return2ozma@lemmy.worldcake to politics @lemmy.world · 4 months agoIllinois judge rules Donald Trump is disqualified from the state's 2024 election ballotwww.usatoday.comexternal-linkmessage-square222fedilinkarrow-up1928arrow-down132
arrow-up1896arrow-down1external-linkIllinois judge rules Donald Trump is disqualified from the state's 2024 election ballotwww.usatoday.comreturn2ozma@lemmy.worldcake to politics @lemmy.world · 4 months agomessage-square222fedilink
minus-squareCableMonster@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·4 months agoI agree, that amendment was directly talking about confederates who had done a known and agreed on insurrection.
minus-squareFlowVoid@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 months agoIt was also meant to apply to any future insurrections, like the one on Jan 6.
minus-squareCableMonster@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·4 months agoJan 6th wasnt and insurrection, and trump would need to be convicted of an insurrection not just declared guilty by someone.
minus-squareFlowVoid@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 months agoNobody needed to be convicted in 1868, therefore Trump doesn’t need to be convicted today.
minus-squareCableMonster@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·4 months agoYeah because it was literally a civil war…
minus-squareFlowVoid@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-24 months agoThe 14th Amendment applies to insurrections, not just wars. Any attempt to stop the function of government by force is an insurrection, including the Whiskey Rebellion, the Civil War, and Jan 6.
minus-squareCableMonster@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·4 months agoSounds good if it is a universally understood insurrection.
minus-squareFlowVoid@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 months agoInsurrection has a legal definition, and that’s the definition that counts. Judges are the ones responsible for deciding whether a legal definition applies, and so far all those involved said it does.
minus-squareCableMonster@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·4 months agoDo you see the issue with one judge or a couple judges deciding who get to run for office at their whim?
I agree, that amendment was directly talking about confederates who had done a known and agreed on insurrection.
It was also meant to apply to any future insurrections, like the one on Jan 6.
Jan 6th wasnt and insurrection, and trump would need to be convicted of an insurrection not just declared guilty by someone.
Nobody needed to be convicted in 1868, therefore Trump doesn’t need to be convicted today.
Yeah because it was literally a civil war…
The 14th Amendment applies to insurrections, not just wars.
Any attempt to stop the function of government by force is an insurrection, including the Whiskey Rebellion, the Civil War, and Jan 6.
Sounds good if it is a universally understood insurrection.
Insurrection has a legal definition, and that’s the definition that counts.
Judges are the ones responsible for deciding whether a legal definition applies, and so far all those involved said it does.
Do you see the issue with one judge or a couple judges deciding who get to run for office at their whim?