The Supreme Court today will hear arguments on whether or not states can keep Trump off their primary ballots. The rationale is the prohibition in the 14th Amendment that prevents those guilty of insurrection from being president. Admittedly, that amendment was part of a Civil War response, but the language is what the language is, so without rescinding the law, it's still the law. Here's the problem. Trump has not been convicted of insurrection. He hasn't even been formally accused of insurrection. He's not on trial for insurrection. So ...?
Consider the facts. In February of 2021, the Senate voted to acquit Trump for inciting an insurrection. In August of 2021 the FBI reported "scant evidence" of a coordinated attack. Now, the Cambridge Dictionary defines "insurrection" as "an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence." Britannica says it is "an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects." No "organized," no "insurrection." The FBI also reported no guns were found in the Capitol building (except, of course, for the Capitol police, who were the only ones to shoot anyone during the riot). No "armed," no "insurrection." And no evidence that Trump or his allies were directly involved. All the reports indicate no organization, no guns, and no evidence of Trump's direct involvement. That means no insurrection and, even if you stretch it to an insurrection (because we're so fond of stretching words to brand new definitions these days), Trump, without direct involvement, was not guilty of it. So ... why are we still debating whether or not he can be on the primary ballots? He isn't even being tried for insurrection in the courts. No such charge has been made. How can he be guilty of insurrection when it violates all the facts? The ruling from SCOTUS will not be on whether or not they can block Trump for insurrection. The ruling will be whether or not Trump is guilty of a crime he has not been officially accused of or tried for. The ruling will be whether or not a man can be regarded as guilty until proven innocent.
Now, anyone who has read this blog over the last couple of elections would know that I'm no Trump fan. It's my opinion and I'm free to have it. I'm not a Trump-hater, but neither am I a Trump-lover. I don't say this in favor of "my guy." I say this because facts are facts, justice is justice, and eliminating candidates you don't like on an illegal basis is just as much an assault on democracy as what they complain Trump did. It's not justice; it's not democracy. And as little as I want to have to come to a Trump vote again, I am still against this assault on democracy and American jurisprudence. If we can consider Trump guilty of insurrection without a trial or conviction, what's next?
8 comments:
Despite no charges of Trump (I don't even think the rioters that did get arrested and charged were charged with insurrection) the Dems have been pushing the insurrection narrative, and it is Biden's primary platform against Trump. Those that adore their party over truth are accepting that narrative. Too many people on both sides too frequently uncritically accept what their party says.
I agree with you on this. My concern is that this has the risk of establishing a bad precedent going forward. I would argue that Trump should at least have been charged for insurrection, or be impeached and found "guilty" of insurrection. For that matter, the fact that I don't believe anyone has been charged with insurrection would seem problematic.
Usually, I'm not a fan of justices voting along party lines, but in this case I suspect that it'll break 5-4 in favor of Trump because of that.
Here's a bizarre aspect. NO ONE who was arrested and tried for the Jan. 6 riot has been accused of or tried for insurrection, but, for instance, four members of the Proud Boys were convicted of "seditious conspiracy." Seditious conspiracy is defined as a conspiracy that encourages insurrection, while insurrection is the actual attempt to overthrow a government. In the U.S., insurrection can get you up to 10 years in prison, but seditious conspiracy can get you 20 years. HOWEVER, the 14th Amendment does not preclude someone from holding office for seditious conspiracy. Only insurrection. Not for urging insurrection (like they say Trump did), but for actually taking part in it (which Trump actually did not). We are a nation gone crazy.
I note your silence about armed gunmen among the insurrectionists and the shouts to hang a VP of our government in order to stop the ratification of a duly held election. That’s an overthrow of democracy. And Stan’s lie that ”conviction” is in article 14 section 3. You’re cutting off the whole picture to present a lie.
Anonymous, I may kick myself in the morning, but I posted your comment. We'll see if that lasts.
According to all the news, none of those in the Capitol building had guns. Well, none but the Capitol police. The reports said that some outside the building had guns (mostly in their cars), but none inside. And I didn't say that the 14th Amendment called for a conviction. I said that the American rule of law is "Innocent until proven guilty." Except, I guess, in the case of Trump.
(FYI, things like "You’re cutting off the whole picture to present a lie" are false accusations that normally fall outside of "a friendly discussion." Perhaps try something like, "I'm not sure you have all the facts here" ... like you might for a friend you wanted to talk to without attacking.)
Yes, mistake.
It just strikes me as odd that people can argue "You don't have to be convicted of insurrection to be guilty of insurrection." When people tried that with O.J. ("He wasn't convicted of murder, so you can't say he was guilty"), it didn't fly, even though he ended up convicted in civil court. (That also struck me as a contradiction. How can he be not guilty in criminal court and guilty in civil court? Simple logical error.) I guess if you feel you can be considered the sole judge and jury and declare the man guilty without due process and think that's in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, it makes some sense. Which ... of course ... it doesn't.
Dan's not signing his name to his "anonymous" posts, I see.
He often cites these cries of "hang 'im" as if anyone was actually going to try to put a noose around Pence's neck. (tarring, feathering and running him out of town on a rail would have been far more appropriate) Oh, but there was a scaffold! But then you saw this little woman standing next to it and it was shorter than her and looked like you could blow it over. In crowds, which easily become mobs, people say all manner of things. These days we constantly hear people chanting for the complete annihilation of the Jews, which is what "from the river to the sea" means, regardless of how liar Rashida Tlaib redefines it to deflect criticism and scrutiny from her own vile self.
The whole purpose of the rally and then the marchers on the Capitol, was to provoke withholding of the Electoral count until all suspicious states were addressed...not to overthrow the nation or government, which is just another cheap lie the left tells of the right, and especially anyone connected to or in support of Trump. (And I thought Trump was supposed to be the big lying liar!)
Everything Trump is enduring now is just a continuation of the charade begun from the day he won the 2016. The haters are trying to step it up any way they can because they are without a better option than the guy most people actually want for president, rightly or wrongly. If the left had actual ideas...and good ones...there's be no need for any of this. But when their positions are explained to the stupid, more than just intelligent people will reject them. It's that simple. So they do this so as to interfere with better people exposing the vast difference between the pathetic GOP and the evil Democrat party.
It's my understanding the entire Colorado Supreme Court is Democrat. It's pleasing to note not all of them agreed with the majority.
Art, I believe it was feo, not Dan.
Post a Comment