• CableMonster@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    I am aware of the facts, but again, there was no conviction of insurrection or anything related. Do you understand how the conviction is the important part, not what people claim?

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Conviction is not the important part, at all.

      The 14th Amendment was intended to keep former Confederates out of government. The people who wrote it had no intention of putting former Confederates on trial.

      • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I agree, that amendment was directly talking about confederates who had done a known and agreed on insurrection.

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Jan 6th wasnt and insurrection, and trump would need to be convicted of an insurrection not just declared guilty by someone.

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Nobody needed to be convicted in 1868, therefore Trump doesn’t need to be convicted today.

                • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  The 14th Amendment applies to insurrections, not just wars.

                  Any attempt to stop the function of government by force is an insurrection, including the Whiskey Rebellion, the Civil War, and Jan 6.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Right, but 14A has only ever been used to disqualify two categories of people - public officials of the Confederacy and people convicted of an appropriate crime (such as the Espionage Act or charges related to Jan 6).

        Trump is neither, so he’s going to challenge being disqualified by anything less on due process grounds. 14A is vague on that. Which ends with SCOTUS essentially deciding what due process should be, likely by looking at how it’s been used historically.

    • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Can you do a text search and find the word “conviction” in the amendment?

      Here’s the text:

      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. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

      And, again, this has all gone through Congress. Trump did it. Everyone knows it. Even the Trumpists know it.

      • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        And that was in reference to a particular known and agreed on insurrection that occurred. I think they were called the “reconstruction amendments”, and the reason was to get things back going after the civil war.

        • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yup, and the reason for guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of race was also a result of a specific insurrection that occurred.

          I think it’s perfectly fair to say that if someone tried to overthrow the US government, they’re not qualified to be running the US government.