As is the constraint on dialog I've long locked myself into, I'll refrain from being at all serious or on topic. Michael, you write like you speak. I love it. example: "Fuck 'em."
While I agree with your overall point, I think you have the dialectic exactly backwards. It's the second condition, did Mr. Trump engage in an act of insurrection, that is the easier one to solve: he certainly did, and even if he didn't *actually* engage in the act itself, he's definitely guilty of giving "aid or comfort" to those who did by holding out the promise of wide-spread pardons for them. It's the first point that I think will be the contentious one: is Mr. Trump actually covered by the 14th amendment?
While I think it's always a fools errand to predict what the Supremes will do, I wouldn't be surprised if they took an "originalist" view and concluded that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the President. This is one of the arguments Mr. Trump's lawyers have made, and the rare one that seems to have some merit. The pertinent part of the amendment seems to be "No person...who, having previously taken an oath...as an officer of the United States...." Apparently there are previous Supreme Court rulings that hold neither the President nor the Vice-President are technically an "officer" of the United States. So, the Court could hold that Mr. Trump did indeed engage in an insurrection, but the 14th amendment doesn't apply to him. Absurd, but possible.
As you say, it's going to be fun watching them twist themselves in knots over this. Anyway, that's the way it looks from my casita in La Antigua G.
Welcome back to the political, Michael. I always look forward to reading your "take" as I can be assured you never mince words. Thank You!
As is the constraint on dialog I've long locked myself into, I'll refrain from being at all serious or on topic. Michael, you write like you speak. I love it. example: "Fuck 'em."
While I agree with your overall point, I think you have the dialectic exactly backwards. It's the second condition, did Mr. Trump engage in an act of insurrection, that is the easier one to solve: he certainly did, and even if he didn't *actually* engage in the act itself, he's definitely guilty of giving "aid or comfort" to those who did by holding out the promise of wide-spread pardons for them. It's the first point that I think will be the contentious one: is Mr. Trump actually covered by the 14th amendment?
While I think it's always a fools errand to predict what the Supremes will do, I wouldn't be surprised if they took an "originalist" view and concluded that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the President. This is one of the arguments Mr. Trump's lawyers have made, and the rare one that seems to have some merit. The pertinent part of the amendment seems to be "No person...who, having previously taken an oath...as an officer of the United States...." Apparently there are previous Supreme Court rulings that hold neither the President nor the Vice-President are technically an "officer" of the United States. So, the Court could hold that Mr. Trump did indeed engage in an insurrection, but the 14th amendment doesn't apply to him. Absurd, but possible.
As you say, it's going to be fun watching them twist themselves in knots over this. Anyway, that's the way it looks from my casita in La Antigua G.