484
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
484 points (99.0% liked)
politics
30968 readers
2518 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I do. Thanks. You're still focused on the wrong thing here.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not require any specific test which defines "insurrection". The impeachment is a useful anchor for establishing an agreement that an insurrection did occur and that Trump was, at the very least, an active participant in that insurrection.
The Insurrection Bar to Office: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment (crsreports.congress.gov) provides an well crafted and neutral review of this. Its closing sentence is particularly relevant to our back and forth:
Republican strategy has long revolved around the targeted devolution of norms. They hide in the cracks between definitions which assume good faith participation in the labor of mutually consensual governance and shield themselves in perpetual faux-victimhood. If Congress does not pursue the execution of Section 3 it is nothing less than an abdication of their duty to their Oath of Office.
Your last paragraph is a result of misunderstandings and assumptions on your part.
Ya, the real problem is that it doesn't. As specifically stated by the CRS:
And that difficulty is why that whole document exists, there isn't clear legal guidance. And the historic precedents on it are a mess. Yes, either house of Congress has the power to refuse to seat a member of their respective house and have used the 14th Amendment as a reason in the past. Moreover, Congress could pass a law which sets out a legal framework; but, that's not really happened either. The whole reason that this is even a discussion is that lack of clarity.
Arguably, Congress did try to do something, the House Impeached Trump. The Senate dropped the ball. And the American people then buried that ball far enough to interfere with Satan's daily activities by re-electiong Trump. It's a bad situation, but also not one we're going to solve by misrepresenting the law. Especially by handing The House the sole power to determine what Presidential Candidates have engaged in insurrection by a simple majority vote (the requirement to impeach). If you want to bring up "devolution of norms", that sort of power is going to take the cake. Anytime we have a split government, we're going to see impeachment and barring from office on the flimsiest of excuses. What we need isn't half-baked ideas but an actual, well considered framework.
I think it's down to you moving the goalposts. You specifically stated:
You are arguing that the House Impeaching is enough to trigger Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Which is what I'm calling ridiculous. Trump being convicted by the Senate would have clearly barred him from holding office again. The reality is that he was acquitted. That's the part which is actually important.