Supreme Court to Hear Momentous Case on Whether Trump Can Hold Office
Supreme Court to Hear Momentous Case on Whether Trump Can Hold Office
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.”
You're viewing a single thread.
Who's joining me in the betting pool for an (unfortunate) ruling of "only Congress can decide insurrections"?
I hate how uselessly vague the Constitution is. That "insurrection" needs to be defined and how there's no defined process to properly categorize these crimes is baffling.
At times it feels like the Constitution has as much care and thought put into it as a rushed English essay cranked out in the bathroom stall 15 mins before class.
You can't be clear enough when it comes to language when dealing with somebody interested in willful misinterpretation. That's the problem here.
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.
We’ve been making things up this whole time. The only reason any of this works is because we all agree it does
The thing is, the 14th Amendment, Section 3 isn’t vague on this point:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Look at the wording - it’s clearly intended to be an automatic disqualification. The only way you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that the Office of the President is exempt from this section is by jumping through frankly absurd and facile semantic hoops.
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Pointedly, the only way Congress should be involved (per the relevant section) is in rescinding the disqualification.
But I’m sure the Tribunal of Six will be more than happy to just say “fuck you, we don’t care”. At which point… well, they’re only appointed for life, and they did somewhat recently vastly broaden the scope of the 2nd Amendment, and political violence is on the rise, so I wouldn’t be shocked if one or more people decided enough is enough and conducted a “citizen’s kinetic impeachment”, as it were.
Regardless of how things ultimately turn out, things are definitely 10/10 fucky, and I absolutely hate it.
Alright, I'll play devil's advocate:
Yes, you are correct in your description of what Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says, and what it should mean. However, there is no legal (as opposed to a dictionary or layman's) definitions on what "insurrection" or "rebellion" are, whether the events of January 6th meet either of those definitions, what the definition of "engaged" is, whether the actions Trump took (or didn't take) meet that definition, and (as you already pointed out) whether the President is considered "an officer under the United States."
Failing any one of those conditions means Trump wins:
- SCOTUS could say that merely trying to stop Congress from counting votes instead of dismantling the entire system of government doesn't rise to the definition of "insurrection" or "rebellion."
- SCOTUS could say that inciting your cult to attack Congress or failing to take action to stop them doesn't constitute "engaging."
- SCOTUS could say that Colorado erred in its interpretation of the Presidency as an "Office."
As you said, this is facile and semantic, but the unfortunate truth is that our legal system absolutely runs on semantics. We are heading for a Bush v. Gore Redux, especially when you consider how many of the current SCOTUS justices had a hand in that decision.
(And no, Trump shouldn't be allowed to run because traitors usually aren't able to do much of anything.) (edit: had to fix this sentence.)
This is what I was getting at.
- Insurrection or rebellion is not defined well
- Who actually makes the determination if someone is accused of insurrection or rebellion?
I don't like the possibility of this being leveraged against a Dem in a swing state because something like abortion advocacy got distorted into "rebellion" against future generations or something.
And then there’s the historical folks squabbling about how you can’t change the constitution. The country changes but we’re all still working on late 1700s language, plus amendments.
They never meant the document to last this long. It's literally written inside the Jefferson memorial.