Relative to Trump, the Insurrection Clause has two components – the offices that an insurrectionist is barred from attaining (including “any office civil or military”), and the offices that they held when they took their oath to the Constitution. The later is defined as, “a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State.”
If the President does not count as an “officer of the United States,” then it doesn’t apply to Trump because he’s never taken an oath besides the Presidential oath of office.
You know, this exchange got me curious; I wonder if it was the following aside from the decision? ‘The diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the “assistants or deputies … subject to his superintendence.’
You could argue that it’s not an affirmation, but could also argue that it’s not not an affirmation.
Since none of the current charges against Trump directly relates to the Jan. 6 insurrection, I wonder if even straight convictions on all the DOJ and Georgia charges would convince this SCOTUS that Trump’s Jan. 6 role was more than “alleged.”
I feel that the fake electors was a deliberate try at insurrection. An insurrection does not have to be violent. Though Trump was involved in both a violent insurrection attempt, and a coup. Either way, Trump is a traitor. Full Stop.
