deciding the law =/= deciding the case

Which in no way was she capable of interpreting, back to my original argument.

Never been smaller (d) democrats than they are today.
Picking your battles? A fight against the very concept of democracy? Lmao

Why don't you flesh that out for us, what specifically constitutes insurrection in a not-legal but constitutional sense, and what is the case law supporting it?

tbh, you seem intent on misunderstanding everything I post. if you want to understand it, youre gonna have to do it yourself and I was nice enough to give you a link to his indictment. the indictment spells ALL of that out, I cant translate 45 pages into bogie-speak

Just to be clear how many levels deep we are:

• No insurrection or rebellion occurred
  
• Trump was never charged with insurrection or rebellion
  
• Trump has never faced due process on charges of insurrection or rebellion
  
• Trump has never been convicted of insurrection or rebellion
  
• The 14th amendment refers exclusively to insurrection or rebellion as an actual act of warfare, for self-declared rebels
  
• The 14th amendment is not self-executing and specifically empowers congress to pass laws to execute it
  
• Congress has not passed any law to execute the 14th amendment to prohibit a presidential candidate
  
• The 3rd clause of the 14th amendment only applies to officers of the united states, not the presidency which is excluded
  
• The constitution grants the power to raise militias to fight insurrections to the president, granting him the authority to define an insurrection
  
• Running for office is a legal right that cannot be stripped without due process
  
• No state court has jurisdiction over events 1500 miles away unrelated to them, nor to disenfranchise half the country
  
• No state court has jurisdiction to declare a president illegitimate, and doing so is itself de facto rebellion in such a delicious slice of irony
  
• The president has a constitutional authority to take care the law is faithfully executed as he sees fit, which cannot be infringed upon by any other power of government
  
• A secretary of state is a bureaucrat who's actions are completely personal and arbitrary
  
• No federal election will be legitimate is any state refuses to hold a free and fair election and submits a rigged slate of electors
  
• The very notion of trying to strip an opponent off a ballot because you're afraid he'll beat you in the next election is the most pathetic limpdick form of tyranny imaginable

Am I missing anything? Probably more to be said about shredding the checks and balances.
Not sure

I find this very interesting.

So can the president define whatever he wants as an insurrection, or is there some kind of check on this? If there is a check on it, where is that originating in the constitution?

If the president is the one constitutionally delegated to define it, seems like the president can define it however they see fit, no?

did Clarence write this?

Yes, the framers were worried about a president abusing his authority and becoming a noxious head of state and thus granted the power to congress to remove him from office by a vote of two thirds majority through the impeachment process
I mean that's the whole thing about a unitary executive, he's granted wide plenary authority and the assumption is he'll use them for legitimate purposes, and within the scope of his plenary powers no checks or balances exist, save the power to simply remove him from office.

Cool. So Biden can declare Jan 6th an insurrection, or Trump existing an insurrection, and as long as they get 24 Democrat holdouts on the impeachment vote, Trump can just be thrown in jail and barred from office.

Good to know.


The unitary executive theory is made up from whole cloth and goes directly against what the founders wanted as a president. Ya know, they just got done being oppressed by a king? That was kind of a huge motivation to limiting the president's power.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 29 2023 02:40pm