481
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 05 Jan 2025
481 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19292 readers
2100 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
Nope. I read it. The language of the 14th doesn't require an impeachment or other formal conviction to apply. The fact that Trump was successfully impeached for inciting an insurrection is enough. The Senate's failure to execute its duty does not erase reality.
At this time, on this topic, I am not concerned with what makes for interesting conservation. I am interested in bringing attention to the ongoing Constitutional crisis of Trump's tentative second term.
Do you actually understand how impeachment works? The House passing articles of impeachment means very little. For a legal equivalent, it's like the grand jury agreeing to indict. Should we be punishing criminals just because charges were brought against them, even if they were acquitted? Of course not. While the House has the Power to Impeach:
The reality of the situation is that the Impeachment of Trump isn't a factor in the 14th Amendment barring him. Had the Senate convicted, it would have been a cut and dried situation, but that didn't happen. Were Trump convicted for insurrection for his actions on January 6th, it would again be an easy situation. The reason there is such an interesting conversation, and not much else, around the 14th Amendment and Trump is that the legal situation isn't clear. Lots of folks have said that Trump's actions were an insurrection, but he hasn't actually been convicted of it. Congress could probably bar him from holding office, but that hasn't happened.
I'd also point out how insane it would be for the House's Power to Impeach to become the de facto bar for executing the 14th Amendment's bar on holding office. This requires a simple majority in the House. Really think that one through. You want the House to be able to bar any person from holding Federal Office, based on a simple majority vote? The level of chaos that would create would be insane.
I do. Thanks. You're still focused on the wrong thing here.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not require any specific test which defines "insurrection". The impeachment is a useful anchor for establishing an agreement that an insurrection did occur and that Trump was, at the very least, an active participant in that insurrection.
The Insurrection Bar to Office: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment (crsreports.congress.gov) provides an well crafted and neutral review of this. Its closing sentence is particularly relevant to our back and forth:
Republican strategy has long revolved around the targeted devolution of norms. They hide in the cracks between definitions which assume good faith participation in the labor of mutually consensual governance and shield themselves in perpetual faux-victimhood. If Congress does not pursue the execution of Section 3 it is nothing less than an abdication of their duty to their Oath of Office.
Your last paragraph is a result of misunderstandings and assumptions on your part.
Ya, the real problem is that it doesn't. As specifically stated by the CRS:
And that difficulty is why that whole document exists, there isn't clear legal guidance. And the historic precedents on it are a mess. Yes, either house of Congress has the power to refuse to seat a member of their respective house and have used the 14th Amendment as a reason in the past. Moreover, Congress could pass a law which sets out a legal framework; but, that's not really happened either. The whole reason that this is even a discussion is that lack of clarity.
Arguably, Congress did try to do something, the House Impeached Trump. The Senate dropped the ball. And the American people then buried that ball far enough to interfere with Satan's daily activities by re-electiong Trump. It's a bad situation, but also not one we're going to solve by misrepresenting the law. Especially by handing The House the sole power to determine what Presidential Candidates have engaged in insurrection by a simple majority vote (the requirement to impeach). If you want to bring up "devolution of norms", that sort of power is going to take the cake. Anytime we have a split government, we're going to see impeachment and barring from office on the flimsiest of excuses. What we need isn't half-baked ideas but an actual, well considered framework.
I think it's down to you moving the goalposts. You specifically stated:
You are arguing that the House Impeaching is enough to trigger Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Which is what I'm calling ridiculous. Trump being convicted by the Senate would have clearly barred him from holding office again. The reality is that he was acquitted. That's the part which is actually important.