A Deeply Fractured US

[WLSC]

There are at least 3 places they could hang it: that "officer of the United States", as a particular term in the Constitution and amendments, does not include the president; that "insurrection" has to be proven in criminal court when it falls short of an obvious armed uprising like the revolution or secession/civil war; that the threshold for "engaged in" has to be higher and not muddled with contemporary comments exhorting people to be "peaceful".

I heard that this morning about POTUS being an officer of the USA.

 

[Lumber]

Well, at least you wear your leanings on your sleeve.

BUT WHERE ARE THE COLOURS?

 

[Lumber]

I heard that this morning about POTUS being an officer of the USA.

BAAAAAAAAAMMMMM

 

[KevinB]

I heard that this morning about POTUS being an officer of the USA.

Constitutionally it is very clear the President and the Vice President are Officers of the US Government. Anyone trying to say otherwise either has no firm grasp on our system of government, or a axe to grind (and potentially both).

 

[Brad Sallows]

I heard that this morning about POTUS being an officer of the USA.

Yes; that's one of the aspects I had in mind when I wrote "holding that president is an "officer of the United States" (which is not resolved by whatever people want to believe was colloquial in 1868)". That doesn't resolve the question. If a definition or term of art exists in legislation being amended, the amendment has to respect it or explicitly state exceptions or differences. Changes in usage over time are not a valid way of reinterpreting law.

See here for a discussion of the usages. The complication is that so often in the prior legislation, the president, the VP, and either "Congress" or "senators and representative", as well as "other civil officers" are singled out for specific mention.

See here for an opinion that supports the CO decision.

(Josh Blackman, Seth Barrett Tillman, and Ilya Somin are all worth reading well before giving countenance to what is passing for analysis on major networks.)

 

[brihard]

Yes; that's one of the aspects I had in mind when I wrote "holding that president is an "officer of the United States" (which is not resolved by whatever people want to believe was colloquial in 1868)". That doesn't resolve the question. If a definition or term of art exists in legislation being amended, the amendment has to respect it or explicitly state exceptions or differences. Changes in usage over time are not a valid way of reinterpreting law.

Correct me if I’m wrong. But you seem to be suggesting that it’s not correct or useful to try to establish what a word or phrase was understood to mean by the drafting legislators at the time a law was written, when trying to determine how that legislation should be interpreted later? When 14(3) was written. “Officer” and”engage in insurrection” was understood to mean something specific. Everything in a law is. It’s hard to argue that the law can be correctly applied if it’s not correctly interpreted, and that it can be correctly interpreted if the courts don’t seek to understand the contemporary meaning of the words that ended up on paper. “Natural born citizen…” “well regulated militia…” Constitutional law can’t help but grapple with this constantly.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well, at least you wear your leanings on your sleeve.

BUT WHERE ARE THE COLOURS?

 

[QV]

From one of Brad's links:

Section 3 provides:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, 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, 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.

Logically looking at Section 3, it doesn't specifically state 'President' when it is specific with other less significant positions therefore it is a huge stretch to submit that POTUS is included in "officer of the US".

Then there is:

... a recent Supreme Court opinion discussing the scope of the Constitution's "Officers of the United States"-language. In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that "[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'" Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States."


People who think Trump incited an insurrection also probably believe the following:

• the Canadian convoy of bouncy castles and truck drivers was an attempt to overthrow the Canadian government and
• the summer of riots in the US was 'mostly peaceful'

Bottom line - this is all bullshit narrative spun to influence electoral outcomes so some can retain power.

 

[dapaterson]

'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Anyone trying to say otherwise either has no firm grasp on our system of government, or a axe to grind (and potentially both).

That would pretty well encompass almost everyone here though, on both points.

 

[brihard]

From one of Brad's links:

Section 3 provides:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, 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, 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.

Logically looking at Section 3, it doesn't specifically state 'President' when it is specific with other less significant positions therefore it is a huge stretch to submit that POTUS is included in "officer of the US".

Then there is:

... a recent Supreme Court opinion discussing the scope of the Constitution's "Officers of the United States"-language. In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that "[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'" Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States."


People who think Trump incited an insurrection also probably believe the following:

• the Canadian convoy of bouncy castles and truck drivers was an attempt to overthrow the Canadian government and
• the summer of riots in the US was 'mostly peaceful'

Bottom line - this is all bullshit narrative spun to influence electoral outcomes so some can retain power.

This is why there are a couple hundred pages of decisions and analysis from both the state level trial court, and the state Supreme Court grappling with exactly these questions, informed by the legal submissions of both sides, and numerous filings by various Amici Curiae who were granted standing to make submissions. Needless to say the matter’s not close to as simple as you’ve convinced yourself it is.

 

[WLSC]

Correct me if I’m wrong. But you seem to be suggesting that it’s not correct or useful to try to establish what a word or phrase was understood to mean by the drafting legislators at the time a law was written, when trying to determine how that legislation should be interpreted later? When 14(3) was written. “Officer” and”engage in insurrection” was understood to mean something specific. Everything in a law is. It’s hard to argue that the law can be correctly applied if it’s not correctly interpreted, and that it can be correctly interpreted if the courts don’t seek to understand the contemporary meaning of the words that ended up on paper. “Natural born citizen…” “well regulated militia…” Constitutional law can’t help but grapple with this constantly.

That’s also what Inthink. When the tough of the people who write something are recorded/written! who the f*** are we to say the opposite?

 

[WLSC]

If I follow some of you correctly, there’s should be two states inside the USA territories. One republican who can only juge republican and an another in which you don’t care what happening. More and more, my adaptation troubles are getting irritated by anything left or right. Both extremes are starting, to cotes Highway to bore the hell out of me. Critical thinking is a real thing, try that a bit, it might help.

 

[QV]

This is why there are a couple hundred pages of decisions and analysis from both the state level trial court, and the state Supreme Court grappling with exactly these questions, informed by the legal submissions of both sides, and numerous filings by various Amici Curiae who were granted standing to make submissions. Needless to say the matter’s not close to as simple as you’ve convinced yourself it is.

Blah blah blah get Trump!

Have you seen a trend yet? Trump was polling for shit. Had they just ignored him, he'd probably still be polling for shit. The more they go after him, the higher he climbs in the polls. More and more people every day see what is going on. They may not like Trump, they may not have voted for him before, but they see what the system is doing and don't like it. His poll numbers are now higher than they have ever been and the establishment is terrified.

 

[brihard]

Have you seen a trend yet? Trump was polling for shit. Had they just ignored him, he'd probably still be polling for shit. The more they go after him, the higher he climbs in the polls. More and more people every day see what is going on. They may not like Trump, they may not have voted for him before, but they see what the system is doing and don't like it. His poll numbers are now higher than they have ever been and the establishment is terrified.

You seem to be part of a different conversation than the one I’m taking part in. ‘Blah blah blah’ isn’t a particularly useful or mature way of looking at the law and how it’s interpreted and applied, but you do you.

 

[KevinB]

From one of Brad's links:

Section 3 provides:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, 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, 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.

Logically looking at Section 3, it doesn't specifically state 'President' when it is specific with other less significant positions therefore it is a huge stretch to submit that POTUS is included in "officer of the US".

Then there is:

... a recent Supreme Court opinion discussing the scope of the Constitution's "Officers of the United States"-language. In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that "[t]he people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'" Rather, "officers of the United States" are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an "officer of the United States."

Except that several parts of clearly defined officers of the United States are elected.
I’m not sure who excerpted the Quote from CJ Roberts but it’s not 100% the truth, and has been altered.

People who think Trump incited an insurrection also probably believe the following:

• the Canadian convoy of bouncy castles and truck drivers was an attempt to overthrow the Canadian government and
• the summer of riots in the US was 'mostly peaceful'

Bottom line - this is all bullshit narrative spun to influence electoral outcomes so some can retain power.

A lot of people feel differently, personally as a Republican who will absolutely not vote for DJT as I see him as a clear and present danger to the West (not just America). A former President who’s a bought a paid for Putin penis puffer, I do not want him anywhere near the White House ever again.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Except that several parts of clearly defined officers of the United States are elected.
I’m not sure who excerpted the Quote from CJ Roberts but it’s not 100% the truth, and has been altered.


A lot of people feel differently, personally as a Republican who will absolutely not vote for DJT as I see him as a clear and present danger to the West (not just America). A former President who’s a bought a paid for Putin penis puffer, I do not want him anywhere near the White House ever again.

What are you going to do if he wins, Kev? Move back to Canada?

I kid

 

[KevinB]

What are you going to do if he wins, Kev? Move back to Canada?

I kid

My lawyer has advised me not to comment.

 

[WLSC]

Blah blah blah get Trump!

Have you seen a trend yet? Trump was polling for shit. Had they just ignored him, he'd probably still be polling for shit. The more they go after him, the higher he climbs in the polls. More and more people every day see what is going on. They may not like Trump, they may not have voted for him before, but they see what the system is doing and don't like it. His poll numbers are now higher than they have ever been and the establishment is terrified.

The same as as soon someone talk against Trump, death threats arrive online, so yes, blah blah blah…

 

[Remius]

I see what you're trying to do. I actually expect no party lines in this vote. I will be surprised if it's not a 9-0 decision. I think they are also going to settle whether Trump was an insurrectionist question once and for all. Even Jack Smith didn't bring that charge.

But on what grounds? If it will be a 9 to 0 decision and it won’t be on party grounds, what part of the law is erroneous or is faulty in Colorado’s specific case for intelligibility to be on the ballot? Or is it only Democrat judges that decide along party lines?

The big problem I have with all this, whether legislatively legal or not, is that there are 4 Democrat judges, appointed by a Democrat governor, telling almost 6 million people who they can and can't vote for.

You bring up the judges and Governor being Democrats. In this case is it a partisan issue in your mind? And if so then how does that square with your prediction of a potential 9-0 SCOTUS decision on the issue NOT a being partisan in any way? And are they telling people who they can and cant vote for or are they simply affirming the regulations that state who can be on the ballot in Colorado?

Let the actual voters decide.

That seems to me to be the more prudent COA. And likely why a lot of Democrats are uncomfortable with this current route.

If the court had faith that their citizens are intelligent and fair, they would have faith that voters would make the right decision.

If that decision was to vote for Biden (which they did before) that was and would be right decision or the wrong decision?

However, maybe that's what they are afraid of, finding themselves on the wrong side of the voter. While they may be making a technically legal decision, they are not making a moral one.

On what grounds would it be immoral?

Nor do they trust their electorate to make the decision they want. Not necessarily the right one, but the one they prefer. If I lived in Colorado, I'd be mightily pissed for some state official in the capital telling me how to vote or removing my choice to decide for myself.

I agree to an extent but Trump is not yet the ballot choice so no one has been removed, only shown to be ineligible.

Edit to correct population size