The Colorado Supreme Court ruled last month that the former president could not appear on the state’s Republican primary ballot because he had engaged in insurrection.

The case turns on the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, which bars those who had taken an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” from holding office if they then “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

  • silence7OP
    67·
    6 months ago

    You can’t be clear enough when it comes to language when dealing with somebody interested in willful misinterpretation. That’s the problem here.

    • henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
      131·
      6 months ago

      That’s very concerning to me because at what point does one stop pretending to be governed by rules if one refuses to acknowledge the meaning of words?

      At some point you’re just making things up.

      • bestagon@lemmy.world
        15·
        6 months ago

        We’ve been making things up this whole time. The only reason any of this works is because we all agree it does

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      1·
      6 months ago

      This is why the best online communities consistently have broad rules to fall back on. Ultimately if you’re disruptive, you should get the boot. Following the letter of the law/technicalities should not prevent that. The rules exist to serve the community. Not to be used as a cudgel by bad actors.