- Reaction score
- 21,937
- Points
- 1,260
IMHO it all comes down to what role that 45 played in Jan 6th as it exposed in court.
A Deeply Fractured US
- Thread starter BeyondTheNow
- Start date
- Status
It should come down to that, but I don’t think we’ve heard the last of the silliness about whether the President is ‘an officer’ for purpose of 14(3). Whether State officials or courts have authority to hear this matter at all is a no brainer; of course they do, and Trump’s objections on those grounds are just petulant whining. It’s constitutional basics that states get to determine the manner of choosing electors. It’s the laws they’ve passed for that express purpose that are being applied here.
Given how highly partisan American courts can be, I personally expect that SCOTUS will, through some contortion of legal reasoning, find a way to gong this. But that’s just me. If they do, I’ll shrug and accept the decision, because legitimacy doesn’t depend on me liking or agreeing with the outcome.
- Reaction score
- 6,071
- Points
- 1,160
So, just trying to understand this statement right. You're saying that if the SCOTUS rules in Trump’s favour, they twisted their legal authority. That you'll accept their verdict but not agree with it, based on those contortions. Have I got that right?
Just a yes or no is fine. I just want to confirm that what you wrote matches my interpretation
What I wrote does not match your interpretation.
If SCOTUS rules in Trump’s favour, there are a number of ways they could do so. Some of those would involve ruling substantively on the core issues (eg what does “engage in” mean, or what is “insurrection”. Other ways to reach a verdict could include interpretation of narrower procedural issues or fine points of law that avoid the core issue. This may result in a verdict that is fully legally legitimate, but that could have easily gone another way based on the partisan makeup of the court.
We see this regularly at various levels. You yourself are one of the loudest drum-bangers on this site for how partisan U.S. courts can be. We saw this recently with your declaration that the Colorado supreme court decision on this same matter was complete partisan bullshit, and “a waste of SCOTUS’ time” that you feel must inevitably result in a unanimous SCOTUS verdict in Trump’s favour.
So, like yourself, I agree that judicial decisions in the U.S. can (not always are) influenced to some lesser or greater degree by partisan leanings. Obviously this applies to SCOTUS, which is why which president gets to nominate a justice, and the retirement of every justice is such a big political deal. I believe that even if I take political issue with a verdict, so long as it’s arrived at by proper due process of law in a court that has appropriate jurisdiction, that’s a legally legitimate verdict until and unless reversed on appeal. That’s why I believe that a lower court verdict can be valid and legally meaningful without appeals having been fully exhausted.
I hope that clarifies your uncertainty about where I stand on this.
- Reaction score
- 6,071
- Points
- 1,160
So 'no' then. Thx.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,738
- Points
- 1,040
Gorsuch's remark is limited to allowing states to exclude constitutionally prohibited candidates. It doesn't provide any guidelines for evaluating the criteria. There's a bit of a gap between excluding prohibited candidates for obvious and immutable characteristics like age, type of citizenship, and residency; and prohibitions that require the court to interpret, among other things, who is an officer, what amounts to insurrection, and what amounts to engaging in insurrection. Gorsuch is in no danger of being "accountable" if the court determines that the criteria aren't met.
Yes, that’s correct. Nonetheless, it’s very possible that the argument of whether a state can adjudicate this through state law will come up at SCOTUS. It already has at lower levels, which is why that decision was quoted at all. The inclusion of Gorsuch’s prior decision helps to close the door on, for example, an argument (however spurious it may be) by Trump’s team that article 5 of the 14th amendment precludes state enforcement of article 3. Any SCOTUS appeal is likely to be multifaceted, and every facet matters.
- Reaction score
- 21,937
- Points
- 1,260
Insurrection
A rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence.Under federal law, it is a crime to incite, assist, or engage in such conduct against the United States.
Using that, one can clearly understand that SOME of the actions on Jan 6th where in fact an Insurrection.
Then we look at
The Insurrection Act Explained
The law, which lets the president deploy the military domestically and use it for civilian law enforcement, is dangerously vague and in urgent need of reform.
And then
10 U.S. Code § 253 - Interference with State and Federal law
10 U.S. Code § 253 - Interference with State and Federal law
It is going to be a mess, as all of the major defining aspects of Insurrection fall in the Insurrection Act, and how it allows the President to act.
Clearly no one had considered that a sitting President maybe guilty of the offense.
‘Insurrection’ as a criminal offense wasn’t established by the Insurrection Act. That act is more about federal powers to act to suppress an insurrection. 18 USC S.2383 is the federal offence for insurrection. I’m not sure what, if any, such offense would have existed in statute at the time the 14th Amendment was passed.Insurrection
A rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence.
Under federal law, it is a crime to incite, assist, or engage in such conduct against the United States.
Using that, one can clearly understand that SOME of the actions on Jan 6th where in fact an Insurrection.
Then we look at
The Insurrection Act Explained
The law, which lets the president deploy the military domestically and use it for civilian law enforcement, is dangerously vague and in urgent need of reform.www.brennancenter.org
And then
10 U.S. Code § 253 - Interference with State and Federal law
10 U.S. Code § 253 - Interference with State and Federal law
www.law.cornell.edu
It is going to be a mess, as all of the major defining aspects of Insurrection fall in the Insurrection Act, and how it allows the President to act.
Clearly no one had considered that a sitting President maybe guilty of the offense.
- Reaction score
- 21,937
- Points
- 1,260
Agreed, but it does have a better definition than S.2383’s IMHO. Note it does say Any Office (for which I think one can clearly agree The Office of The President is included)
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.If you mean presidential ineligibility in the case of a hypothetical 2383 conviction, tough to say. Either 14(3) is self executing or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then yes, 2383 could be held to be the 14(5) congressional enabling statute. If, however, 14(3) stands alone (which is what Colorado has held, and which appears to be the intent of the drafters), then a 2383 conviction could help to establish the facts, but likely could not be held to be a disqualification for presidency in its own right. There was a SCOTUS case in 1995 (US Term Limits Inc v Thornton) that shut down states adding additional criterial for office (congresscritters in that case) beyond what’s provided for in the Constitution. That precedent should absolutely extend to an effort to make 2383 a direct disqualifier, if 14(3) is held to be self-executing.
Not that we’ll see that ruled on in the foreseeable future- 18 USC 2383 isn’t on the table. But it’s an interesting hypothetical that I’m sure will make for some good law school term papers.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,208
- Points
- 1,160
I kind of like how they connect insurrection with the Infantry.
Not far wrong, as it turns out
- Reaction score
- 356
- Points
- 780
Frankly Scarlet......An RFK Jr RV was touring around Ottawa earlier this week. Its driver? The prime minister's half-brother.
Justin Trudeau's Brother Is Driving a RFK Jr. Campaign Bus
The antivax bus is coming. Everybody's jumping.www.bugeyedandshameless.com
kkwd
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 149
- Points
- 730
Michael Cohen admits to submitting fake court case citations. The wonder boy was trying to get his house arrest terminated and chose to go to Google Bard for help. One thing, Google Bard made up the whole thing. Then Swiftus gave the results to his lawyers and they submitted it, to Federal court no less. Yes, Trump hired this guy, may I say that was a mistake, Bigly for sure. Our hero decided to keep with the tradition and hire subpar lawyers who submit unchecked documents. I think those of you members getting back from the New Year's Levee tonight would appreciate a laugh. A lesson to be learned here, don't trust AI too much, they don't care what they pump out.
Article Link
Hah, that’s awesome. What a dummy.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,150
- Points
- 1,160
The first of a great many 2024 Presidential Election forecasts that will be picked over and debated over the next 10 months...
- Reaction score
- 27,492
- Points
- 1,090
SCOTUS has announced that they’ll hear the Colorado appeal regarding the decision that Trump isn’t eligible in that state. Appellant’s (Trump’s) submission, respondents reply, and the appellant’s final reply are all due in the next month, with an oral hearing February 8th. SCOTUS should rule on the matter before the end of February.
There are about seven or eight individual issues that have been raised so far in the initial requests for SCOTUS to hear the matter. SCOTUS’ decision to take the case doesn’t narrow down what’s to be briefed, so we can expect pretty much all of the issues we’ve discussed arising out of the Colorado case to be argued.
The initial appeal has also been filed in Maine. That will take a bit longer to climb through the courts.
There are about seven or eight individual issues that have been raised so far in the initial requests for SCOTUS to hear the matter. SCOTUS’ decision to take the case doesn’t narrow down what’s to be briefed, so we can expect pretty much all of the issues we’ve discussed arising out of the Colorado case to be argued.
The initial appeal has also been filed in Maine. That will take a bit longer to climb through the courts.
- Reaction score
- 8,295
- Points
- 1,160
A one hour perspective on Jan 6 crowd management - Police body cams a on scene commentary. Some pretty hard to handle scenes.
open.ink
J6 Special Collection | Open.Ink
Thousands of crowdsourced video files. Hundreds of hours of CCTV footage. Dozens of police officer body cams. One True Timeline.
open.ink
- Status
Similar threads
