zeke5123
2yr ago
-
There of course is a big difference between age and insurrection restrictions. The first is an objective fact. You compare birthdate and the calendar. The second requires numerous legal determinations (eg what counts as an insurrection, did the person do enough to participate in the insurrection). They are clearly of a different kind and thus would almost certainly be treated differently from a legal perspective (ie the latter restriction would almost certainly be a due process issue if self executed).
-
This illustrates the whole problem. You say the BLM movement didn’t meet this standard. However their goal was systematic change. And there were little weeks of rioting including attacking government buildings (eg the White House, the courthouse in Portland). In some cases, the attacks went on for a long time (eg the attempts in Portland) and were clearly organized.
What is in your opinion the factual difference between those riots and the Jan 6 riot? Again, the former were longer, had more institutional and political support, were more damaging / deadly, and had a political aim. Jan 6 was disorganized, did involve some violence but as Carlson’s videos showed was in many instances by participants not violent (indeed they left Congress after their message was made and were asked to leave). No one brought weapons or even things to tie people up. No police was even killed! Indeed, it was such a bad “insurrection” that the military refused to deploy national guard to help the Capitol police because of “optics” until after everyone had left (National Guard of course was brought out for the ongoing BLM riots). If Jan 6 was an insurrection, then it is hard to argue BLM wasn’t one as well.
Then even if you somehow can distinguish Jan 6 with BLM, you still need to make the argument Trump participated or gave aid and comfort. Again, his statements to go and protest peacefully is core first amendment protected political speech. Saying that because a protest got out of hand (but in a significantly less deadly way then most protests that get out of hand) means the person who urged the protest is responsible for the actions of the protestors cuts deeply against the 1st amendment.
It is also funny. You are struggling with CHAZ / CHOP. Here, war lords were set up to roam with guns because they expressly stated the US government was not in power but you are claiming a protest that (1) was rowdy, (2) whose participants were subsequently let into the Capitol by the police (3) and who then went on a tour and left when finally asked was clearly an insurrection?
Also re resistance. How convenient. You can have bureaucrats systematically contravene the president’s authority in complete contradiction to the constitutional order (ie there was an organized, concentrated attempt to contest properly constituted government authority that stretched for years doing numerous illegal activities) but claim that isn’t rebellion or insurrection because it wasn’t “violent” yet a single one-off protest that wasn’t all that violent (eg didn’t even bring guns, no police were killed) was an insurrection? The former sure seems like rebellion more than the latter. Under your theory, if for example the executive officers just decided to ignore every action Trump ordered and instead decided Clinton was the president it wouldn’t be a rebellion provided violence wasn’t involved? Clearly that is a rebellion (ie violence cannot be a precondition). And therefore it seems fair to describe the resistance as an insurrection — at least relative to Jan 6.
Attempting to kill congressmen was an attempt to change political power. Sanders said the republicans are bad. Therefore the assassin was motivated to act by Sanders’ words. Therefore Sanders is disqualified.
Of course I don’t believe this. But it illustrates the need to separate political speech from giving aid or comfort. Can you find a single utterance by Trump supporting storming the Capitol? He famously said protest peacefully. So why the different standard?
Again, I wish Trump went away. He was a cuck in office the first time and will be one again in his second term assuming he wins. But this is a BS argument.
zeke5123
2yr ago
I don’t think so. They are members of academia. They are in a different sea compared to RNC related lawyers etc.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Again, repeals by implication are disfavored. The best thing is trying to reconcile instead of asking what supersedes — all the moreso when dealing with the constitution.
zeke5123
2yr ago
And of course there is a process for Congress to do so — impeachment and conviction. So it wouldn’t be necessary.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Who is saying he incited a rebellion? Jack Smith who is pursuing novel legal arguments didn’t go that far. The First Amendment jurisprudence is quite clear here. There is no way you get incitement.
How did Trump obstruct the lawful operation of the Senate?
Your evidence is a couple of law professors prove that “elite Republican lawyers” support this position? It is a crack pot theory because it proves too much. We could disqualify most people in two of the branches. You should do what most people do with legal academics — disregard what they have to say.
zeke5123
2yr ago
You do realize this is lunacy right?
There is a right to vote that is age restricted. The age restriction doesn’t mean there isn’t a right to vote.
Baude’s argument proves too much. If any political speech that can be even after the speech be tied to a riot aimed at the government means one is disqualified from office we can disqualify most democrats serving based on their comments re the BLM riots.
It would mean that any speech by a politician that is in the core province of the first amendment could easily cause that politician to be disqualified under the 14th. That would have such a chilling effect that it would effectively render the 1st amendment null and void.
And the response is “well this one guy vocally supported the CSA in the 19th century and was prevented from being seated in the House.” That isn’t a response because it is so different in kind as to be laughable.
But to ask you — should any democrat who gave speeches supporting the BLM protests (even seemingly the violent protests) be disqualified since BLM violently attacked the White House and other government buildings? What about those who voiced support for CHAZ or CHOP? What about those who encouraged the Resistance? What about those who called Trump illegitimate and to aggressively get in the face of people in his administration? What about Bernie Sanders whose supporter (presumably motivated by statements made by Sanders) opened fire on Republican congressmen?
zeke5123
2yr ago
Which again proves too much. What aid or comfort did Trump give them? How was that different compared to the aid or comfort given the BLM rioters (Kamala raised legal funds for them). If Baude is right, there are many people in Congress right now who have no right to be there.
Of course, since we know this will only be used against Trump and his supporters (much like the Jack Smith legal theory) the right response is to say (correctly) this novel legal theory is bullshit and the people who propagate it (eg Baude) should never be taken seriously again.
zeke5123
2yr ago
I think the better question for pro choice people is “Did you support my body my choice really covid vax?”.
zeke5123
2yr ago
As explained below, the Democrats benefited.
First, they had a problem. They were correctly associated with the BLM riots. By focusing so much on the Jan 6 riots they were able to memory hole their support for BLM.
Second, the election was sketchy (regardless of whether there was fraud there was at minimum the appearance of fraud, along with bullshit like the FBI using its power to influence the outcome). Now the Democrats could tar anyone who pointed this out as a supporter of an insurrection.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Hey great idea! Someone should try this. Then when Justice Sotomayor and Jackson dissent we can use Jack Smith’s theory on defrauding the US by pursuing bogus legal theories to jail Sotomayor and Jackson!
zeke5123
2yr ago
They are in academia. This is within that community very useful for them because then they can be seen (at least in their minds) as the “good ones.” That doesn’t imply most conservatives will give this the light of day.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Yep. Biden supported it. I guess Baude is claiming Biden cannot run for office?
Also how the fuck could he claim Trump did this? At no point did Trump ever lead any violent uprising. Pretty much everyone agrees what Trump did did not reach the level of incitement. Yet Baude thinks this…reached the non-incitement reached the level of insurrection? Crazy pills.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Assertion without evidence. Why isn’t there a right to run for president? Moreover, it seems like doing constitutionally protected “things” (eg advancing legal theories or speech) cannot count as something that is disqualifying.
zeke5123
2yr ago
While there is certainly the idea that the later in time controls, there is also the idea that repeals by implication are frowned upon (and certainly that is more true in the constitutional space compared to statutory). There needs to be a very heavy hurdle to claiming here that later in time controls over repeal by implication. The authors aren’t serious.
zeke5123
2yr ago
There’s pathos, some nice unexpected breaks from the established flow of the song, and an earnest rawness to it. It’s a good song regardless of the content.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Yes. It is weird in that the WH attack was objectively more violent yet it isn’t often mentioned.
zeke5123
2yr ago
If this isn’t contested before the election, Trump wins, and then someone (eg Baude) brings suit under this theory would Baude claim it is an insurrection?
Trump uses a shitty legal theory to try to stay in power. He didn’t even do enough with the crowds to cause incitement. Yet due to those two things Trump committed an insurrection? I hope the guy goes away too but damn. If that is an insurrection, is Joe Biden unfit for his attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to Trump citing shitty legal theories such as the Logan Act?
zeke5123
2yr ago
I think Rufo is saying “he wasn’t Racist judged by his contemporaries and his ideas that he actually is famous for are not non fact racist and continue to have vitality today.”
Agreed Rufo could do a better job
zeke5123
2yr ago
-
The democrats had two big weaknesses. First, they tacitly supported months of riot during the Floyd summer. Second, the election was weird. We hadn’t seen something like it before. Doesn’t mean it was fraudulent but it felt odd.
-
If there was a riot at the Capitol, it solved both problems. Now they could say look at the MAGA republicans; they attacked the Capitol AND associate anyone who questioned the oddness of the 2020 as an “insurrectionist.”
-
Doesn’t mean they caused the riot to happen, but it would be entirely unsurprising if they knew and did nothing. Allegedly, that is what FDR did with Pearl Harbor (probably not but who knows).
zeke5123
2yr ago
It is also judging someone based on today’s morality. Was Jefferson blameless in his generation? No. Was he bad in his generation? No. Jefferson was clearly bothered by the concept of slavery and even took some efforts to try to limit and eventually end the practice. He is very different compared to certain people like John Calhoun.
Moreover, Jefferson crafted one of the most important documents in human history and gave birth to some of the most important words uttered in human history (generally when people say things like that it is an exaggeration but in this case the Declaration of Independence is probably the most important document in the last 1,000 years).
That is, Jefferson was a great man. A flawed man. He was human; not a saint. But he was still great and trying to use modern sentiments to besmirch that greatness is unjust.
Funny enough, most people who complain about Jefferson only do so because of the profound words Jefferson wrote. MLK Jr would not have had half the success he had but for Americans treating the declaration of independence as sacred. Yet these half wits and talentless dweebs like Robinson feel they can be the moral superior to the greatness of Jefferson?
zeke5123
2yr ago
Re Rufo I think he is just making the point that “Noah was a righteous man of his time.” That is, Jefferson should be judged in the context of his society. In that context, he was probably in the center on this issue. But what Robinson is trying to do is use modern views to go back in time to discredit what Jefferson did (which was quite valuable).
zeke5123
2yr ago
Yes you can acknowledge the differences and remain a classical liberal. The problem is it does very much matter why there is a difference contra Hanania.
It matters because government, corporations, and academia keep trying to solve problems that can’t be solved due to HBD. Their premise is Group X performs worse than Group Y therefore it must be discrimination. Let’s do all of these programs (transfer wealth, affirmative action, decry success) to help alleviate the difference. That is, they are willing to incur a cost because they think at the end of the day the status quo ante is not optima due to racism (ie if you do enough, Group X will act like Group Y resulting in a benefit that exceeds the cost).
However, if the status quo ante is not due to racism but merely gene luck, then it doesn’t follow all of the costs should be borne because the payoff will never be realized.
It really is funny. The OP acknowledged the refusal to seat Brown wasn’t a 14th amendment case, but is claiming “this proves the 14th amendment prohibition repeals the 1st amendment.”
Hell, Eugene Debbs was convicted of sedition for his speech but no one thought that even that sedition charge precluded him for running for president. And that happened relatively near in time to the 14th amendment.
More options
Context Copy link