Michael Luttig (via The Guardian)- “The former president is disqualified from holding the presidency again because he engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution of the United States when he attempted to remain in power, notwithstanding that the American people had voted to confer the power of the presidency upon Joe Biden.
“That constituted a rebellion against the executive vesting clause of the constitution, which limits the term of the president to four years unless he is re-elected by the American people. I cannot even begin to tell you how that is literally the most important two sentences in America today.”
Luttig draws a fine but important legal distinction between a rebellion against the constitution, as described by the 14th amendment section 3, and rebellion against the United States. He claims that groups that filed lawsuits in Colorado and elsewhere to bar Trump from the ballot are confused on this issue.
“They do not yet understand what disqualifies the former president, namely an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution. They have argued the cases as if he is disqualified because he engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.
“That’s why they have, unfortunately, focused their efforts on establishing or not that the former president was responsible for the riot on the Capitol. The riot on the Capitol is incidental to the question of whether he engaged in a rebellion against the constitution.”
But he adds: “All of these cases – and there’ll be others in the states – is the constitutional process by which the American people decide whether the former president is disqualified from the presidency in 2024. All of these cases are going to roll up to the supreme court of the United States and it will be decided by the supreme court whether Donald Trump is disqualified.”
All of these cases are going to roll up to the supreme court of the United States and it will be decided by the supreme court whether Donald Trump is disqualified.
Oh, good, and SCOTUS is definitely trustworthy here, right?
Right?
I just saw on the news yesterday that the Supreme Court has adopted a “code of ethics” for the first time ever, largely because at least half the justices are sleazeballs.
deleted by creator
SCOTUS didn’t save Trump in 2020 and they’re not going to do it in 2024 either.
I think this was part of the gamble with lifetime appointments… Sure you don’t have to maintain your position … but you also don’t have to maintain your position. Which means if you get in, there’s nobody not even folks that helped you that you’re subservient to.
In other words … even the minority of justices that Trump appointed can backstab Trump at any moment without any repercussions.
They do not yet understand what disqualifies the former president, namely an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution. They have argued the cases as if he is disqualified because he engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.
My god, what an asinine distinction to make. What difference does it make? The United States hardly exists without the Constitution and vice-versa. They’re as close to one and the same as you can legally get, especially regarding insurrection and disloyalty against either.
I can’t read the article because paywall, but I assume this ruling is based on the fact that political parties are “technically” private entities and therefore primaries are “technically” legally-meaningless private contests that said parties can run however they want.
Which is all bullshit, of course – if political parties were truly private then they wouldn’t get any support from the state whatsoever to run their fake elections, for starters – but just goes to show how their corruption and power lets them (as de-facto government entities) get away without accountability or oversight.
Judge James Robert Redford of the Court of Claims in Michigan said that the disqualification of a candidate through the 14th Amendment “is a nonjusticiable, political” issue and that it was up to Congress, and not the courts, to settle the matter.
Basically he said insurrection can’t be defined by the court system…
Sounds a lot like passing the buck. Or taking a page out of the SCOTUS playbook.
If the court can’t define it, that just means they can’t argue with whatever definition the state government uses.
Nope. Michigan primaries are run by the state like any other election.
We have open primaries, anyone who’s registered to vote can vote in our primaries.
My guess is Trump’s not been convicted of acts that would disqualify him.
This was always a flimsy case, without a conviction that we should already have.
Wasn’t the law originally applied to folks who weren’t convicted? That would make requiring a conviction wrong.
It was after the civil war, a general amnesty had been declared nobody was being tried.
Furthermore they where obviously guilty, with a serious paper trail of a rebal government to back up their guilt.
Trump is garbage who defied his oath and committed treason… But he still deserves a trial first. And that trial should have already completed.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
