I just realized an eerie parallel between the Red Menaces "enforcement" of their "moral" minority upon American society, and Russia's ill fated attack upon its unassuming neighbor. The analogy came to me as I was reading the Atlantic's publication of article: "Abortion Is Inflaming the GOP’s Biggest Electoral Problem" (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/08/abortion-gop-electoral-problem-ohio/674999/ for those subscribed). The piece described how the most recent episode of resounding defeats of a state's pregnancy options, i.e., Ohio Issue #1. It was proffered by the state's right-to-lifers, and is indicative of how the "Right" is losing the urban and suburban middle ground voters.
So, here are the points of equivalency between "Putin's War" in the East and anti-abortion here:
(1) The Principles:
(East) Putin is a whiney denialist bent on enforcing his ego, and enabled by the "no prisoners" aging generals and old Soviet glory nationalists that hide behind their "patriotism."
(Us) Need a draw you a picture of our felonious King Clown and the rabid lemmings that back him?
(2) Manifest Destiny:
Both "Putzin" and "(un)Triumphant" have identical maximalist goals (yes I have been reading ISW reports daily) - The world is better off if the liberal weaklings shut up and remove all nuisances hindering their deification.
(3) The Opposition:
(East) Putin hates being argued with. The "Ukes" are rogish halflings who need to be punished by burying any sense of their identity as "Non-Putinites."
(Us) DJT, whose full name, like Voldemort's (oops, I said it) is never to be mentioned, honestly loathes his detractors, and would love to watch their carcasses get picked apart by buzzards, just like on 1/6.
(4) The Accused:
(East) The squatters must be eliminated for their own good, leaving all their homes and industry to me, Heir Putz.
(Us) DJ, "Let'em eat cakes... of C4! Don't care what happens, just get it done. When I wrest back the Presidency they'll be outlawed to exist, anyway."
(5) The Means:
(East) VP: "Take their children, they are the orphans of those we indiscriminately mowed down. And, "help" them by bussing them to us en masse. Boy kin will become good little Russian Soldiers, and girls will "entertain" our troops.
(Us) DJ, "I'll let my wannabees do my bidding, such as Ron-who-tries-to-be-Don and the permanently 14-day unwashed look of Steve "Banyon-tree-haired," by mutating all those pesky liberal institutions of higher and lower learning into non-functionable houses of the good little burgeoning "It's Right to be White" kiddies.
(6) "Unser Kampf:"
(East) P: "Why can't I be the new Stalin, no matter how I try to be evil. Lukashenko, Kadyrov, Ceaușescu, Bolsonaro, Pinochet (Noir) etc, were all happy with their little fiefdoms. Why is my tiny largest country in the world with a land mass of over 6 million sq mi not enough for me?"
(Us) D: "Real estate is my middle name, darn it! It's the foundation that Dad... I mean I, was built upon. I simply should have all of it. I'll give my multitude of unwashed lackey voters all the moral ground they want, I'll just keep the actual pieces of earth."
Charlie, I enjoy listening to you and Tim and Sarah but JVL’s egotistical attitude reminds me of the hosts on Pod Save America. I do not listen to them anymore, an action which I will have to extend to any podcast with JVL. All of them (Pod Save America hosts and JVL) are not nearly as smart as they think they are and their demeanors help explain why the elections are close.
David French's article is only wrong in calling that of Jack Goldsmith's a "compelling piece." Goldsmith's argument that Trump should not be prosecuted because it will result in bad faith actions by his supporters is in itself made in bad faith. As he himself quoted "Let Justice be done though the heavens fall."
Jack's argument is the equivalent of saying that we shouldn't prosecute criminals because it will only piss them off and then what might they do.
Upon further review, I've been thinking of Yeats's words about the best lacking all conviction. And it's convinced me some judge or election official should act to bar Trump from running based on the amendment. It's clear that he attempted insurrection and we need to press the case. Ideally it would happen soon and quickly be taken up by the Supreme Court. Let's see, at least, whether this Court believes in the Constitution.
I don't have a lot of hope it will succeed but it will be a real godsend if it does.
Since we likely can't count on the RNC enforcing anything, we'll probably have to wait until he gets the nomination and therefore would have to be blocked from the ballot. I too have grown skeptical that I can expect reasonable things to happen regarding Trump, but their article makes a very compelling case.
I haven't read the whole letter, but to me for this Section Three to apply to Trump he will have to either acknowledge that he participated in the insurrection (remember the J6 "gathering was not organized by the WH or his campaign) and that he is therefore responsible and the punishment fits the charge. But for this he was impeached and not convicted. It is a hard lift IMO.
Charlie, is the Bulwark considering joining forces with other NGO's to initiate a lawsuit challenging Trump's inclusion on the ballot? This issue looks like it would be perfect for The Bulwark.
If Trump is convicted for Seditionous acts in January of 2024, he should immediately be removed from the States' ballots in the Presidential Election. It will take a 2/3rds majority in Congress to ALLOW him back to run. That will never happen. What happens to him after that? Who knows. But at least, he couldn't ( and shouldn't) be a President again.
Implementing Section 3 seems complicated. And what would be the basis? Trump has never formally been charged with seditious conspiracy or inciting an insurrection. He would just sue and we'd all go around in the rinse cycle one more time.
On the other hand, if a judge in one of the current cases were to remand him for psychiatric examination to determine his fitness to stand trial based on his public behavior and comments, the results would be useful either way in establishing criminal intent for trial or fitness to hold public office.
I am sending the Baude/Paulsen article to my state legislators and our Attorney General in Michigan. Trump and others up here should not be permitted on the ballot for any election conducted in our state. If the scotus one day says otherwise, then we sort it out afterwards. As the authors reason, section 3 is “self-executing”. In other words, it is the status quo until it is not.
My God! I would dearly love it If Trump were barred for eternity from ever holding any public office again. But unless Trump is convicted of insurrection, which Jack Smith has not even charged him with, and even if he were, there just seems so many ways this could all go sideways.
Sad but true. This reminds me disturbingly of the "Trump committed treason" debate: in any MORAL sense Trump is obviously a traitor, but it is equally clear that in the LEGAL sense he is not, so that's not a serious argument. Similarly, as I stated below, I wish that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment were self-enforcing (I wish the same thing for the Emoluments Clauses), but the argument doesn't work for me. And if it worked for the drafters of the Amendment, they wouldn't have thought it necessary to include the Enforcement Clause of Section 5.
Barring someone from office based on Section 3 seems to require a more formal finding than "it sure looks like insurrection to ME!" by an informal bunch of randos, even there are a lot of us.
I agree with most of the cautions people are offering on this. However - my understanding is that the inclusion of an enforcement clause does not mean that the constitutional provision *can only* be upheld by statutes thereby enacted. Rather, it has been established to mean that Congress can enact laws addressing conduct which would not itself be unconstitutional, *in the service of* pursuing the constitutional objective. In short, an enforcement clause expands the realm of methods the government may use, not restricts it - "a positive grant of legislative power," in the words of Justice Brennan.
With or without an enforcement-by-statute clause, and with or without actual statutes, the constitutional language itself is still the highest law of the land, theoretically applicable to all public officials at all levels.
I can think of 147 Representatives, 5 Senators and 1 supreme court justice who fit the parameters of section 3 of the 14th amendment. Aid and comfort to their Orange god. Disgraceful! Never forget.
I read the document. I have no legal training or expertise whatsoever ( other than a sister who is an attorney), but I really liked what I read. And, yet, my hummingbird mind focused on “The Constitution is not a spice cabinet”. I may be pondering that for the rest of my life.
Siri's Response to Charley Syke's "Siri, define projection":
"Projection: a facsimiled image falsely enlarged through the transmission of light through an obscuring caricature."
CS: "Spot-On, Siri! Bully, bully!"
I just realized an eerie parallel between the Red Menaces "enforcement" of their "moral" minority upon American society, and Russia's ill fated attack upon its unassuming neighbor. The analogy came to me as I was reading the Atlantic's publication of article: "Abortion Is Inflaming the GOP’s Biggest Electoral Problem" (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/08/abortion-gop-electoral-problem-ohio/674999/ for those subscribed). The piece described how the most recent episode of resounding defeats of a state's pregnancy options, i.e., Ohio Issue #1. It was proffered by the state's right-to-lifers, and is indicative of how the "Right" is losing the urban and suburban middle ground voters.
So, here are the points of equivalency between "Putin's War" in the East and anti-abortion here:
(1) The Principles:
(East) Putin is a whiney denialist bent on enforcing his ego, and enabled by the "no prisoners" aging generals and old Soviet glory nationalists that hide behind their "patriotism."
(Us) Need a draw you a picture of our felonious King Clown and the rabid lemmings that back him?
(2) Manifest Destiny:
Both "Putzin" and "(un)Triumphant" have identical maximalist goals (yes I have been reading ISW reports daily) - The world is better off if the liberal weaklings shut up and remove all nuisances hindering their deification.
(3) The Opposition:
(East) Putin hates being argued with. The "Ukes" are rogish halflings who need to be punished by burying any sense of their identity as "Non-Putinites."
(Us) DJT, whose full name, like Voldemort's (oops, I said it) is never to be mentioned, honestly loathes his detractors, and would love to watch their carcasses get picked apart by buzzards, just like on 1/6.
(4) The Accused:
(East) The squatters must be eliminated for their own good, leaving all their homes and industry to me, Heir Putz.
(Us) DJ, "Let'em eat cakes... of C4! Don't care what happens, just get it done. When I wrest back the Presidency they'll be outlawed to exist, anyway."
(5) The Means:
(East) VP: "Take their children, they are the orphans of those we indiscriminately mowed down. And, "help" them by bussing them to us en masse. Boy kin will become good little Russian Soldiers, and girls will "entertain" our troops.
(Us) DJ, "I'll let my wannabees do my bidding, such as Ron-who-tries-to-be-Don and the permanently 14-day unwashed look of Steve "Banyon-tree-haired," by mutating all those pesky liberal institutions of higher and lower learning into non-functionable houses of the good little burgeoning "It's Right to be White" kiddies.
(6) "Unser Kampf:"
(East) P: "Why can't I be the new Stalin, no matter how I try to be evil. Lukashenko, Kadyrov, Ceaușescu, Bolsonaro, Pinochet (Noir) etc, were all happy with their little fiefdoms. Why is my tiny largest country in the world with a land mass of over 6 million sq mi not enough for me?"
(Us) D: "Real estate is my middle name, darn it! It's the foundation that Dad... I mean I, was built upon. I simply should have all of it. I'll give my multitude of unwashed lackey voters all the moral ground they want, I'll just keep the actual pieces of earth."
Charlie, I enjoy listening to you and Tim and Sarah but JVL’s egotistical attitude reminds me of the hosts on Pod Save America. I do not listen to them anymore, an action which I will have to extend to any podcast with JVL. All of them (Pod Save America hosts and JVL) are not nearly as smart as they think they are and their demeanors help explain why the elections are close.
Why are they arguing this so late?
David French's article is only wrong in calling that of Jack Goldsmith's a "compelling piece." Goldsmith's argument that Trump should not be prosecuted because it will result in bad faith actions by his supporters is in itself made in bad faith. As he himself quoted "Let Justice be done though the heavens fall."
Jack's argument is the equivalent of saying that we shouldn't prosecute criminals because it will only piss them off and then what might they do.
Upon further review, I've been thinking of Yeats's words about the best lacking all conviction. And it's convinced me some judge or election official should act to bar Trump from running based on the amendment. It's clear that he attempted insurrection and we need to press the case. Ideally it would happen soon and quickly be taken up by the Supreme Court. Let's see, at least, whether this Court believes in the Constitution.
I don't have a lot of hope it will succeed but it will be a real godsend if it does.
Since we likely can't count on the RNC enforcing anything, we'll probably have to wait until he gets the nomination and therefore would have to be blocked from the ballot. I too have grown skeptical that I can expect reasonable things to happen regarding Trump, but their article makes a very compelling case.
I haven't read the whole letter, but to me for this Section Three to apply to Trump he will have to either acknowledge that he participated in the insurrection (remember the J6 "gathering was not organized by the WH or his campaign) and that he is therefore responsible and the punishment fits the charge. But for this he was impeached and not convicted. It is a hard lift IMO.
Charlie, is the Bulwark considering joining forces with other NGO's to initiate a lawsuit challenging Trump's inclusion on the ballot? This issue looks like it would be perfect for The Bulwark.
If Trump is convicted for Seditionous acts in January of 2024, he should immediately be removed from the States' ballots in the Presidential Election. It will take a 2/3rds majority in Congress to ALLOW him back to run. That will never happen. What happens to him after that? Who knows. But at least, he couldn't ( and shouldn't) be a President again.
The comment on open shots is total bullshit--but what else can you expect from a MAGA SYCOPHANT>
I agree with Liz Cheney. And though they clearly don't deserve it, to save the MAGAs from themselves.
Implementing Section 3 seems complicated. And what would be the basis? Trump has never formally been charged with seditious conspiracy or inciting an insurrection. He would just sue and we'd all go around in the rinse cycle one more time.
On the other hand, if a judge in one of the current cases were to remand him for psychiatric examination to determine his fitness to stand trial based on his public behavior and comments, the results would be useful either way in establishing criminal intent for trial or fitness to hold public office.
I am sending the Baude/Paulsen article to my state legislators and our Attorney General in Michigan. Trump and others up here should not be permitted on the ballot for any election conducted in our state. If the scotus one day says otherwise, then we sort it out afterwards. As the authors reason, section 3 is “self-executing”. In other words, it is the status quo until it is not.
My God! I would dearly love it If Trump were barred for eternity from ever holding any public office again. But unless Trump is convicted of insurrection, which Jack Smith has not even charged him with, and even if he were, there just seems so many ways this could all go sideways.
Sad but true. This reminds me disturbingly of the "Trump committed treason" debate: in any MORAL sense Trump is obviously a traitor, but it is equally clear that in the LEGAL sense he is not, so that's not a serious argument. Similarly, as I stated below, I wish that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment were self-enforcing (I wish the same thing for the Emoluments Clauses), but the argument doesn't work for me. And if it worked for the drafters of the Amendment, they wouldn't have thought it necessary to include the Enforcement Clause of Section 5.
Barring someone from office based on Section 3 seems to require a more formal finding than "it sure looks like insurrection to ME!" by an informal bunch of randos, even there are a lot of us.
I agree with most of the cautions people are offering on this. However - my understanding is that the inclusion of an enforcement clause does not mean that the constitutional provision *can only* be upheld by statutes thereby enacted. Rather, it has been established to mean that Congress can enact laws addressing conduct which would not itself be unconstitutional, *in the service of* pursuing the constitutional objective. In short, an enforcement clause expands the realm of methods the government may use, not restricts it - "a positive grant of legislative power," in the words of Justice Brennan.
With or without an enforcement-by-statute clause, and with or without actual statutes, the constitutional language itself is still the highest law of the land, theoretically applicable to all public officials at all levels.
I can think of 147 Representatives, 5 Senators and 1 supreme court justice who fit the parameters of section 3 of the 14th amendment. Aid and comfort to their Orange god. Disgraceful! Never forget.
I read the document. I have no legal training or expertise whatsoever ( other than a sister who is an attorney), but I really liked what I read. And, yet, my hummingbird mind focused on “The Constitution is not a spice cabinet”. I may be pondering that for the rest of my life.