Gift Article: January 6 Is Exactly What the Fourteenth Amendment Was Talking About
www.theatlantic.com
And ignoring its clear dictate is a dangerous choice to make.

As the Colorado Supreme Court wrote, January 6 meets the bar for insurrection “under any viable definition” of the term. The legal scholar Mark Graber, who has closely studied the Fourteenth Amendment’s history, argues that “insurrection” should be understood broadly—an act of organized resistance to government authority motivated by a “public purpose.” That certainly describes the Capitol riot, in which a violent mob attacked law enforcement and threatened members of Congress and the vice president in order to block the rightful counting of the electoral vote and illegally secure the victory of the losing candidate. The historical record also suggests that the amendment’s requirement that a prospective officeholder must have “engaged in insurrection” should also be understood broadly—meaning that Trump’s speech on the Ellipse that morning and his encouragement of the rioters while they smashed their way through the Capitol more than fit the bill.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      521·
      6 months ago

      Love the quality, cogent rebuttal. Excellent quality.

      Glad to see you also don’t know what a gish gallop is. That’s fun.

      Here’s an answer for you. It’s when someone presents a large number of bad arguments which take little effort to present but a relatively long time to rebut. I didn’t do anything remotely like that. I presented precisely one argument, explained in great detail.

      • Okokimup@lemmy.world
        53·
        6 months ago

        This is what I hate about lemmy. I don’t know whether you’re right or not. Everyone else obviously thinks you are wrong, but instead of merely correcting what you got wrong, they’re treating you like you’re arguing in bad faith. Being wrong and arguing in bad faith are two different things, and I see no evidence you’re doing the latter. Lemmings complain that this site is full of memes instead of discussion, but they need look no further than this thread to see why discussion is not happening here.

        • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.idEnglish
          3·
          5 months ago

          They’re wrong, but I don’t think they’re arguing in bad faith. What they’re wrong about is that article 3 of the 14th is self-executing and doesn’t require a trial or conviction. This is because it was intended to bar former Confederate officers from holding federal office and trying and convicting all of them would have been a logistical impossibility.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      219·
      6 months ago

      As for “aid and comfort”, it’s the same thing? He’s obviously guilty as fuck. The problem is that under rule of law, it has to be a court that decides that officially, and not a politician.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          115·
          6 months ago

          That was the State Supreme Court, which is, like the US Supreme Court, not a trial court.

          • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
            9·
            6 months ago

            From another non-American non-lawyer to you, here’s my understanding:

            https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

            A district judge in Colorado was the one who ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection, the unclear part to this judge was whether the 14th amendment section 3 applies to the Presidency.

            The Colorado supreme court decision does not materially change the facts of the case on whether Trump engaged in insurrection.

            For your convenience, I copied the important parts from Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling:

            Ruling
            • The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three. Indeed, the Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under Section Three.
            • Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that sense, self-executing.
            • Judicial review of President Trump’s eligibility for office under Section Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine.
            • Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone who has taken an oath as President. On this point, the district court committed reversible error.
            • The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of Congress’s January 6 Report into evidence at trial.
            • The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”
            • The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.
            • President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not protected by the First Amendment.

            ¶5 The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.