262
Trump’s Most Unhinged Plans for His Second Term
(nymag.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
262 points (96.5% liked)
politics
19241 readers
1767 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 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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I can't really find fault with the ruling. The amendment specifically calls out very important positions like senators and representatives, and even electors for POTUS...but they just plumb forgot the even more important position of POTUS? It's really hard to believe.
I don't know why they would exclude the POTUS, and few want trump off the ballot more than me, but the argument that the POTUS is not included is very reasonable.
The text literally says "any office". Not sure what you're talking about here.
So why do you think they left POTUS out of the list when they listed out other important positions? Why not just say "any office" is that's all inclusive?
Read the excerpt, then go read the rest of the paper at the link. The context of why is in the other sections, before and after 5 which I quoted above.
I read the excerpt, and it makes no mention of why they explicitly call out senators but not the post, and vaguely referencing a 55 page paper just leads me to believe you have no explanation.
If this is not the case, could you put the argument in your own words?
Oh, by all means. You see the President has to take an oath of office to defend the Constitution, and the Framers thought that nobody in their right minds could be stupid enough to think that the Fourteenth Amendment didn't apply to the Office of the President, or the person holding that Office, because the Fourteenth Amendment applies to whether people who break their Oaths of Public Office get to hold Public Office. To wit, they do not. Not unless a quorum of the sitting government says they can with a vote to that effect, anyway.
As such, it was obvious to the Framers that this would also bar someone from the Presidency. As it says in the context I asked you to read.
You're not arguing why one and not the other, but why it should apply to the POTUS even though it doesn't say POTUS.
I'm not saying I disagree, but the same argument could be made for senator or representative as well. So why call out these specifically and not the other?
If you're resting your hat on "well it obviously applies to senator but not POTUS" when I would think, without specific clarification, that it would obviously apply to both ... Well then I think they justified her ruling as reasonable.
Everyone who takes an oath of office is covered by the Fourteenth Amendment. Why?
THEY ALL TAKE OATHS OF OFFICE
That's it. That's the answer to your question. If you want to know why the Fourteenth Amendment was written, that's also in the paper I linked. Your weaponised ignorance disguised as well-meaning debate only works as long as you aren't being obviously disingenuous.
No, it isn't. This is even a shift from your previous argument. But, again, it's just why you think the POTUS is included, but not why they explicitly call out senators but not the POTUS.
It's fair to say you don't know, which is basically what I'm saying here, but claiming that I'm weaponizing my ignorance when I'm asking you to explain, while you're claiming a conclusion is clear despite yours... Well that seems incredibly backwards.
What I am stating hasn't shifted at all. Your "argument" is that because the President isn't explicitly listed in the text, then "we can't know if they're covered". Do you think every list everywhere has to be exhaustive, even when criteria and examples are listed? You know what the text does state?
Section Three states:
I'll bold and italicise the really important bits, and delete the bits that aren't relevant, because you seem to have trouble with the word "or" in lists:
The ONLY argument that "this doesn't cover the Presidency" is that "The Presidency is not an Office of the United States, and the person who holds the Presidency is not an Officer of the United States". This is obviously wrong as the actual, explicit text is "any office, civil or military", and the actual requirement is "having previously taken an oath of office, then engaging in insurrection against that office".
YOU are obviously wrong, because "any office" is pretty fucking explicit - the Presidency is an Office of the US, as laid out in that 55 page paper you refuse to fucking read. "Civil or military" - the President is both. "Previously having taken an oath as an officer of the United States" - check, taking the Presidency does indeed require an oath beforehand. "Having engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same" - yep, he did that too. That's all the requirements, so are you still going to come back with "but president not listed 🤔" as though it's at all valid?
Edit: Fuck this, I've made my point very clearly, and there is no point in engaging further with you because either you get it or you're a concern troll - maybe both. Good day.
Incorrect. To be very clear, my argument is that it's a very conspicuous omission from a list that explicitly calls out some high importance positions, but does not call out the most important position. And due to that, I have a hard time finding it unreasonable when someone interprets the law to not include that conspicuously omitted position.
You act like I've denied it says "any office." I have not. I've asked you why it calls out a high importance position, but does not call out the most important high importance position. It's a question that you don't have any answer for, so you just keep repeating your point. Or, now, making up my position so you can attack a strawman.
Incorrect. By definition, the way you are interpreting it, it would implicitly include the POTUS. And this is where my issue lies. It does explicitly call out some high importance positions, but not the presidency. Those high importance positions would also be included under any office. So why explicitly call out some, but not others, if "any office" covers all of them? You've completely failed to answer this question. Again, it's fair to admit you don't have an answer but you don't think it matters anyway. It's just then we would have to "agree to disagree" that it's reasonable to consider the parts other than "any office" and ask ourselves what the intent was.
You're inability to answer the question is not my fault, but your own. Why are you trying to blame me? The parting shot is incredibly childish.
Nope, I have answered the question multiple times. I am now taking care of my mental health because you are arguing in bad faith. For the benefit of the community though, here we go:
So when I asked
The answer is "yes", apparently. Does the text list every office of government covered in Section 3? I'll save you the answer: no it does not. If it did, that would be impressive, because most of them didn't exist at the time, for example any ranking position of the Marine Corps. The Framers knew they couldn't name every office that might ever be created, so they didn't try. They listed some examples, and the criteria for triggering the disqualification.
Did you know this exact question came up at the time? I couldn't find the source at the time but I didn't think it was important because, you know, the text covers it with the "oathbreaker" requirement as has already been discussed. But, here it is: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/lsb/lsb10569
Specifically:
I'll highlight that last bit again:
That is from this paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3748639
Which you can view in the browser. Do try to read these ones, they do prove that I have answered your question already and you are without question wrong about Section 3 not covering the Office of the President. You can press "ctrl + f" on a Windows keyboard or "command + f" on a Mac, if you're having trouble reading all those words and just want to skip to the relevant bits instead of arguing with me that your question has not been answered.
It's amazing because I've never made this argument. I've asked why you think they didn't specify the POTUS, and that by not doing so the interpretation that the position was not included is reasonable.
I appreciate the actual attempt to answer my question now, and I will read that piece. Thanks. That seems pretty damning to the ruling by the judge, and I wonder why it wasn't brought up. I assume if this is appealed to the SCOTUS, it will be.
I'm not sure why you had to read the same thing as I have been saying all along from a dude who lived two hundred years ago, but okay I guess - it says a lot about your reading comprehension, and I'm gonna stand by that since you are continuing to insist that your question wasn't answered until just now when it very clearly was. In addition you've never once said why the "or any office" text from the actual Amendment didn't answer that question for you from the get-go, and I would like an explanation for that because it makes no sense to me, at all.
Fine. You are without question wrong about *there being any question as to whether Section 3 covers the Office of the President, or any other Office not explicitly listed in the text, because of that damning "or any office" text you have been so loathe to acknowledge.
I have been thinking about this myself, since I learned exactly what it means that the judge "found as a basis of fact" that the Big Orange engaged in an insurrection. That is being hailed as huge and I can see why. Maybe it's a tactic, and admittedly the Amendment doesn't say he must be struck from the ballot. It just says he's disqualified from taking the office. Theoretically if that "finding as a basis of fact" ruling can stand the whole way, even if he wins he won't be allowed to take the job and there'll be a runoff election. That'd be a first.
It's amazing that even after I say I'm convinced by your evidence (almost I still need to read the source), you still have to be a dick about it. Can't help but be a douche, I guess.
That being said, you're wrong and it's your reading comprehension that sucks. After you misrepresented my position earlier, I explicitly laid out my position and it should have been clear from it that I just think her conclusion was reasonable. But in your small little mind you can't think beyond the black and white, so the fact that I didn't find it unreasonable must mean I think it's unreasonable to include him in the list. You're seeing yourself in me.
And FTR, the part you quote still does not answer my question, but I'm hoping the answer is in the context of what you quoted. so, again, thank you for that.
I suspect, but could very easily be wrong, that to get on the ballot in most states you have to be eligible to be POTUS.
Incorrect, as proven by the fact that you showed me evidence that they intended to include the presidency and I said this "damning to the ruling by the judge." But that would require reading comprehension, which a lack of you hilariously projected onto me. Although this was never true and just a straw man you've made up.
As I said, it is a conspicuous omission which is why I had a hard time finding fault with the ruling. But, again, this would have just required some reading comprehension.
I've asked it explicitly a number of times, yet you still can't understand it. Amazing. I'll try again.
Why did they list some high importance positions but not the POTUS? I'm not asking you how you think it still includes the POTUS. I've always thought it was a reasonable conclusion to think it does. Why list any offices at all, like senator and rep, if the catch all of "any office" gets them as well?
Their inclusion creates ambiguity which is why I originally found her conclusion to be reasonable. But if we have the framers of the amendment saying it applies to the POTUS, then there should be no ambiguity there any longer. This is just the first I've seen that. Pretty much every other argument has been they couldn't fathom a POTUS would he the traitor (which is laughable).
They're called "examples".
No, it doesn't. Because "or" and "any" and "office" all have their own meanings, as do all the other words you completely ignored to claim there's any ambiguity. THAT is why I'm annoyed with you, because you have been obstinately declaring ambiguity and a lack of an answer when it's been right there in your face, in written words, the whole time.
Again, their answer was the same as mine, so why was the text not clear enough for you? Remember, the framers themselves said it's clear as day by simply pointing out what the text says. I want to know why you didn't take that from what's written. Not being a dick now, I actually want to understand what is ambiguous about "or any other office, civil or military".
Lol you don't honestly think this is the case do you? Why not give examples in every amendment? But this is certainly not how it's worded. You're just trying hand wave away this peculiarity. Why not just admit it's curious and raises questions?
At no point was your position unclear; at no point did I not understand what you were arguing. The issue is that they decided to put in "examples" (lol) but not include the POTUS, and I thought that left the door open to interpret as not including the POTUS. One of them clarifying that it does still include the POTUS is very different than you simply claiming it does. The only reason this would be hard to understand is, well, if you lack reading comprehension or cant think outside of black and white.
No, the reason this is hard to understand is that the text is perfectly clear, and you STILL won't say why "OR ANY OFFICE" might not clearly cover offices not explicitly listed. Because that is what those words mean and I think you should be concerned that you can't answer that question. I would also encourage you to research the concept of "or", and of incomplete lists, as they have been around for millennia and you really ought to get caught up.
Put another way: what I want to know is why you want to focus so hard on a sentence fragment being ambiguous, when the very next words of the sentence make the meaning perfectly clear (and make no mistake, the meaning is perfectly clear to anyone who can read English).
This is how this is going, from my point of view: "Why is the President not listed" "See 'any office' right after that" "But why are the other offices listed" "Because 'any office' covers all of them, even ones that didn't exist back then" "But the President isn't listed and that creates ambiguity" "No it doesn't, because of the 'any office' text" "But it doesn't list every office" "Right. See 'any office'" "... But it's ambiguous and you're not answering my question"
Now you try.
Holy shit this has been my entire point. The more you go, the more obvious you make it that it's you who lacks reading comprehension. To be clear, once again, it's because they list high importance positions, and then throw a catch all in at the end that would also cover all of those other positions. Why list those at all? Why not list the most important position? The best explanation you've come up with is "they're examples" which is a joke because it's clearly not worded in a way that would make one believe they are just examples.
Because this is why a judge, one who is an expert in law, ruled that way and I find her conclusion to be reasonable, without the clarification from a framer of whether this is supposed to cover the POTUS. It's the crux of the argument. The issue is that you just want to handwave this away because it's inconvenient for what you (and I, btw) want to be true. You sound like all the people I've debated with who claim "a well regulated militia" was just thrown in for funsies and shouldn't be considered.
The fact that in none of these you include "but senator is" just leads me to believe you aren't debating in good faith. Either that or your reading comprehension is even worse than I originally thought.
I'm not handwaving a damn thing. "Why include those at all?" is barely even a curiosity, and absolutely not a reason to rule that the catch-all means nothing just because there's a partial list before it, nor to defend such a ruling as reasonable. The language is clear as crystal, and there are no two ways about that, because it says what it says. You even called it a catch-all, so you know damn well what those words mean, and implicitly agreed that it is clear from the language alone all those who Section 3 applies to.
You only think that because you lost sight of the forest for the trees. If you understand my position, then you understand why that list being incomplete is irrelevant to the question at hand.
Edit: Also, I'd expect a judge "who is an expert in law" would know about that bloody paper I linked wherein the framers explicitly stated why they listed only some positions and not every position in Federal government. Speaking of which, a point I raised before was that they couldn't have listed every position that would ever exist. By your logic, it's "ambiguous" as to whether we can have a traitor serve as a four-star General in the Space Force, just because nobody ever explicitly named that position in the text of Section 3. If arguing that the framers were deficient in their writing because they couldn't see the future to explicitly name every government position that will ever exist doesn't highlight how pants-on-head your point has been this whole time, I don't know what will.
Lol you called it "examples" despite it not at all reading like examples, and you're just ignoring it again now.
What else would you call an incomplete list of things, that represents some entries from a complete list of things? And you say I'm the one arguing in bad faith.
If you had a point, it would have been made by now. If you're genuine, I hope you consider the dialectical spanking you've been given today and use it as inspiration to be better. I believe in you, champ.
This is what I'm trying to figure out. You're basically saying there was no point in them listing those out specifically, it was just a weird set of examples that doesn't even read as a list of examples, in a document that doesn't otherwise list examples. Maybe you're right, but you're making a terrible case for it. Really you're just handwaving it away because considering it would make maintaining your position more difficult.
And considering you keep misrepresenting my position, despite me explicitly laying it out for you, yes you are the one arguing in bad faith. You and I both know it, and we're likely the only two down this far, so I'm not sure why you're even bothering to deny it.