Skip Navigation

Posts
2
Comments
474
Joined
3 yr. ago

Seer of the tapes! Knower of the episodes!

  • The 1st Amendment presents a very high bar for criminal prosecution of speech.

  • These are civil cases.

  • Depends on what they're talking about.

    e.g. "Let's plan a murder" vs. "Let's plan dinner"

  • Because ultimately the problem with cars is how many of them there are, not what kind of engine they use. If there were only ever, say, 50,000 cars in the entire world we might not even notice the environmental costs. But Google tells me that there are over a billion.

    Put another way, a diesel bus carrying 50 people is better for the environment than those 50 people each driving a separate EV car. Not because the bus has less engine emissions, but because it's a more efficient use of materials and energy.

  • Not if there are going to be hundreds of millions of them, no.

  • Based on the show they've put on in Ukraine, and leaving aside nuclear weapons, I don't think the Russian military is a credible threat to NATO.

  • That is not a distinction actually made by section 3. Oath breakers are disqualified, not rebels per se.

    There are probably good arguments why qualification for a federal office isn’t properly decided by a state judge or official.

    State elections officials already do that for things like age, residency requirements, etc. It's part of federalism that the state governments administer federal elections.

  • OK.

  • No. And that's quite my point.

  • all citizens are legally entitled to the same rights

    It's worth pointing out that, in general and throughout history, citizenship is something that separates the privileged from the unprivileged. The in-group from the outsider. The masters and the slaves.

    Touting the rights of citizens, therefore, does not necessarily rebut the parent comment's criticism.

  • Assistant prosecutor Lewis Guarnieri argued to have the case move forward, which was agreed to by Warren Municipal Court Judge Terry Ivanchak.

    Name and shame these monsters.

  • Sounds like a fatal problem. That's a shame.

  • She's obviously setting up for another attempt to overthrow the government.

  • It wouldn't. The 14th specifically says Congress can remove the insurrection disqualification.

  • Congress should pass a resolution removing Trump's disqualification.

    That would satisfy the 14th amendment without setting a nasty political precedent while at the same time serving as an official recognition that Trump committed acts that triggered the 14th amendment.

  • Congress can only remove the disqualification, they can't impose it.

    It's a problem that the amendment doesn't tell us how it's supposed to work, but the fact that other disqualifying factors (age, residency, etc.) are determined by the states suggests that the states can determine disqualification on the insurrection factor too, and through the same procedural mechanisms.

  • Requiring a conviction in the first place is the special treatment I'm referring to.

    Disqualification is not a criminal penalty. If it were then it could be removed by a presidential pardon.

    Instead it can only be removed by Congress--a body that is specifically prohibited from passing laws that set or alter someone's criminal liability.

  • Why should he be treated any differently than anyone else that was disqualified under the 14th amendment?