that encouraged them or failed to call on them to stop. That includes Biden, much of Congress, huge swathes of government employees - and tens of millions of other people.
Azathoth (the blind idiot god of Lovecraft) has not read the paper, he just wanted to declare it bad.
And you seem pretty bad with definition, since your quote doesn’t encompass failing to tell people to stop at all. And yet you push on, heedless to the moronitude, posting from a realm where emotion has been confused with logic.
Wow, another TDS-addled shithead with an inane, cockamamie legal "theory".
Here is how I know that Trump did not commit insurrection.
My longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, never said or wrote that Trump was guilty of insurrection, not even after that riot, so if course Trump is not guilty of insurrection.
That argument has a solider basis in precedent than what this professor just posted.
Some ideas are just so stupid that it takes a law professor to actually write it.
I will share this on Jack Marshall's Ethics Alarms open thread tomorrow.
I will take Alan Dershowitz over Professor Calabresi. Dersh says Trump is not guilty of insurrection based on the evidence currently available.
Golly, I hope no future U.S. Attorney disagrees with your constitutional interpretation, because under the Jack Smith precedent of criminalizing disagreement with the Regime, you may be susceptible to an indictment for a conspiracy against rights.
I give Calabresi credit for not engaging in the usual Orwellian "to preserve democracy, we must deny the people the ability to vote for Trump," essentially acknowledging our debased oligarchy's fear and contempt of the vox populi.
One of the worst VC posts ever. And that's really saying something, since Ilya Somin posts his nonsense here all the time.
I'm just tired of this BS. Trump didn't mount an insurrection or a rebellion. Anyone who seriously makes this argument is an absolute moron.
I'm logging out and I'm probably removing Volokh Conspiracy from my RSS Reader. I want real, serious legal analysis, not this partisan eyewash.
Yes, I hate this left-wing partisan nonsense coming from *checks notes* the co-founder of the Federalist Society.
Along, of course, with noted left-wingers Will Baude (from the VC) and Michael Stokes Paulsen (who I believe has guest-blogged here).
Benedict Arnold was one of the better military leaders during the Revolution.
I guess he was a hero to the end...
Rofl
Indeed.
That was a great point!
Well, his one leg was anyway.
If you make arguments that support left wing actions and further left wing goals, you can call yourself whatever you want, your actions reveal you to others for what you actually ARE.
It does depend on the nature of the arguments.
In this case though, the arguments involve creative interpretations of the law.
As though you've read the paper and made a decision.
Ya'll are intellectually lazy partisans gatekeeping scholarship whose outcome you don't like. Basically the usual authoritarian posture.
Claiming that opposing an attempt to violently seize control of the government is a "left-wing goal" is kind of telling on yourself.
Well, that's certainly A take.
Maybe the Volokh Conspiracy will next post an article from the Institute for Historical Review debunking the Holocaust!
Or an article claiming the Rape of Nanking was merely a consensual orgy.
A third rate riot does not an insurrection make.
It does when its aim is to overthrow the government.
Like the May 29th riot at the White House?
Hey, this counts as progress. The deplorables aren't pretending it didn't happen at all now, at least.
They were not armed. How were they going to overthrow the government???
No, voting for Barack the gay Muslim Obama was attempting to overthrow America.
Imagine believing that thousands of conservatives attempted to overthrow the government and somehow every single one of them forgot their firearms. A simply stunning take.
Cowardice. They wanted to overthrow the election and maybe hang a few poiticians without risking their lives in an actual firefight.
But really who cares? They tried to overthrow the election they way they did, not some other way.
"All of my political opponents, to a man, are cowards"
Lol, lmao.
“All my political opponents, to a man, are pure and noble and right about everything.”
Wow, Kleppe, what a nice thing to say! Shucks!
There's plenty of social media posts on their plans, Kleppe.
So the numerous death threats on social media should lead to mass executions?
You REALLY want to go down that route?
Because the earliest people doing it should be the ones executed first. Bush was not liked online much...
'should lead to mass executions?'
That escalated quickly.
I'm not the one advocating using social media posts for criminal prosecution.
That'd be Sarcastro.
Why could they not use the defendant’s own words as evidence? Not even in the legal sense, just as indication of who they are and what they wanted? Is that not allowed? Is that what the new free speech is, other people are obliged to not take someone’s words as being an expression of what the person wants or intends?
So, again, death threats should lead to, bare minimum, imprisonment for attempted murder, right?
Saying something and doing something --- not the same thing. You do not seem to think about what your ideas will lead to.
Death threats should lead to whatever the criminal charge for making death threats is. I’m sorry to break it to you but it is a crime to make death threats. I realise that a lot of things that are crimes have to *stop* being crimes in the cases of Trump and his supporters, but that’ll only actually happen if Trump manages to take power again.
Do you realize how many Leftists would be in jail for the constant death threats he received?
Anyone who makes death threats against the president is risking jail time. I can't put a figure on it, no.
Significantly higher than Biden.
And Trump managed to not have his personal gestapo murder a guy who posted mean things online but was basically immobile.
Really? Show your work.
Expect to see you at the next BLM protest over this outrageous extra-judical killing by law enforcement agents.
BLM rioters tended to not get punished. More than a few got "monetary settlements" with quite sympathetic cities.
Sounds rough for them. Able to burn down cities and kill people AND get paid.
Democrats have a long history of supporting violent mobs. From the Klan to antifa, the tactic has not changed.
BLM rioters tended to not get punished. More than a few got “monetary settlements” with quite sympathetic cities.
You just...believe things, eh? Truth or evidence is really quite optional when it comes to stuff you post as fact.
NYC for one gave $10,000 each to multiple of them.
But, yup, never happened.
They've received about $80M in total from cities in settlements. These cities: New York, Philadelphia, Denver, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Oakland, Milwaukee, Kansas City and Portland all made generous settlements.
Hmm, seems all of them are quite supportive of Democrats. Every last one of them.
You're wandering off into the further reaches of right-wing fantasy.
If this story stays in the fake MAGA news cycle another day, the guy is going to become a pacifist, quadriplegic monk who had nothing in his house more dangerous than a crayon, and who spent his days posting pictures of puppies and kittens on Facebook.
Like the guy the FBI just killed?
"I’m not the one advocating using social media posts for criminal prosecution."
Social media posts are germane to a criminal prosecution in the same manner as other statements of the accused. They are non-hearsay when offered against the author of the posts according to Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2). They may make the existence or non-existence of a culpable mental state more or less likely; if so they are relevant under Rule 401.
If properly authenticated, the posts should be admissible against the accused.
Well, not this accused!
An insurrection requires certain things to happen. Communications must be shut down or captured, key buildings seized, transportation links in and out of town cut. It's a lot more than breaking into a building.
Let's give them another go at it so, just to be fair.
I love the belief that it both only requires walking in a building to conquer America AND that it is impossible without jets and missiles.
I love the idea that they should be allowed to practice as long as they like until they get the hang of it.
They had jets and missiles?
How does "walking around a building" equal "practicing an insurrection"?
You’re setting a lot of arbitrary boundaries about what an insurrection isn’t, and they’re all conditional on whatever you claim did or didn’t happen on Jan 6th. Saying ‘walking around a building’ over and over again isn’t going to let any of them out of jail or Trump off the hook, it just makes you an apologist for an effort to overturn an election and giving the people who were set to benefit from it another chance to do it all over again, Big Lie, insurrection, fraud, conspiracy and all.
"You’re setting a lot of arbitrary boundaries about what an insurrection isn’t, and they’re all conditional on whatever you claim did or didn’t happen on Jan 6th."
How was 5/29 NOT an insurrection?
How was the attempt to stop the swearing in of Kavanaugh NOT an insurrection?
You're the one with qualifications that seem to consist solely of "well, they supported Trump".
I do not think ANY of them were insurrections. You do not think the same. Why not?
"Saying ‘walking around a building’ over and over again isn’t going to let any of them out of jail or Trump off the hook, it just makes you an apologist for an effort to overturn an election."
Well, in a legit criminal justice system, stating facts would do so. Under Biden and his sycophant Garland...maybe not.
I bet when the roles get reversed, you will not complain.
How was this other thing not an other thing because it was an other thing? Fucking hell have some self respect.
'stating facts'
Well, your honour, look, they're in a building, and they're walking! Facts! I move for a mistrial! Ignore anything that shows anything else, that's what a legit justice system would do!
Thanks for promising fascism just because some criminals got put in jail and the guy who tried to have an election overturned is facing consequences! Not unexpected!
Do you REALLY want to compare the 5/29 riot with 1/6? Seriously? 5/29 led to the President being sent to a bunker (much to the amusement of the Left and media). They destroyed Secret Service outpost and injured dramatically more people than were injured on 1/6.
As an aside, Trump would have been better not trying to extinguish the fire at the church across the street.
And the mob was trying to prevent Kavanaugh from even being sworn in, which is a serious government issue. That is OK, though, because you did not mind THAT.
No, YOU really want to compare them, because you’re trying to excuse an effort to overturn an election and it’s not going well.
5/29 was an attempt to attack the WH and kill Trump. The Secret Service was concerned enough to send him to the bunker.
1/6 was a mostly peaceful protest with a few assholes mixed in.
No, it wasn't. Nobody got charged with assault, for example. Unlike Jan 6th. Plus they were protesting against an appointment to the Supreme Court, as opposed to trying to overturn an election.
Well, clearly, 1/6 had to be way more violent than 5/29 since nobody was charged for 5/29. Obviously. WAY more peaceful, in spite of the fires, dozens of law enforcement injuries, etc.
Wow, using this logic, the KKK never did anything wrong in the Democrat South, given the utter lack of any convictions of them. They were just misunderstood in Nige's world.
Do you realize how idiotic you come across?
I know exactly how idiotic I'm coming across because I can see how much straining and effort and sheer dumb randmoness you have to exercise in an effort to make it seem like I'm being idiotic.
The number of assault charges are usually a good indication of levels of violence, yes.
According to you, the KKK were just walking around giving away free ropes to black people.
"I know exactly how idiotic I’m coming across"
Really don't think you do, sparkles.
"The number of assault charges are usually a good indication of levels of violence, yes.
According to you, the KKK were just walking around giving away free ropes to black people."
That you fail to see the contradiction here is just so priceless.
At this point we've established that you're working off an alternate version of Jan 6th to the one that actually happened, why not an alternate version of the KKK?
I'm not excusing things, but words mean things. In this case it is the misuse of words in an attempt to create something that didn't happen for political gain.
You want to know what an insurrection looks like? Take a look at Niger about a week and a half ago.
Are parades just practicing to walk the streets and oppress people?
Is skydiving practice for parachuting behind enemy lines to murder people?
Are video games REALLY just murder simulators?
Are pets really dinosaurs?
Are cars really Transformers?
Is typing comments just putting words on the internet?
You're the one deciding to label "walking around" as "practicing an insurrection".
I agree it sounds moronic and idiotic. Look who originated it? It's that dork in the mirror in front of you.
No, you’re the one who decided that an attempted insurrection was just ‘walking around.’ Because at some point they were ‘walking around.’ Well, that’s airtight!
You think I originated the idea that Jan 6th was an attempted insurrection? Me? All on my ownsome? Just today? In a comment? A comment so powerful it went back in time and re-shaped attitudes to the events on Jan 6th so it was rewritten not as a bunch of people walking around by a riot that got people thrown in jail for threats, violence, trespass, obstruction?
THE POWER!
It was walking around. It was not an insurrection, no matter how much you pray and wish it was.
All those poor rioters that got charges with 'walking around.'
An insurrection doesn't require those specific things, but claiming Jan. 6 was an insurrection is still clearly a braindead take.
It was very obvious that Mr. Trump's plan was to stop vote certification until he could adjudicate his legal claims (even if they were weak and baseless). He clearly called on his supporters to make their voices heard in a peaceful manner as they went to go yell at their congressman to vote in favor of holding off vote certification. This falls squarely within the 1A right to petition. Even if you believe Trump's legal strategy for contesting the election was constitutionally flawed/baseless/asinine/enter-adjective, it could have been resolved in civil court.
The best argument for claiming it was an insurrection is that some people were talking violence online (as people are want to do) and we are to believe Mr. Trump knew of these threats and could discern that they were so credible as to require him to abandon his legal plans.
Nevertheless, these arguments might work in a DC federal court (where the case is being made), but I have my doubts about where it'll stand on appeal. Best case scenario for Trump is probably that he successfully appeals to have a BS insurrection charge thrown out, but by then it'll have been too late cause the charge will have done enough reputational damage to sink his reelection chances.
Donald Trump is not charged with insurrection, hence there is no insurrection charge to be thrown out.
He is charged with violating three distinct conspiracy statutes and with attempting to corruptly obstruct and impede an official proceeding of Congress.
There is no way in hell ANYONE in that crowd intended to overthrow the government. And by NO MEANS was Trump trying to do that. I’ve always thought the left was emotional, but if you really believe this, you’re flat-out nuts.
It does when its aim is to overthrow the government.
Except that, on January 6, the protesters were advocating for protecting the legitimate government, the sitting president and stopping the insurrection that was being ratified by the VP
They failed and the J6 insurrection took place, with an unelected criminal being certified as president on the basis of electoral votes allotted by ballots that could not be verified in enough instances to actually certify ANY clear winner.
We currently live under an illegal government, endlessly trying to pass laws to forbid their coup from being questioned.
'and stopping the insurrection that was being ratified by the VP'
The whole 'it wasn't an insurrection' mostly has this as an underlying premise.
No jury verdict is required to determine whether a candidate who seeks to run for the presidency on a primary or general election ballot is: a natural born citizen, who is 35 years of age, and fourteen years a resident of the United States. Likewise, no jury verdict or act of Congress is required to keep a Secretary of States and their subordinates from printing ballots with the name "Donald J. Trump" on them.
Plenty of people sued claiming Obama wasn't a natural born citizen, though I don't think any went to the point of a court making a pronouncement on his citizenship.
Either way, whether a person engaged in insurrection isn't a fact like citizen ship or age, it's a state of criminal wrongdoing. I don't think it matters whether or not he could be deprived of life, liberty, or property*. The US constitution includes a presumption of innocence that can only be dismissed by a court issuing a guilty verdict. So for the fact he is an insurrectionist to be established he must be found guilty of insurrection.
* Going by US civil asset forfeiture rules if he does win the Presidency some suspicious cop might simply pull him over and confiscate the Presidency.
The authors of the 14th amendment knew how to say the words "convicted of." If they had meant only to disqualify those convicted of insurrection, they'd have said so. Which would have been odd, because in that case that provision of the 14th amendment wouldn't have applied to anyone — not even the people that even Brett Bellmore concedes it was obviously meant to apply to, the Southern traitors.
So it follows that any ballot clerk can determine that someone is or is not qualified to be president?
For instance, a clerk could have decided that Obama did not qualify because he was not a natural born citizen?
The position taken here will lead to electoral chaos.
Local boards of election make qualification determinations all the time.
Right. Why is "He's not a citizen" something they can't decide, but "He only has 14,750 valid signatures and 15,000 are needed" something they can? And if they make incorrect or unreasonable decisions, there's a judicial remedy.
Because one is within their area of expertise and is easily verifiable. Other issues require a factual and legal inquiry.
Do you think it's a simple legal and factual matter as to whether Donald Trump participated in an "insurrection?" Do you think that such can be determined by simply reading the newspaper or internet? No, it isn't, and a ballot clerk has no means nor expertise to determine that question.
That may be a practical difference, but it's not a legal one.
(Also: yes, I think it's a simple legal and factual matter as to whether Donald Trump participated in an insurrection.)
Authors of the 14th amendment did not put "fair trial" in the due process clause; so, you can't say due process requires a fair trial. After all, they knew how to say the words "fair trial."
Under the law, then as now, one is innocent until convcted. It is not necessary to spell it out, though apparently it would have been helpful for those who fail to recognize the concept of de jure innocence until conviction is a fait accompli.
Good point, though it sounds like to actually enforce it a federal prosecutor needed to go before a judge.
I feel like it was more a practical thing where part of the country had been part of the insurrection/rebellion, but they wanted it as a fact not a conviction since you don't want to create a criminal record for entire states.
Today is August 10th, 2023, Not April 1st.
The Author’s expertise is “constitutional law” ? … Oh ! At the Pritzker School of Law !
You could compare Northwestern Univ School of Law to say.... a southern Texas law school in Houston. What would you find? How do they match up?
For the sake of argument, let's stipulate to Calabresi's characterization of Trump's actions.
Even given that stipulation, there's nothing in the Constitution about government-printed ballots, who may appear on them, or the obligations of state election authorities in that regard.
In point of fact, state governments didn't start printing "the Australian ballot," and regulating access to that ballot, until the 1890s. The first 18 presidents were elected as, effectively, write-in candidates. Voters could fill out their ballots by hand, dictate to their choices to a polling place official if they couldn't write, or just cast a handy-dandy ballot printed by their political parties or other associations of choice.
Let's take this in turns:
Donald J. Trump in a nationally televised debate with President Biden refused to renounce the Proud Boys and said: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by."
Telling somebody to stand back and stand by isn't an insurrection. It's a call to inaction.
Trump then falsely denied that he had lost the 2020 presidential election, urged his followers to assemble at noon on January 6, 2021 on the Ellipse outside the White House, and he then whipped a mob of some extremists, and many naïve conservatives, into a frenzy urging them to march on the Capitol as Congress was certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump told his followers: "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," he said.
He urged a gathering and told them to fight like hell. "Fight like hell," "there's a war on women", etc. are standard political rhetoric. If somebody saying "fight like hell" is an insurrection, then most politicians are guilty of insurrection. If gathering supporters, some of whom later happen to turn violent, is an insurrection then many politicians are guilty of insurrection.
Trump then watched the riot that he had had launched play out on national television without sending a Tweet or any other kind of similar message urging his supporters to behave peacefully.
And this is the most absurd. How can NOT sending a Tweet be an insurrection?
I'm not sure even the people at the capitol were guilty of insurrection as opposed to pettier crimes and vandalism. But the guy who didn't send a tweet definitely isn't. Honestly.
It is odd that the people who tried to stop the swearing in of Kavanaugh were not charged identically to 1/6. I mean, they did the exact same thing.
The image of that poor cop on 1/6 getting assaulted with a flagpole still haunts us to this day.
Oh no. Somebody assaulted a cop? I'm glad NO protest ever had that happen before. That CERTAINLY means it MUST be an insurrection. Assaulting a cop = attempt to takeover the government. Clear as day.
Any thoughts on the murdered protester? I mean, people freaked out about "unmarked vans" kidnapping "protesters" trying to burn down a federal courthouse in Portland in 2020.
Well, there goes 'walking around.'
Is that the benchmark for the equivalence you're creating, in terms of injustice and impunity - being snatched off the streets is to liberals what trying to storm a barricaded speakers' lobby is for conservatives?
Thousands of people.
One assault.
Yup, nobody walking around. ALL were, clearly, looking to assault cops. Explains why --- well, so few were assaulted.
ONE assault?
Your shamelessness in posting this is kinda amazing.
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/18/1008211655/new-videos-underscore-the-violence-against-police-at-the-jan-6-capitol-riot
Your posting this as proof of mass violence on 1/6 is fairly pathetic.
Even for you.
As I said, a few assholes mixed in.
Same folks defending 2020 BLM riots as not being super violent wish to claim 1./6 was. Hilarity.
You said 'one.' Right up there. 'One.' See? Look up, right up there where you said 'one.'
Your defence of Jan 6th boils down to finding new ways to be disingenuous, with the result that you sound like you don't know what actually happened on Jan 6th at all.
I thought "mostly peaceful protests" were "The voice of the powerless".
Is the Left...lying?
I cannot fathom that!
No one is pissed at the peaceful part of J6.
Seems the Left denies there was any peaceful part of it.
Unlike BLM riots, 99% was quite peaceful. And the "violent" part was very peaceful compared to the 2020 riots.
This whole argument started because you a) deny that there was any effort to overthrow an election b) deny that there was violence. Now you’ve got yourself turned all around.
Seems the Left denies there was any peaceful part of it.
No, the left has disaggregated the insurrection part from the protesting part. i.e. the thing the right refuses to do for the summer of 2020.
You don't see anyone saying the protesters should be arrested, or were even out of line.
You continue to just post things as though they are true and they are not.
There was no peaceful part of the attack on the Capitol. The people who attended the "Stop the Steal" rally but who did not "fight like hell" to overturn the election at the Capitol were retarded, but peaceful.
'99% was quite peaceful'
No-one cares about those losers.
"This whole argument started because you a) deny that there was any effort to overthrow an election"
There was not one. There was a dispute over it.
"b) deny that there was violence."
Also false. I labelled it a "mostly peaceful protest" (which, mind you, it was). Mostly peaceful indicates, specifically, that there was some violence. Otherwise, it'd be a peaceful protest...not mostly one.
There was a riot aimed at preventing Pence from certifying the election. That the effort was dumb does not negate the fact that there was an effort, nor that it involved injury and loss of life.
‘I labelled it a “mostly peaceful protest”’
Eventually. Your initial complaint was that it was just a bunch of people walking around. As has been pointed out it’s not the peaceful part we’re concerned with.
I first labelled it a mostly peaceful protest...as it was going on. On 1/6.
You claim to think all manner of inane things.
They were invited by Pelosi and other Democrats. There's pictures of her posing with them. Now about someone who shouldn't be allowed on a ballot?
Telling somebody to stand back and stand by isn’t an insurrection. It’s a call to inaction.
No, it's literally a call to prepare for action.
He urged a gathering and told them to fight like hell. “Fight like hell,” “there’s a war on women”, etc. are standard political rhetoric. If somebody saying “fight like hell” is an insurrection, then most politicians are guilty of insurrection. If gathering supporters, some of whom later happen to turn violent, is an insurrection then many politicians are guilty of insurrection.
If you see crowd turning violent and agitated, and you keep ramping them up, then yeah, you're liable for the outcome.
I honestly don't know exactly what Trump expected the crowd to do at the Capitol. Maybe he did just want big noisy chants, or maybe he wanted them to storm the building and force the Senate to declare him President. But he went waaaay past what "many politicians" have done.
And this is the most absurd. How can NOT sending a Tweet be an insurrection?
Multiple people were begging him to though out the day and he not only refused, but expressed support for the mob.
This in itself doesn't show he caused the insurrection, but it does show he supported it.
Compare Trump to, say, Schumer. Waters, Fuck Biden (he did claim that Romney wanted to enslave black folks, after all).
...or it might have just been "fuck the lot of them" petulance.
He tried to avoid the problem days earlier. They decided to let it happen. C'est la vie.
"Trump then watched the riot that he had launched play out on national television without sending a Tweet or any other kind of similar message urging his supporters to behave peacefully."
Worse yet, this characterization is inaccurate. Mr. Trump did send a tweet video calling for people to go home that day. His Twitter profile is publicly visible for Reason to verify this crap, yet they don't.
Wow....
Just to review. If a Secretary of State or their subordinates believe a candidate is guilty of insurrection, they can arbitrarily remove their name from the ballots. They don't need an Act of Congress. They don't need a court verdict. They don't even need a criminal indictment. All they need is their belief that the individual engaged in insurrection.
So, if the Secretary of State for one of the states believes the Chris Christie or Joe Biden is guilty of whatever they think is insurrection, they can legally strip their name from the ballot. That's the view of the author.
One thing lawyers are supposed to think about is how far their legal argument extends. "How far does this go?" is something appellate court judges would ask in oral arguments.
I suppose the Democrats expect to get first mover advantage with this, on the assumption that Republicans won't respond in kind for at least an election cycle. But the tit for tat will be ugly.
'I suppose the Democrats expect'
What Democrats?
Yeah, Brett, what Democrats? Is the VC a Democratic false flag now?
If I were a Secretary of State charged with determining whether to place Donald Trump’s name on a ballot, I think I would sue in U. S. District Court for declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 as to Trump’s eligibility to serve as president or lack thereof.
Chris Christie is legally injured by Donald Trump's name being on the ballot. They draw from some similar voters. Christie should sue, if necessary, to get Trump's name off the ballot. Then the Supreme Court can open the dictionary and tell us what we all already know—that Trump incited an insurrection and is disqualified from being on any primary or general election ballots next year.
You're seriously citing Chris Christie? The man has a snowballs chance in hell of winning any state. He's no more injured by Trump being on the ballot than you are. You're doing damage to democracy by trying to violate the rights of people to vote for Trump.
You've got TDS so hard. It's a mental illness. Seriously. Thinking conservatives staged an insurrection without guns Do you believe in aliens to? The russia collusion hoax? Drinking bleach hoax? Koi feeding hoax? Get out more.
Stupid is as stupid does -- good gravy what a stupid argument!
Who originally observed that some ideas are so absurdly ridiculous and contrary to common sense that they can be held only by an intellectual? This essay fits that comment and hardly warrants a rejoinder.
Thomas Sowell
I guess this already got brought up, but as far as I know, the only non-Confederate, pre-2021 case under Article 3 was the case of Victor Berger. Here, the House of Representatives deferred to the courts – barring Berger when he’d been convicted, reinstating him when his conviction was overturned.
Any other pre-2021, non-Confederate precedents?
Also, Sec. 3 applies to anyone who gives "aid or comfort to the enemies of" the U. S. (This is what tripped Berger up). It doesn't say "aid *and* comfort," like the treason clause does, but aid *or* comfort. So it's fairly broad. Fortunately, no Secretary of State would be creative enough to invoke this clause against anyone.
Considering how much aid is being channeled to the Taliban by the current President, under this interpretation of Section 3 Biden could be kept off the ballot, too.
WTF are you even talking about???
"Also, Sec. 3 applies to anyone who gives “aid or comfort to the enemies of” the U. S."
Are you going to suggest that the Taliban couldn't be construed to be enemies of the U.S., or that several billion dollars isn't "aid"?
I got the legal bit, but I have no idea where you're getting those several billion dollars from.
The military hardware he gave to them is pretty high.
He and his family have also taken considerable monies from China who is certainly not a friend of ours.
Biden Admin is the ‘Single Largest Donor’ to Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan Since Botched Withdrawal, Watchdog Says
"The U.S. appropriated over $2.35 billion in funds for Afghanistan reconstruction and humanitarian efforts since 2021, following the disordered withdrawal of American forces in the region, according to the SIGAR report. John Sopko, head of SIGAR, warned Congress in April that he “cannot assure this committee or the American taxpayer we are not currently funding the Taliban,” and said that the Biden administration has blocked investigative efforts as to whether the Taliban is being sustained by American tax dollars."
Weird how opposed Biden is to even the tiniest sliver of transparency.
Transparency seems to be the only trans issue he opposes.
Considering how much aid is being channeled to the Taliban by the current President
And your proof is: "he “cannot assure this committee or the American taxpayer we are not currently funding the Taliban."
You're basically lying for drama.
"You’re basically lying for drama."
LOL. Look who is talking.
Two plus BILLION dollars have flowed into Afghanistan since we left.
You really think cash and or goods going into Afghanistan aren't controlled by the Taliban? Really?
No, you really don't think that.
So now tell me about dishonesty?
I have no idea. Neither do you. "Considering how much much aid is accidentally going to the Taliban" has zero evidence to back it up other than speculation and appeal to incredulity.
"Considering how much aid is being channeled to the Taliban by the current President" is, of course, an even further bridge to go, and isn't a thesis your post even tries to defend.
Which is why I called it a lie.
"“Considering how much much aid is accidentally going to the Taliban” has zero evidence to back it up"
From Brett's link: "Biden administration has blocked investigative efforts as to whether the Taliban is being sustained by American tax dollars.”"
Gee, cannot figure this one out. Biden, as usual, opposes any semblance of transparency and that allows people like you to claim "Well, there is no proof".
A conspiracy theory forming in real time.
Sarcastr0, it's a species of spoliation: By blocking investigations into where the money is going, the Biden administration creates a rebuttable presumption that it's going somewhere he wouldn't like people knowing. It's no different from assuming that your accountant was embezzling if he burns the account books.
You don't like that sort of presumption? Don't block investigations. It's as simple as that.
My point here is NOT that Biden is deliberately channeling money to the Taliban, while chuckling malevolently over the terrorist attacks it will fund. I consider at least the malevolent chuckling part unlikely.
It's that, by Calabresi's own standard, there's enough of a basis for some election official in a swing state to refuse to allow Biden to be on the ballot!
Calabresi doesn't require proof of insurrection or treason. He doesn't require a trial, or really any due process AT ALL. He just requires the guy making the decision to THINK you're guilty. That's all, nothing more.
Nothing stops some SOS somewhere from thinking that Biden is guilty. There's some tiny smidgen of evidence out there that he is guilty, and what more does Calabresi demand? Nothing. No standard of proof, no formal process, no trial.
Just, you think he's guilty, and you're in a position to do something about it. That's all. This is a standard that could bite literally ANYBODY. Not just Trump.
It truly is amazing what a godsend January 6 has been for the Democrats. Not since the Nazis and the Reichstag Fire has a political party been able to make so much hay out of an attack on a capital building. And who could blame them? What else do they have going for them? The chosen standard-bearer of our ruling class is a feeble, senile bribe-taker with an abject record of failure. Had January 6 never happened, they would still be in a state of unhinged hysteria over Trump, but at least now it has a thin veneer of rationality and sincerity.
It really could not have worked out better for them if they had planned it themselves. Thank God Nancy Pelosi rejected Trump's offer of National Guard troops to protect the Capitol.
They were invited by Pelosi and other Democrats. There's pictures of her posing with them. Now about someone who shouldn't be allowed on a ballot?
Whether a Secretary of State can exclude a candidate from the ballot in the first place is a matter of *state* law. Nothing in the Constitution says you can't have a candidate on the ballot if they're not qualified.
Nevada's "None of These Candidates" was held constitutional in the 9th Circuit case Townley v. Miller, even though "None of These Candidates" is obviously not eligible to hold the office.
See also the 9th Circuit case Lindsey v. Bowen (emphasis mine):
That case involved a 27 year old arguing she had a right to be on the ballot for President. The federal court said she should have made the argument in state court. It didn't say she was automatically disqualified from being on the ballot. The court also noted that there was a difference between someone indisputably ineligible by their own admission and someone who is merely arguably ineligible.
Also see Robinson v. Bowen, N.D. California (challenging McCain's presence on the Presidential ballot)(emphasis mine):
Also, Twitter suspended Trump's account on Jan 6, so him not tweeting is an even worse argument than it would ordinarily be.
Good point. Apart from the Constitution, the state authorities have to follow state law.
Check your facts:
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension
January 8th.
Check yours. His account was permabanned on the 8th. He was prohibited from posting on most of the 6th.
No, he wasn't, you goddamn liar.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-january-6-2021
OK, "most" was not true. They *did* lock his account that day but not until later that day.
But according to your source, he did tweet:
And
So the argument that "Trump then watched the riot that he had had launched play out on national television without sending a Tweet or any other kind of similar message urging his supporters to behave peacefully" is stupid for an even better reason: he DID send such a tweet. The argument that such a tweet would have immediately stopped the riot is counterfactual.
Shall we go into what we have learned Twitter was like pre-Musk?
Sorry, but you're going to have to actually win the election. Might as well get used to that now.
Pretty embarrassing take for a law professor.
Section 5 of the 14th amendment is a pretty good indication that its not "self executing":
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
What do you think that means?
If any amendment to the constitution is considered "self executing" it should be the second amendment, so I guess that means any gun control legislation is automatically void, no court challenges, no fact finding.
And although dictionary definitions certainly are useful in bringing light to the meaning of words, in a lot of cases just referencing a definition doesn't provide a exact enough definition to be "self executing", as the definition Calabresi cites self acknowledges: "insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion."
The Thirteenth Amendment also has that provision.
The ban on slavery still is deemed self-executing.
I think provision means that Congress has special power to enforce the terms of the 14th Amendment.
Meanwhile, if a state official violates due process of law or equal protection, states also regularly enforce its terms. It would do so without congressional regulation as well.
A person born on U.S. soil is a naturalized citizen. No law was required first to put that provision in effect.
As applied here, "self-executing" anyhow would ultimately be done by some sort of proceeding following due process rules. Trump or anyone else could challenge denial of the right to an office or the right to run for an office. The authors here are perfectly fine with the matter ultimately being settled in a court of law, from what I can tell.
The Second Amendment did not require congressional legislation to be enforced. I assume there might have been some relevant provision that did so. But, it would not be necessary in my view. Same with something like the right against self-incrimination.
I think it means that you can go to court and rely on the due process clause and the equal protection clause regardless of whether Congress has passed any legislation under section 5. What do you think?
Would you say that a Secretary of State who put Trump on the ballot should themself be prosecuted for insurrection?
Nutty stuff.
This is A++ trolling. I appreciate the professor getting the commenters’ blood up before bed.
It’ll never happen, obviously, but it wouldn’t be a terrible vehicle for someone to get a national injunction barring Trump from being included in ballots from some equally trolling district judge, just to finally get rid of the whole stupid practice.
I’m not a Trump supporter and have never voted for him and think he’s the most embarrassing President of my lifetime.
But this is perhaps the most absurd piece I’ve ever read anywhere on Reason, let alone on The Volokh Conspiracy. For a moment I thought I had clicked on a DailyKos fantasy diary.
So every Secretary of State in every state from this point on should decide if, in their judgement, a candidate has been guilty of failing to uphold the Constitution and hence should be banned from the ballot – thereby depriving the voters of making their own choice?
We know, for example, that Biden intentionally violated the Constitution in his attempt to usurp Congress’ power by forgiving student loans en masse. I assume that Professor Calabresi will support a movement to ban President Biden from all state ballots in November 2024.
Failing to attempt to stop something is not the same as doing that thing. This author also conveniently fails to note that Trump called for 1/6 protesters not to engage in violence.
Claiming that using the word “fight” in calling for a protest means that one is calling for violence is absurd. Should all those carrying signs or shouting “Fight for $15” be charged with inciting riots? Should those behind registering the domain name fightfor15.org or responsible for creating the website https://fightfor15.org/ all be charged with attempting to incite violent riots.
"We know, for example, that Biden intentionally violated the Constitution in his attempt to usurp Congress’ power by forgiving student loans en masse."
Actually we don't know that. Perhaps you have some kind of evidence you've discovered that you should be sharing with the rest of us.
More likely you're just wrong.
Well, SCOTUS argued he did not have the power to do so. Constitution is really clear that all issues involving money must originate in the House.
We can also add in his eviction moratorium which he ADMITTED was unconstitutional when he pursued it again, assuming it will take a few months for the courts to strike it down.
I believe it was the rent moratorium where Biden explicitly said that what he was doing was “probably unconstitutional.”
One step further: under Steven Calabresi's theory, his own bar card could be revoked in the same manner for proposing this.
I think efforts to keep Trump off the ballots in any state using this logic be quickly overruled in federal courts. Also it would probably backfire and give Trump greater support.
If Trump believed he had actually won and was being cheated, then he would not have been participating in an insurrection.
This post is silly and the 126 page monograph that Calabresi references (and helped write) is begging for trouble. The country can survive a bad president. But it won't survive a rebellion lead by the elites who feel they are part of a ruling regime. This regime keeps breaking rules in its effort to stop Trump. They are doing more damage than Trump could ever do.
I’m old enough to remember when the editorial line from Reason was clear that seditious conspiracy was an unconstitutionally vague law only ever used to persecute the ideological enemies of the regime. I miss that magazine. Farewell, Reason. 1968-2015.
"Then, knowing that he had lost the 2020 election [...]"
Steven, for the hundredth time, you can't read the former president's mind.
We don't need to. We know how many different people clearly told him that fact, and we have his own words to Mark Meadows admitting that he lost.
You people should learn the facts before opining. You'd all (hopefully) look a lot less ignorant.
People telling someone something doesn't = them believing it. Unless this post is now evidence of you believing yourself to be a dumbass.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/05/clearing-up-common-misconceptions-about-the-charges-against-trump/?comments=true#comment-10187804
"Proof that the defendant acted with reckless disregard or reckless indifference may therefore satisfy the knowledge requirement, when the defendant makes a false material statement and consciously avoids learning the facts or intends to deceive the government. See United States v. Schaffer, 600 F.2d 1120, 1122 (5th Cir. 1979)."
“I don’t want people to know we lost.”
Your argument is that Trump didn’t mean it?
You’re hooked up to a ventilator, right? I’m concerned you’re too fucking stupid to breathe otherwise.
I invite you and the 22.5% of the American public who believe this to enforce your view. Good luck! 🙂
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/4ca0597c-dac7-44b9-a9e9-a1b791cd389b
Correct. Most of the visitors were waved in by UNIFORMED Capitol Police.
The event of January 6 was not an Insurrection. At worst, it was an ugly demonstration (like BLM's "protests" in Portland).
Another lacking article by an Constitutionally unintelligent actor. Zzzzzzzzzzzz.
"He lied to the American people for years that the election had been stolen and continues to repeat those lies even to the present day."
Besides being hyperbole, "...for years..." researchers have proven great irregularities and impossibilities of that election to confirm the election was not honestly conducted. Furthermore, Joe Biden's own words confirm a fraudulent election - "We have assembled the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of the United States"
Cut the B.S.
Top marks for Going There. No notes. Cats, pigeons, etc.
Try it and see what happens- The only insurrectionists on January 6 were Pence -Congress- DOJ and the FBI. The problem with this country is there are too many attorneys, and about 75 % are evil and not held accountable for their actions. The Attorneys of this country want to make the law interpret the law, and enforce the law - Judge - Jury, and executioners. So I ask, oh great, Yale Constitution Professor, where do the people's constitutional presidential choice fall into your equation?
Buncha commenters I haven't seen before seem to wish Jan 06 had succeeded.
As opposed to what we have now...
Although, in reality, I opposed the "mostly peaceful protests" of BLM in 2020.
I also oppose the even MORE "mostly peaceful protest" of 1/6.
Not a big fan of "mostly peaceful" (aka violent) protests.
Another one.
Another one...what?
Not fond of a President with the FBI serving as a personal gestapo and an AG whose mouth is so firmly around his cock that he will do anything he asks? An admin that has been a laughingstock internationally and has done a lot to increase the death of the petrodollar?
Guilty as charged. People like you elected a corrupt septuagenarian with dementia. Well done.
I also said I do not support mostly peaceful protests, including 1/6. Even though it was far more mostly peaceful than 2020 BLM riots.
Another one happy to lie to defend a quasi-fascist like Trump while claiming to have 'reservations.'
Trump did not attempt to imprison his political rivals. Did not try to imprison his rival's LEGAL ADVISERS either. Nor did he sic the FBI on people he disagreed with.
Can, uh, Biden say the same?
Heck, Trump got impeached for asking Ukraine to investigate the corruption of his not declared but still "chief political rival"...corruption that was 100% factual.
Yes, Biden hasn't tried to imprison anyone. There's no evidence that he had anything to do with Trump's legal troubles, unlike Trump's efforts to set federal agencies on hs enemies.
He got impeached for trying to extort a bogus criminal investigation into Biden out of Ukraine.
Trump says hello. Biden is trying to imprison him.
1/6 protesters also say hello. Biden had them imprisoned.
Trump's legal advisers will also likely be charged by Biden's DoJ.
Like it or not --- it all is under his command.
You're aware that Trump's investigation request has been proven out? Biden BRAGGED about his quid pro quo, him threatening to withhold Congressionally approved guarantees is quite illegal, the prosecutor WAS investigating the founder of Burisma but was replaced with one with close ties to...Hunter Biden.
Biden has nothing to do with Trump's current legal woes.
Biden has nothing to do with the Jan 6th defendants' legal woes.
Biden has nothig to do with Trump's lawyers' potential legal woes.
No, none of that is true. Those lies have been around since the 'perfect phone call' and they haven't gotten any truer.
I don't know why you'd lie so much to defend someone who tried to overthrow an election, and who tried to extort an ally in an effort to damage an opponent during an election, but it must be similar to the impulse that made so many people ruin their lives on Jan 6th for a man who wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.
Biden's DoJ is prosecuting him for non-crimes.
HIS DoJ.
Feel free to support the junta. They have never turned on their "supporters".
Biden's DOJ is prosecuting lots of people. You can say he is personally prosecuting each of them, which effectively means he is personally prosecuting none of them.
Feel free to support the guy who thinks he's above the law, and who has a record of *never* turning on anyone.
He's in charge of the DoJ. It is ultimately HIS responsibility to stop abuses. He will not. He supports them.
Don't know why responsibility is such a foreign conc...oh, who am I kidding? You aren't fond of responsibility for those you support.
If there are abuses.
Responsibility means dealing with the consequences for your actions. Something which drives Trump and you lot into tantrums.
The president is responsible for everything the executive branch does, including the DOJ. If Biden has nothing to do with it, then he is neglecting his duties and should resign.
All you have to do is prove that Biden personally singled out Trump as a target for the DOJ. The way Trump did with Clinton and Hunter Biden. And then explain what's so special about Trump that he's above the law.
“All you have to do is prove that Biden personally singled out Trump as a target for the DOJ. The way Trump did with Clinton and Hunter Biden. And then explain what’s so special about Trump that he’s above the law.”
Note Trump did NOT go after them.
Even with considerable evidence of substantial crimes.
Should he have? Possibly. The whole "This will tear the country apart" was a real concern.
Not for Joe, though. He's all for it. And now he's doing a scam "special prosecutor" (same dude who tried to give Hunter the insanely sweet plea deal, so yeah, no issues there) to protect himself and his son further.
He put two investigators on them. They found nothing on Clinton, some tax thing on Hunter Biden. He was disappointed with their honesty.
Trump has threatened to tear the country apart multiple times.
I'm sure that any new development in the Hunter Biden case will always fit perfectly with whatever you claim to think is going on.
This read like an editorial in a 1,000 circulation paper, not something from a legal scholar.
You trying to gatekeep blog posts? On a blog with Blackman on it?
It's laughable to call it an insurrection. Trump was not even charged with insurrection, lol.
But lest we forget, as Americans, insurrection is in our DNA, and if it's warranted, it should happen.
Federalist #28
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance."
If somebody called for an insurrection against our current junta, I'd at least listen to their case...
Did I miss the trial?
Ctrl+f 'alleged': 0 results.
I thought this was a law blog? Even in complete ignorance of longstanding jurisprudence about presumption of innocence (not to mention mens rea, due process, etc., etc.) you'd think, out of just plain "that's just how we do things here" NPC-level AI pattern-matching, that a law professor from the State of IL, of all places, would pick up the fact that someone under indictment can get elected and hold public office even if the law Constitutionally bars felons and people who've knowingly violated their oath of office from doing so.
It's almost like Calabresi has deified himself by whimsically overruling the rule of law, the laws of man, and the laws of nature by commanding that Trump should've been banned from the ballots on Jan. 5 and the rest of us need to catch up with his deigning of natural law.
This reasoning is infantile and embarrassing. The evidence Calabresi is claiming that shows Trump is guilty of "insurrection" are all protected speech that every American is entitled to by the 1st amendment.
simple, well put.
Pure balderdash
OMG!!! IANAL, but even an old, cranky retiree knows that you're assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. This A-Hole wants to just skip the whole trial and find Trump guilty of anything the weasels want to charge him with.
Lemme guess? A Hillary/Biden supporter? Or just another lefty fascist worried about "A Threat To Our Democracy" as an excuse to try another "ends justifies the means" end run?
Feh!
One day, a comment that starts with IANAL will actually contain a cogent, well-argued analysis. But it is not this day.
Just like the Jan 6 committee, you omitted the part where Trump urged his supporters to march “peacefully and patriotically”.
You also forget to mention that not only Trump, but NONE of the rioters was charged with the crime of insurrection. Even under the Biden administration.
BTW, speaking of Biden & friends, here’s a video of them that will blow your mind.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1688939456693190656>
Fixed your link by deleting the last few characters.
https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1688939456693190656
Thanks! The edit time expired.
Boy, effectively disenfranchising 70 million Americans would make the Republican 'voter suppression' campaign look like small beer.
Trump and his supporters wanted to difsenfranchise over 80 million voters.
The toddler that wrote this unhinged screed needs mommy. Everything bleated here is a blatant lie or a distortion of reality.
I thought I’d read some stupid articles here before, but those were masterpieces of pure genius compared with this nonsense asserting that a naked assertion of “insurrection” is enough to keep a candidate off the ballot.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and predict that if this gets to the Supreme Court, the justices will have to take a recess in order to stop laughing long enough to flush this argument down the SCOTUS toilet.
I was warned by the friend that first recommended this site to me that it isn’t what it once was. With nothing to compare it to, my guess is that it’s even less than that.
It was really good in the past.
Some Sam Harris mind virus has taken over Reason headquarters, and their affiliate writers.
What can we expect from someone who served under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush from 1985 to 1990. During that time, he advised Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and Reagan Domestic Policy Chief T. Kenneth Cribb, and wrote campaign speeches for Vice President Dan Quayle..
You're the kind of conservative who voted for the Enabling Act in 1933 "for the good of the country". You are an absolutely vile, fascistic human being. Utterly disgusting.
So true.
Ever since Jan 6 2021, the use of the word “insurrection” with regard to that day has been an immediate cue not to take a person or media outlet seriously. It’s laughable. "We're gonna overthrow the most powerful government in human history with our fanny packs and funny hats!"
Not to excuse any wrongdoing, but Calabresi like so many others displays an astounding disregard for the facts that Trump repeatedly told the crowd to be peaceful, repeatedly tweeted the same thing, tweeted that they all should “go home” etc. The whole affair looked like a family friendly church picnic compared to the BLM/Antifa riots we saw all that year. I guess a lot of boomers and NPCs didn’t even see all that stuff and are genuinely ignorant, since the media generally didn’t show the footage.
The fawning over the “hang Pence” guy with the mock (nonfunctional) gallows might be the biggest case of nut picking to ever occur. Were they identified? If not probably one of the many feds.
It seems Trump did ask Pence to do something that was not in line with the Constitution, that is a more serious offense by Trump in my estimation than anything relating to the mostly peaceful Jan 6 protest.
Calabresi like so many others displays an astounding disregard for the facts that Trump repeatedly told the crowd to be peaceful, repeatedly tweeted the same thing, tweeted that they all should “go home” etc.
You are not so ignorant of how the mob works, nor of how long it took Trump to finally ask them to go home.
The 'hang Pence' guy was a chant of “hang Mike Pence." Not just one dude.
Take a look at the actual "gallows". It was a prop. Three flimsy wooden pieces and a foam noose. It also wouldn't be tall enough to hang anyone but a small child, definitely not Mike Pence.
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2021/01/07/USAT/247dbc80-2689-4c87-bc21-b31a1142185e-XXX_TH__DC_protests697.JPG
NOT A REAL GALLOWS?!!
Such logic WTF I'm a MAGA guy now.
No need for hysterics. Just refuting the false claim that the mob prepared to hang people.
They were chanting 'hang Mike Pence.'
Ever heard of hyperbole?
So Trump is guilty of "engaging in insurrection or rebellion" because...because why...because you say so, Stevie? Who elected you judge and jury? When Trump is charged and convicted by a jury of his peers of engaging in "insurrection or rebellion" then, and only then, should you try to impress us with your knowledge of the Constitution. Until that happens, your drivel is nothing but partisan grandstanding! I'm not a big fan of DJT, but I'm less a fan of twisting the United States Constitution to promote one's partisan agenda...especially by someone who is supposed to know the law!
Indeed. No law is self enforcing. Someone has to make a judgement about the facts.
I've been saying all along that the only reason people labeled Jan 6 and insurrection was to use the 14th to keep Trump off of ballots. Looks like I was onto something.
I don't like Trump at all and I wish he would go away. But this is some scary shit.
You're not a big fan of thinking, though, or you'd know that the co-founder of the Federalist Society is not "partisan" against Donald Trump.
He clearly said he was. I guess you know better.
Seems like any political protest that has any violent elements to it would be insurrection by this interpretation.
If congress must certify the election results, that implies that they have the option not to. Claiming that they should do so may be a bad legal theory in this case, but it's still petitioning government for redress of grievances.
This is desperate nonsense. Trump is allowed to believe that the election was stolen and he's allowed to ask that congress do something about it.
It is amazing how deeply Reason has been overrun by Trumpites. Not long ago these sort of troglodytes would have been dismissed out of hand for the irrational nonsense they post in response to something they disagree with. Gone are the days when one could peacefully entertain a thought without accepting it.
Reason, or the Reason readers who have always been here, and now observe how Reason 's editors and writers have all gone TDS insane?
why don't they just release the thousands of hours of footage of J6 and the lines of blow left in the WH?
I despise Trump, but I'm not wild about the idea of his being disqualified by the courts after the Senate refused to disqualify him on essentially the same grounds. His supporters would be outraged, and if I were a Trump supporter (the likelihood of which is considerably less than the possibility that hell will freeze over) I would feel the same way. I would rather let the voters decide whether such a man should be President.
There is an argument that the voters should have a free choice of whoever they want, but that argument works for eliminating all restrictions. Under 35, not native born, why should those things matter? Shouldn't the voters have the opportunity to choose President Schwarzenegger if they want him? Should they be free to choose someone who isn't even a naturalized citizen if they want?
in my view, the voters should be allowed to choose someone who isn't a naturalized citizen. My daughter was born in China and we adopted her at the age of 11 months. It seems absurd to me that she's constitutionally barred from running for President. (Not that she'd ever want to do so; she's now 24 years old and is uninterested in politics.)
While the rule excluding naturalized citizens like my daughter and Arnie from eligibility for the Presidency seems absurd to me, I admit that there are some pretty good reasons for limiting eligibility for the Presidency to people who are in fact citizens. Nevertheless, if the voters (all of whom must be citizens) wanted to elect someone who isn't a citizen, I would allow them to do so.
I was reading this, totally expecting the essay to be a transparent tongue-in-cheek joke, and waiting for the for the punchline to drop any second. Imagine my surprise that by the end of the article, the guy is totally serious. From the Volokh Conspiracy no less. From "Reason" no less.
How low have the formerly respectable have fallen into the gutter of TDS, wallowing around with Sam Harris' mentality and pathological wet brain syndrome.
Jeesh Reason, crawl your way out of that slime pit.
I don't think it's a "fall". I think they are simply revealing themselves to be what they have always been, throughout their entire careers.
Basically. Trump did not cause all of the problems we now see. He was simply a symptom of a horrendous disease that has seriously damaged our government. A uniparty working against the people.
Some may applaud that because they get paid to do so. But hookers are not viewed highly by most people.
Yeah, well I used to respect the Volokh articles, since real gems in the past, very on point and unafraid.
So, I think something has happened to them in the past few years.
An overabundance of conservative gatekeeping on here lately.
Yeah, right: it is you who is agreeing with the conservative founder of the Federalist Society.
Check this out - sometimes I agree with people even if I usually don't!
But it makes little sense to complain about "conservative gatekeepers" when you are a cheerleader for an arch-conservative!
This is not conservative, this is raw establishment.
Most on the left, and some on the right are mired in it, and Trump is public enemy #1 to the establishment. To them, he must be taken out, by any means possible.
How about we wait to see if he is actually convicted of said crime eh ?
But if questioning if an election is stolen or not is a disqualifier you need to broaden the field and include about every Democrat who didn't win in the last 30 years.
You are out of your mind. Twenty-forty million angry people, mostly armed. It's really not worth it.
The new Electoral Count Act would allow Congress to disqualify the election winner on this basis as well, by their simple assertion. Talk about irony.
The lawyer who presumes guilt and writes an article based on that premise. I completely trust your judgement. Is there a legal term for TDS?
Besides the 14th Amendment argument here, if and when Trump is convicted of any of the felonies that he has been charged with, that should be the end of his presidential bid. There are a lot of reasons without the U.S. Constitution's provisions to support that:
1) Convicted felons lose the right to vote and to hold or run for office in most states. The presidential election is a state election.
2) How can the Republican party legally or ethically have a member and nominee for office who is not allowed to vote due to a felony conviction?
Trump is also estopped under the 22nd Amendment from running by his insistence that he won the 2020 election. The constitution there makes a distinction between being elected and actually serving, so the fact his claim to win wasn't recognized and he wasn't allowed to serve doesn't make him eligible to be elected a 3rd time.
It's really up to each individual state to enforce the constitution's eligibility provisions and decide who is eligible to run in its elections. So far, it's been difficult to determine who has standing to sue on such issues in federal court, and I doubt Chris Christie or any other republican would risk alienating themselves to the party with a risky claim like this...
Utterly wrong: https://www.kennedyforlaw.com/the-fourteenth-amendment-does-not-automatically-prevent-trump-s-re-election