politics
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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
i find this very strange. it’s like they’re saying no one really knows what the amendment means because it hasn’t been used in a while. i’m not a lawyer, so my opinion doesn’t really mean much on this. i but i don’t see how it’s that vague (although it is a little vague). i also don’t see why the legal strength of an amendment should depend so much on how often it’s been used.
i’m not saying they’re wrong, i just don’t understand why it’s like that.
It's not obvious what it means to "engage in insurrection" without case law defining what that means. What exactly does "insurrection" mean? What types of actions are required for this law to apply?
It's much more of a gamble.
7 people were convicted already of seditious conspiracy, so either of the conspiracy charges connecting the former president with directing their actions would be pretty strong evidence.
Maybe. That's what the courts will need to decide. And without prior precedent supporting your argument it's not as strong as perhaps you think.
agreed - I think it needs a conviction to occur before anyone can argue this.
Except the conviction won't be for insurrection, but for some other related offense so he'll get away with it on this technicality.
The thing is, it's pretty clear to basically everyone else. We're supposee to have confidence in the people who interpret these things for us, but that's pretty clearly gone too. I'm pretty frightened about where we're headed because at some point people will get fed up that no one is getting real consequences and start handing them out themselves.
This is just the way of the law and the justice system. You've got to prove it.
Is it? Are you sure?
It's explained in great detail in the federalist papers.
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped"
The thing that isn't clear to everyone all at once is which people are getting away with heinous things with zero consequences. What is clear is that a certain level of society has no consequences. Eventually one side or the other will get fed up and things will get really bad. Whether they're going after the actual problems is another thing entirely, and the odds are probably better that they'll be going after the wrong people.
Either way, I see the lack of consequences as the ultimate fuse in this powder keg. One of the main functions of government is to systematize and standardize consequences for unacceptable behavior, and we all agree to abide by rules we don't necessarily agree to so that at least it's somewhat consistently applied. In theory. But if government refuses to even give the appearance of doing that, people will take it into their own hands. Human nature has been the way it is way longer than our oldest institutions.
Well, it's clear to everyone who isn't a Trumper, but you need to remember that the law doesn't always follow "it's clear to everyone." Due to various reasons, that law can hinge on technicalities and tests. So while we might agree that Trump engaged in insurrection, proving that he engaged in insurrection in court would be more difficult. Not impossible, mind you, but more difficult. And depending on the judge and evidence, Trump could be found, via a technicality, to have not engaged in insurrection as far as the law goes.
I don't disagree. I think the real problem us that we're supposed to trust the impartiality of the people making those technical legal determinations. It's become obvious that's a total fiction.
that's a good point and it helps me understand the problem a bit better. as someone outside the legal system though, it still seems like any sufficiently robust definition of insurrection should cover what he did on january 6th. but i guess having precise definitions is important in a legal setting and that problem still remains.
From what I've heard, the 14th amendment was written in a vague manner because the people passing it didn't know what form a future insurrection would take. Would it be a full fledged Civil War Part 2? Would it be an uprising? Would it be a state government refusing to follow federal law and threatening to arrest anyone trying to enforce it?
Say they defined insurrection as "citizens taking up arms against America," then many of the January 6th folks would be guilty, but would Trump? After all, he didn't technically go down there with a weapon.
The vagueness keeps it open to any form of insurrection, but it also makes it hard to tell what counts as insurrection.
It doesn't say convicted, it says "engaged in" and I believe it prevented former Confederates from taking office. So it seems like there's a pretty big precedent backing it up.
And then there are other amendments like the 2nd Amendment with the puzzling and vague "well-regulated militia" language that never seems to be a problem...
Don't ignore the fact that it was fought in the courts for decades to get where we are now.
Now we have an amendment that hasn't been tested in the courts because no president has been enough of a corrupt, fascist, scumbag to require its use. So, it's going to have to go through the courts.
I only hope someone in every state brings a case.
That's my hope as well. All it takes is for Trump to be removed from the ballot in one or two swing states to have him lose the election.
(Just to be clear to the studio audience, I'm not in favor of "rigging" the system on a technicality so Republicans lose / Democrats win. This is a matter of keeping a criminal defendant insurrectionist and mis-handler of highly classified information out of perhaps the most powerful position in the world.)
For my part, I'm done trying to be civil with the opposition. They don't want to play fair, they don't want democracy to survive, and they want to see the people I care about die.
The Republican party exists today to burn the world down. They have to be destroyed or we're all lost.
Because half the people actively ignore that bit- including many judges.
It's hard to see how this guy, or any other individual, has standing to sue over this. To sue someone you have to be able to prove that you personally were harmed in some way. And broad "this harms the electorate, and I'm part of the electorate" claims usually do not work.
Except when it comes time to strike down debt relief.
Yeah 😑
If that is the case, that is absolutely broken.
Part of it us the lack of caselawwhich is used fairly heavily for arguments in court