7 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Susan Linehan's avatar

It seems to me that, unlike the qualification of being 35 or a natural citizen, this (dis)qualification needs to answer two questions before it can work: Was it an insurrection/rebellion and did trump "engage" in it. Are the advocates of unilateral state action sure they will be happy with how the Extremes answer this? I can see the originalists saying rebellion requires riding a horse into battle wielding a bayonet.

Expand full comment
E2's avatar

There plainly was violence and disorder, which by the account of all known participants was *intended to stop the transfer of power* to Biden. That's what they all said they were doing, on the day. Many of them said they felt they were acting at the direct instruction of Trump, in his rally speech that morning and on twitter.

Expand full comment
Susan Linehan's avatar

Definitely. And we'd like to be able to preserve the ability to prosecute folks for it. A "too protective of trump" definition by the Extremes may foreclose that in the future.

Expand full comment
Al Brown's avatar

I'm proud to be an Originalist AND a Textualist, and as far as I'm concerned, Trump qualifies for insurrection; horses and bayonets are optional, although it wouldn't surprise me if some bayonets had been around on January 6.

Expand full comment
Susan Linehan's avatar

I'm not disputing that it says Insurrection to me. But I'm not the justice, or injustice as the case may be.

Expand full comment
David Court's avatar

Spears were and firearms, too, all of which were available in 1776 and before and were "around" and used on 6 January. TFG is reliably reported to have said to remove metal detectors from screening those attending his rally. Does anyone really wonder why?

Expand full comment
Al Brown's avatar

He gave the game away when he said, "They're not here to hurt ME." He just can't help himself.

Expand full comment
ErrorError