I think the questions come from the idea (to some), that what Trump and the GOP did, doesn't count as insurrection. Where as with Jefferson Davis i don't think anyone would say he didn't participate in one, including himself. I mean we were in a 4 year war and secession from the US etc.
But would this same clear and convincing evidence standard hold true if it was a Mississippi court for example? Or are we now into partisan politics territory?
So we operate on a 'we eyeball it' standard? Also, I suspect a lot of them would not have agreed considering they attempted on numerous occasions to return to offices and were barred by the 14th amendment.
Yes, different courts can come to different determinations given the same set of facts. Courts are also frequently partisan, especially these days.
I mean I think he should have been defacto disqualified, same as trump, but you don't have to convince me, you have to convince brain dead trump supporters that their representation isn't being stolen.
I'm saying it's not required (as repeated by others in this thread), not that CO didn't do their due diligence.
I am of the opinion that we should entirely ignore what Trump supporters think because there's nothing you can say/do that will make them change their mind. More importantly/troublingly they use this irrationality to try and intimidate officials into not performing their duties like in this case.
And if they still want Trump on any ballot, convince 2/3 of the House and Senate to vote to make him eligible again.
Why does it require a court? If someone's known to be 34 and submits to be on the primary ballot, does it hit the court as well? If not, why not?
Well, alright, turn that sentence around.
There is a system in place as you’ve already been told about multiple times. It was adjudicated in the courts. If your argument is we can’t trust the courts well then that will be true for any other system you devise as well. As far as your scenarios go - that’s what they’ve already tried to do once and you’re only proving my point further. You keep people who try to overthrow the government off the ballot because if you don’t and they gain power they won’t give it up because they already showed the system means nothing to them.
The south still thinks it was the war of Northern Aggression, per @woolfe9998 Texas still has a statue at their Capitol that says as much.
It is! Conservatives have been using it in the US for years. For example the debt ceiling - the publicly stated position of Republicans is that they are willing to cause a worldwide economic calamity to cut social spending in the US. That’s not something you negotiate with, it’s something you ignore by using the 14th amendment.
I'm not questioning the courts, forget the word court right now. It's been started several times that the 14th does not require a conviction, so what does it require? Who is the authority on whether a president has committed insurrection? Does it require a singular authority or essentially peer pressure from the masses? Is the final authority the voting commission that decides who's on the ballot, barring a higher authority telling them otherwise? Does the SC have the authority to reverse the decision of the voting commission on who's permitted to be on the ballot?
It requires a finding that someone engaged in insurrection.
Except two of those are demonstrable facts and one (in this case) is an opinion. I know you're convinced of Trumps guilt beyond any doubt, I'm not.
No, one of those is a fact that may or may not be demonstrable. (Birth records are lost sometimes), and the second two are very much opinions.
But who makes the claim that has to be contested to begin with? Who in the primary election system makes the initial claim 'soandso can't be on the ballot'? Can it be you or me?
Facebook
Twitter