Logically, it would mean only that if Biden committed insurrection he would not be disqualified from seeking a second term. It says nothing about the criminality of anyone (including Biden) committing insurrection.
The other appeal that they are soon hearing in the DC case about presidential immunity is the one that could, if they side with Trump, imply that Biden then has carte blanche to poison Trump’s hamburger or defenestrate a few inconvenient judges.
For clarification, that last paragraph is true for presidential elections. Senators and have been elected by citizens since the ratification of the 17th amendment in 1913.
Actually, ISTM that chaos is kinda like rain, and falls on the just and unjust alike.
Enemies thereof refers to enemies of the United States, not necessarily domestic enemies. Compare identical language from art III, treason clause. There is overlap with insurrection but it also covers foreign enemies.
Maybe you can see it better if I shorten the quote like this,
No person shall […] hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, […] who, having previously taken an oath, […] as an officer of the United States, […] to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have […] given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Similarity the treason clause does not refer exclusively to foreign enemies, if I remember correctly the Confederacy was held to be an enemy of the United States in the Prize Cases (concerning Lincoln’s impoundment of blockade runners), contrary to common law authorities like Coke where all enemies are foreign. What sets apart the Confederate States and the Third Reich from the likes of China and Russia is that the former were belligerents in a war against the United States, but the latter are not.
I think there is a federal law requiring states to certify the popular vote to the national archivist. It was passed to avoid another 1876 election where three states had sent multiple competing slates of electoral votes. (Democrats got Reconstruction killed, Republicans got President Hayes.) Not sure how that is written to work if a state doesn’t hold a popular vote, it wouldn’t surprise me if it doesn’t contemplate that possibility.
I can’t think of a right considered more fundamental than voting. The Fourteenth Amendment, section 1, has been interpreted as requiring states to demonstrate a compelling interest before abrogating a fundamental right. So that’s a roadblock.
If states just decide to remove Biden (or Trump) by legislative decree, that also runs into problems with art I section 10, prohibiting bills of attainder.
~Max
Gorsuch and friends had absolutely no problem lying about the findings of facts in Bremerton v. Kennedy. I cant imagine that would be a problem for them here.
If Trump had succeeded in J6, do we think he would’ve waited until a conviction occurred prior to his imprisoning Pelosi, Biden, Schumer, etc?
This question was asked on Keith Olbermann’s podcast this morning, and he brings up a good point: Trump and his team obviously had a plan for what would happen if their coup succeeded. What was it? And do you think they would’ve hand-wrung about whether their pretexts had any basis in law or the Constitution?
So why are we treating this insurrectionist, a man who obviously acted in opposition to the Constitution, by giving him the constant, continual, benefit of a doubt? Why make sure all the i’s are crossed, the t’s are dotted, and why should we be bothered to give him the benefit of a USSC judgment, one NOT REQUIRED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT, so he can do this again?
Fuck this guy. Lock him up and throw away the key. Because, as sure as shit as I’m typing this, he will be glad to do the same to us. And given the chance, he will.
That’s nonsense. You don’t understand what “thereof” means. That word means “as just described”. Thats why that word was included, it was to make it clear which enemies were meant. I know the word is a bit archaic but it’s not that obscure.
Unless I see the plan I’m not so sure Trump had a plan for after. He’s more of a go with your gut and figure it out as you go dude when it comes to politics.
ETA: If Trump wrote the plan himself it probably said something like “stay don’t leave still PRESIDENT!”
I mean, we say this, and then there’s this convoluted, multi-pronged approach to overturning the election, one including:
… and all of them, with the possible exception of #6, have Trump’s direct involvement. So I think the argument that “Trump is a moron who doesn’t know what he is doing other than wanting something…” is not supported by the evidence.
… the list of things just from November 2020 to January 2021 belies the notion that Trump is an unthinking moron…
They could put in a statement that the ruling in favor of Trump should not be treated as a precedent. This is widely claimed to have occurred in Bush v. Gore.
They also could just reverse themselves if and when Biden does the same. Biden would know they are capable of that, so he wouldn’t really have a green light.
Russia declared back in 2016 that they had committed acts of war against the US. I don’t know why everyone ignores that.
“Thereof” means “of the thing just mentioned”. “Enemies thereof” is "enemies of the United States. It doesn’t specify foreign or domestic. Do you really think that the drafters considered it OK for an officer of the US to betray America to foreign countries?
No but that’s covered by treason laws. That interpretation would say everyone guilty of treason is an insurrectionist. It wouldn’t be an overlap like Max says, it would be a redundancy, because people guilty of treason were executed.
My interpretation is that it means that giving aid and comfort to those engaged in insurrection is itself insurrection. Do you really think the drafters considered it okay for an officer of the US to aid insurrectionists?
No, because it doesn’t specify whether the enemies are foreign or domestic.
I don’t see how that’s relevant. It doesn’t matter if someone is foreign or domestic. If you conspired with Russia to help you illegally take over the US then that’s no different than conspiring with a white supremacist group out of Idaho. I’m not sure how “foreign or domestic” even became a question in the first place.
I guess they could stick a footnote on the decision: IOKIARCI
It’s OK If A Republican Commits Insurrection
No, @Max_S and @Chronos are correct, it means “of the thing just mentioned” - so the phrase in question clearly means enemies of the United States.
…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Grammatically, perhaps it’s technically slightly flawed because the thing just mentioned is the Constitution of the United States, but I think we can forgive them that.
I’m confused, you seem to be arguing against yourself here. The text doesn’t specify foreign or domestic enemies, so it includes both.
Hamburder
Hamberder
Thank you!
I missed that someone had responded to me.
No-one needs to read between the lines because I have been explicit from my very first post. If the interpretation of the law is correct (which I am no expert on, and I know lawyers have had different opinions on this, that’s why I leave that part open), then by definition the judges have done the right thing, and I do not wish for anything more or less. Judges should uphold the law, and nobody is above the law.
And I am worried that the consequences of this will be bad.
It’s like when I told my insurance company that I scraped a parked car. It was the right thing to do…send me back in time and I would tell them again, and the consequences were massively increased premiums for years.