Is Trump disqualified from running? A fair analysis
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 янв 2024
- Does the 14th Amendment disqualify Trump from serving another term as president? Did Trump really lead an insurrection against the constitution? We look at some top lawyers offering their best legal analysis of this important question as the election draws closer.
SUBSCRIBE: ruclips.net/user/jjmccullough?...
FOLLOW ME:
🇨🇦Support me on Patreon! / jjmccullough
🤖Join my Discord! / discord
🇺🇸Follow me on Instagram! / jjmccullough
🇨🇦Read my latest Washington Post columns: www.washingtonpost.com/people...
🇨🇦Visit my Canada Website thecanadaguide.com
Some music by:
Craig Henderson- / @craighendersonmusic
ComradeF- / comradef ,
HASHTAGS:
It’s tough to have a fairly balanced analysis of the situation, but I think you’ve done it JJ. Nice work!
TRUMP 2024 ❤
BERNIE 2024 ❤
Kennedy 2024
i think if you believe that this was fair, you might want to look at the reality of the situation. no offense to J. J. but this is a very plain analysis of the situation. though he's at least called them rioters and not falsely insurrectionists. pinning this comment is proof he is engineering the responding conversation. am I saying he didn't put a lot of effort into this? no, clearly he worked hard as he usually does. for the record, I don't like trump and I don't want him to be president, but trump didn't do as claimed. if that's the case then maaxin aters, Hillary Clinton, and others have also been in violation of the 14th amendment as they made the same false claims about a fraudulent election in 2016 when Trump won. which is something that J. J. didn't even bring up.
@@thepearsoncalendar2396Peter Griffin 2024!
It's also important to note that US Code 18 §2383 was passed in 1948, while the 14th Amendment was written in 1868. No one involved in the Civil War could have been convicted under §2383 when the 14th Amendment was passed because it wouldn't exist for another 80 years.
Great point
The thing is though, if we are Strict Constitutionalists, the 14th Amendment could *never* have been used against those involved in the Civil War.
The 14th Amendment does not explicitly waive the *ex post facto* clause of Article I Section 9 of the Constitution.
@@SupremeLeader673Article I Section 9 specifically limits the power of Congress to pass an ex post facto law. A constitutional amendment is not subject to the limitations of Congress. Besides, I'm not sure it's an ex post facto law since it was a qualification for rubbing for office that only applied to elections after the amendment was passed.
@xanderliptak plus its a qualification clause
@@SupremeLeader673 It does not need to explicitly waive the ex post facto clause. With the exception of the 2 Senators rule, as a more recent amendment to the constitution, if it needs to waive ex post facto to function, it waives ex post facto.
My guess is that the Supreme Court will point to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which reads, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." and rule that it's up to Congress to spell out the exact process of disqualification. That punts the ball over to Congress and lets the Supreme Court wash their hands of the matter without appearing to take sides.
Can I as a British 30 year old run for President? Which Law passed by congress says that I cant?
@@bertiewooles3093 Could that Supreme Court rule on whether an insurrection took place and whether Trump had a role in it? Sure they could, but I doubt they will. I doubt the Supreme Court wants to be seen as taking sides so they'll likely find technical grounds to take the path of least resistance and send the issue to Congress. Right or wrong, I think it's the most likely outcome.
@@bertiewooles3093 It's in our constitution which states only natural born citizens can run.
@@bertiewooles3093 Not being a citizen and being too young fall under article 2 of the constitution which doesn't include a clause saying "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
And then the question arises, Which house of congress? Just the house? Just the senate? Both? And regardless of the answer to that, another comes up. How much of a house? two thirds or a simple majority? In reality, it'd probably just default to 2/3 of both houses, but still, it's not explicitly clear on that.
There's a problem with the argument about not explicitly naming President or Vice President. Congress debated and revised the language of the 14th amendment prior to its passing and had the following exchange:
"Why did you omit to exclude them?" asked Maryland Democratic Sen. Reverdy Johnson.
Maine's Lot Morrill jumped in to clarify.
"Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,'" Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point.
It's very clear, from the framers of the law that this was to include any position of power within the US and applies to anyone who has held a position of power within the United States or the States within.
How nice of the senators to clarify what any reasonable person would have interpreted anyway. The amount of mental gymnastics to find an argument why the President, of all people, should not be included, is astounding.
Well the specific reference to the president was written in prior versions, then taken out in the final. Does this exchange explain that adequately to you? I’m not so sure if it does. I’m not sure if it’s that easy
@@garret6464 The exchange explicitly explains the application of the text to the office of the President. If you want to insinuate an explanation for why the previous version was changed, why not provide historical context or information around the revision that might explain why it was made and possibly make a case for it to not apply to the office of the President?
Why would this exchange, which is not about revision of the text, need to explain why the prior version was changed? Maybe it was changed for something besides the office of the President such as the Civil Rights protections of recently freed slaves. We could possibly know if you provided / looked into context, otherwise why should any third-party give weight to your concern of "inadequacy" over an explicitly discussed explanation by the authors that the text applies to the office of the President?
@@garret6464 then you need to re-learn english and realize that "any office" kind of clarifies things to crystal clarity instead of explicitly naming each office for which they are trying to prevent insurrectionists from holding. And by so naming, would also thereby exclude offices that may be created in the future because of the lack of explictly naming them.
@@garret6464 Maybe it was taken out for brevity, in view of it being redundant?
As conservatives like to say, "words have meanings". The presidency is a civil office under the United States. "Any office, civil or military, under the United States" means what it says.
The argument that the President is not an office of the US state is directly refuted by the Oath that the President swears which specifies the "Office of President". I don't know why this has not been stated, (as far as I know) in any of these discussions.
"The president isn't an officer!"
"Oh, well where does he work then?"
"The White House."
"Which part of the White House?"
"The... the West Wing."
"And where in the West Wing does he work?"
"... the Oval Office."
The "office" of an officer is not referring to a literal room used for work and called an "office", lol. You could never set foot in an office and still be an "officer". The office is the job, the position, the role, the service, the responsibility, the power, etc.
@@michaelweiske702Everyone knows the President works in the Oval Room
This argument that President is "not an office" and some of the others being made by the Trumpists are just in such transparently bad faith that they're almost comical
"He's running for ______"
"He holds public ____"
"The ____ of the Presidency"
"The President is the Highest _____"
Funny how those very common sayings and understandings are now being questioned somehow by anyone.
Spoiler: Office fits all of them.
Good watch. My only minor contention is that I wouldn’t say Trump has ever accepted that he lost. Maybe ‘it has been accepted’ in the utilitarian sense that he is no longer living at the White House or having everyone treat him as president.
He did say something in the oval office about his scheme to disorder the Electoral votes, implying that he knows he lost. Ofc this wasn't public, and his supporters would call it fake
That's a fair point.
But has Hillary ever conceded that she didn't win in 2016? Or perhaps more accurately, that she lost "fair and square" in 2016?
Trump has always had a case- a very good one, in fact- that he did not lose "fair and square" in 2020. Election law in several key states was changed unconstitutionally, with the result that Biden won those states. If election rules were changed by agencies other than the state legislatures, as provided by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, then the votes in that state should not have been counted.
Need did Hillary Clinton, or Al Gore.
@@davidjernigan8161 They accepted they lost? Hillary made a speech about it and how we must stay united, and Gore claimed "I accept the Supreme Court's decision" :/
Donald Trump however refused to acknowledge what happened
@@AnnoyingAllie3 Donald Trump conceded, did he not? Biden is now president is he not?
And Hilary was calling Trump an "illegitimate president" as late as 2018/19 in interviews.
Even though almost the whole 3rd section of the 14th amendment seems broad and ambiguous, the last part saying "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability" makes it seem like this was originally intended to be self-executing and in full effect until further legislation. This is going to be one hell of a case, indeed.
Not really. Suppose the was not, and they passed specific legislation; then therefore they and future Congresses would have the explicit power to except someone _despite_ the legislation.
This seems to not have legislation passed around it, but what we do know is that the Congress of 1872 followed the guidelines when they removed "such disability," to a lot of former Confederate soldiers and politicians(which basically created segregation)
So possibly there was supposed to be some legislation, and like most legislation, it probably died in committee. Idk too much about the language of that time, but it appears to maybe have been self-executing for those times. Then again, it is too vague, and the writers of all parts of the constitution usually make things vague on purpose for the courts to decide, like the 8th amendment. Then again the writers of the 14th amendment were different people, they sounded quite upset in section 3, so maybe everyone forgot to care about the reality of it, and just liked it because of how fierce it was on Confederates. It also has repetitive language, which is a rhetorical mechanism, so that could've helped get it passed without question of how it would work.
Ahh, history
This video really seems to omit that it WAS self executing after the Civil War. Confederates were barred from holding office - they weren't convicted of anything and the amendment functioned on its own at that time as a practical matter.
@@AnnoyingAllie3 That's because it was never meant to be anything other than a way to prevent the South from being represented, and thus having a foothold for their unacceptable viewpoints about slavery. And they ought to not have removed the disability because the south did get that foothold and bring in the Jim Crow era
Trump has not been convicted or charged
Looks like Ted Cruz was right about the unanimous ruling.
I wish you did more videos involving commentary on modern politics. You're refreshingly cogent.
A conservative that loves facts and logic is why i like you and Saagar enjeti
yes!!!
@@franciscoacevedo3036 same!!!
@@franciscoacevedo3036Krystal and Saagar annoy me. I can't put my finger on why. But that's a me issue.
@@franciscoacevedo3036he isn’t conservative his a homosexual libertarian pickme. Probably had one of his boyfriends swiped by a down low black dude.
I think Cruz is closest to what the actual opinion will be. What has to be remembered is the Civil War just ended and it was obvious who took part in the CSA government in open rebellion against the US; all you had to do was compile a list of office holders, military officers, etc. and you had a list of men who were in open rebellion against the US.
It’s also obvious what president incited the violence of January 6. It wasn’t Biden, it wasn’t Clinton, it was clearly one man who couldn’t accept the results of the election.
I think it is pretty obvious Trump engaged in an insurrection and open rebellion.
Good for you, no one cares@@martinzarathustra8604
agreed
Well, there were definitely a lot more ambiguous cases though. For example, pro-Confederacy sympathizers who lives in Northern states and held office in the Union could be banned using this clause of the 14th amendment.
"No Insurrections" 😂 nice thumbnail JJ. It had me laughing before I even clicked on the video. Well done 🇺🇸
Yeah, I found it funny too
It’s true. There was no insurrection just a protest that got out of control
I feel like someone would need to prove in court that he committed insurrection in a full trial rather than a judge just ruling it to be true.
OK, but given that it doesn't say that (ie it gives no guidance on how to establish if somebody committed an insurrection, or indeed also how to establish if they have "given aid and comfort" to somebody that has, which is a much weaker standard than engaging in insurrection oneself), is the correct thing to do to throw out the whole amendment and simply conclude that when Congress passed it, they didn't do a good enough job writing it, so it is therefore null and void (implicitly accepting that Judges have the power to do that), or do you keep the amendment and accept that a judge will have to do her best to find the facts one way or another while we wait for Congress to enact a process to find somebody is an insurrectionist?
No one has been convicted of insurrection
@@terribletanks it feels like a very arbitrary process to have some judge or state officials declare it to be true. It's a violation of the 14th amendment to do away with due process.
They can't or they would.
I don't think insurrection is defined as a specific crime in legal terms, therefore it cannot be proven in court
I don't think there is any one specific way for an insurrection to be carried out... I think it can be done in a variety of ways and is limited only by the imaginations of those trying to do it
All we DO know about Trump's various efforts to overturn the 2020 election are that he tried to usurp American democracy to unlawfully hold onto power, both by covert and then overt means, and that he was of course a powerful enough force to have pulled it off if a few more things had gone his way. He wasn't just some anti-government militia kook living in a mountain cabin. He was a legitimate threat to overthrow our democracy.
Does anyone honestly think that an insurrection TODAY, in the 2020s, would have to look exactly like the Confederates firing cannons at Fort Sumter in the 19th century in order to be considered as such?
The lawmakers who wrote the 14th Amendment were acting against politicians who BROKE AN OATH, a thing that was seen as much more serious in the 19th century than apparently it is today. "An honorable man's word is as good as his bond." to quote Miguel de Cervantes.
😂😂 u think trumpist care about etiquette 😂 just look at this republican congress
The biggest issue was stated by Ben Wittes at 20:00.
The amendment is about objective reality. That was a simple matter in 1865 after a Civil War in which separatists formed an independent government and fought a war against the US. No one anywhere doubted that an insurrection happened and no one disputed the people involved.
But here we have a case where reasonable people can disagree whether or not an insurrection occurred, and also disagree about who was involved and to what extent if they agree it did.
Because those doubts exist and haven't been resolved, I I'd bet the SC throws this out.
It is absolutely not reasonable to assert that an attempted insurrection took place. It happened in so many different ways - that it was not successful was a lot closer than most anyone not wearing a read hat is willing to admit. I am most definitely not one of those people and I knew about it - weeks in advance - and I am not anyone that has anything to do with government or some movement - just a young idiot kid in a bar - hundreds of miles from DC told me what he was going to be a part of and how proud he was. And I said - that is very foolish you could get killed or you could kill someone and ruin your life and it would all be for nothing. He told this to me Dec 20 that there was a plan in place and basically described exactly what they were going to do. I had no idea whether it was credible or not or even knew the kids name - But I remembered and kept my eyes and ears on alert for the potential - all the gaslighting is actually far sicker than the insurrection
Without a criminal trial to establish what HAS happened as legal fact, the Supreme Court will rightfully throw it out. I'm not sure how other people don't understand this, but in a democratic country (and society) you NEED to have a legal process for everything; else, people resort to violence because their voice isn't being heard.
“Today we are going to do something that we do not do often on this channel”
And discuss a political topic. I’ve been subscribed for some time since you talked about politics regularly. For some time now, this has more or less transformed into a cultural analysis channel.
I must say that you do a good job of covering both of these subjects! I was just surprised to see a political analysis from JJ in my notifications
That’s what I was going to say
Well it's mostly a culture channel, but politics is certainly an aspect that affects culture (and vice versa for that matter). And when he does mention politics, it's usually Canadian politics. But every once in a while a topic begs for comment, and I certainly think this one qualifies.
@@troodon1096 it’s mostly a culture channel with some politics now. But look at his uploads from 4+ years ago. Back then it was mostly a politics channel with some culture
Since any ruling the court may give will infuriate roughly one half of the country, it seems chaos is coming regardless. It's simply a question of what kind and by whom.
Chaos already came when Trump lost fair and square
I know. But it's almost certainly coming again.@@JJMcCullough
@JJMcCullough Chaos already came when he WON fair and square, and that was nearly 8 years ago. Chaos was going to happen with 2020 regardless who won.
The left will be disappointed (or unsurprised or not even bothered, like me), but will mostly yell a bit about the corruption on the court (true but not applicable on this), then go on with our lives.
@@hughjass1044not a half, the ôlįgårch college just gives the impression of fifty fifty. Currently the senate which is 50/50 has the dems represent 40 million more americans than the Republican half plus gerrymandering which makes it that land votes on behalf of 🤍 conservatives by going as far of from population vote ratio as much as possible. Essentially both the ôlįgårch college and gerrymandering are a remnant of the râcįst past of this country plus the senate which should not exist to begin with. Rn were living in a state of disorder so bad that IMO it mirrors the chaos in Austria hungary in which Hungary was so brazen it came to sabotage the welfare of the country for the benefit of itself
Survey says: 9-0 on question 4.
I feel more informed now and therefore less sure which way to lean. Excellent video.
😂
Probably fairer than most us media
Yes
Or canadian.
That's a very low bar
@@romeocharlie1 That bar is so low it's almost at the core of the earth.
Hes legit unlike Ben Invredo steven chowder and msn cnn and fox
Probably my favorite video of yours I’ve ever watched. Clear, concise, factual and informative.
It's the worst video he's made, intentionally spun and leaving you completely ignorant of the development. I'm glad he's incapable of voting in America. It's funny I do not support trump but I'm also glad JJ proved in this video that he's not a lawyer. I would never vote for JJ
I agree that there are several interesting legal questions around this section, however I believe the crux of what will end up being the prevailing view of the Supreme Court shall boil down to this.
If one is barred from holding office for “engaging” in insurrection, how do we determine whether or not someone engaged in that act? The answer, when the act is a criminal offense, is to conduct a criminal trial. If we had a provision in the constitution that deprived “those who engaged in murder” of holding office for example, even without any further instructional language, it would be naturally quite clear what needs to take place to determine whether one is a murderer or not, a conviction of murder in a criminal trial. Likewise, I believe that SCOTUS will conclude the only way to concretely determine one as engaged in insurrection, is to have them first be convicted of the crime of insurrection.
Allowing barring under the insurrection clause to be this nebulous, undefined, and semiautomatic procedure would enable rampant partisan abuse with little path for remedy to be used as tool to cut political opponents down without much opportunity to defend themselves. I think our SCOTUS will place a lot of weight on the implications of their decision, more so than how they usually decide.
Great video as always!
"how do we determine whether or not someone engaged in that act? The answer, when the act is a criminal offense, is to conduct a criminal trial. If we had a provision in the constitution that deprived “those who engaged in murder” of holding office for example, even without any further instructional language, it would be naturally quite clear what needs to take place to determine whether one is a murderer or not, a conviction of murder in a criminal trial."
That's not quite clear to me. The difference (or at least one difference) with this kind of hypothetical "murder provision" is that murder is already a crime. When the 14th amendment was passed the criminal code didn't, I think, include the crime of insurrection but presumably the amendment was still intended to have an effect (on those on the Confederate side in the Civil War). I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong but I'm not sure your argument is right either.
That's because he only listened to 4 lawyers who are locked into a political ideology who couldn't stray from their conclusion even if they wanted to because it would undermine their image to their viewers; and didn't listen to the actual lawyer advocating for Trump who spend a lot of time on that very question. There is a lot missing from this video; some of which attempts to answer questions he raises in it, and some that contradict ideas he proffers.
@@seneca983 First there’s a TLDR at the bottom if you want the quick summary of my findings but read on if you want the full details here: I’ve found quality access to the U.S. Statutes at Large of some of early U.S. Law. (Side note: U.S. law wasn’t even codified until years after the 14th amendment was adopted, making finding law predating the advent of codification a total headache that requires combing through thousands of pages of the unorganized U.S. Statutes at Large broken up over numerous volumes.) The pdfs I found aren’t fully comprehensive and don’t cover the years of Congress in the decade preceding 14A, but did cover a lot. Here’s what I found.
There were several federal laws that addressed “insurrection” but references to it generally refer to what we would more readily identify today as “rebellion.” For example the Whiskey Rebellion elicited the passage of several laws on expanding the power of the federal government to address “insurrection.” Furthermore, “rebellion” so far as I could find, except in instances of naval rebellion or mutiny, wasn’t defined precisely as a unique criminal offense with its own prescribed penalties, except again in the aforementioned seafaring setting. Rather, insurrection or rebellion were terms ascribed to acts of treason against the United States.
Treason was defined under the Crimes Act of 1790 as, “…persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted…” Treason was the charge brought against members of insurrections against the United States, such as the Whiskey Rebellion.
Taking this and applying it to 14A creates a series of interesting legal challenges now. For starters, insurrection was a term used for decades across numerous U.S. federal laws of pre-Civil War America, always in direct relation to acts of treason, a very well defined criminal offense. However, the term insurrection itself, without that context, had no criminal definition, as far as I could find, at the time 14A was adopted. Whether this means that the term insurrection was used because of its previously established ties to the crime of Treason, or on the contrary, the term insurrection was used to avoid predicating the Disqualification Clause upon the crime of Treason, is rather hard to tell.
One could argue that by borrowing so much of the language of the criminal definition of Treason, which was also used to prosecute anyone who engaged in what we now call insurrection, it was clearly referring to that particular criminal act. However one could also argue that by specifically substituting the word Treason for “insurrection or rebellion” it was trying to create a mechanism where one could be held as an insurrectionist or rebel without being convicted of treason per se.
TL;DR: Going into this i honestly expected digging into older U.S. law to be more decisive on what was meant by the term insurrection in the 14th amendment but found two relatively equal competing theories that completely contradict each other instead. Pretty interesting stuff.
P.s. Thanks for the civility in your response. I know this topic is very inflammatory for a lot of people so I appreciate having some respectful discussion about it for once!
@@MiamiMarkYT Thanks for the interesting info.
I think the big problem is that this could be abused. If each state can decide who is an "insurrectionist" or not, then blue states will kick any red candidate off of the ballot, and vice-versa. There has to be a national standard to avoid it from becoming arbitrary and capricious.
Not true. Only one red candidate, Donald Trump, has been kicked off the ballot.
It's been in the constitution for a long time. I think if it were going to be abused it would have been by now.
Some people probably feel that this is an abuse of it, which is why all the court people are hashing it out. Abusing a law by changing definitions to mean what ever you want works on homeless people, drug addicts and minorities .. but doing it against a presidential candidate just isn't gonna fly. the courts will get involved every time, I think and make sure it's all legally correct. I just wish we could get that kind of due process for the rest of us.
Yes, who has standing to challenge an elected president to be at the national level after the people have voted in the general election? We need a national standard.
@@jameshughes3014 not really. No one ever understood it to mean what is being contemplated. Only when someone realized they could use it as a tool _given_ the media's characterization of what J6 was and what Trumps role was, did they realize they can convince stupid people it's applicable. Absen the media seeding the language in people's minds they never would have gone to it
So challenging an election is the same as insurrection?@@nellarl
Funny how a Canadian does a better job with American politics then most Americans
Not necessarily, he has an outside perspective making it easier for him to see things clearer.
@@thebalkanhistorian.3205 And yet it should be expected that the US media, being anti-Trump to a man, will only give a biased account.
@@thebalkanhistorian.3205 based venizelos
He doesn’t but you can have an opinion
I had to do a double take, as I thought you were talking about Ted Cruz for a moment. (he was born in Calgary)
It's a complex analysis that I am not qualified to make... however on the specific question of whether he "riled up the mob"... I don't think he did, directly. He asked for peaceful protests in a march. That relatively small group of citizens took it upon themselves to take it way too far by breaking in... you could go back and forth on whether Trump gave a "nod" and a "wink", and go back and forth about his interactions with Pence. However distasteful I find Trump these days, I really don't think you can blame him for what those clowns did when they got to the capitol. I have no doubt he was overjoyed at their actions! But that does not direct legal responsibility make.
And he certainly isn't the first president to contest the results of an election. We've had several recounts and election drama in recent decades, where one side refused to concede, demanding further investigations/counts.
@@mercster what is an example of another time that a president hatched an elaborate scheme to stay in office after losing an election? I certainly can’t think of any other examples. George HW Bush didn’t do it, Jimmy Carter didn’t do it, Gerald Ford didn’t do it, Herbert Hoover didn’t do it….
@@JJMcCulloughYou keep saying "elaborate scheme" JJ, but you have no evidence to support such a claim.
@@darklelouchg8505the colorado case shows that trump and guliani literally influenced the fraudulent electors for thier cases of "proven voter fraud".
That is a conspiracy to undermine the election.
This is why I think a prior conviction should be required. Because you cannot determine an incitment of an insurrection based on actions alone, you have to look to intent. And that's basically a criminal procedure right there
A question that came to my mind as I was watching this: Are there any relevant precedences for this? Was anyone ever banned from running for any office based on amendment 14? If there was, was that person convicted by criminal trial?
In Re Griffin is on point discussing 14A Section 3 and whether its self-executing. Chief Justice Chase ultimately concluded that 14A S3 wasn't self-executing pretty clearly, but due to the structure of how SCOTUS did things back then, its persuasive and not binding authority.
The answer to both of your questions is yes. There have been 8 Public officials that have been determined to be banned from running for office or deemed to be disqualified (most between 1868 and 1872 and one case in 1919). The most recent case was in 2022. A new Mexico County Commissioner (Couy Griffin) who participated in the riots at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. He was removed from office and then found ineligible to hold office by The New Mexico State District Court (White v. Griffin, 2022 WL 4295619 (N.M. Dist. Sept. 6, 2022.)). He was also later convicted of Trespassing in the January 6th case.
Yes, precedents can be very helpful in times like these.
September 6th, 2023 -
A New Mexico judge ordered Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin be removed from office, effective immediately, ruling that the attack on the Capitol was an insurrection and that Griffin’s participation in it disqualified him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
So it's already been done Trump's case is not the first.
@@stuartm6069Your best "relevant" example is someone who wasn't able to become _checks notes_ county commissioner of a _checks notes_ state because they _checks notes_ literally were part of the riot and _checks notes_ literally were convicted of a crime? Oooookay
Really great analysis checking one's predispositions at the door to explain the positions and still coming to a conclusion at the end. Bravo!
I could make many an argument both for & against on this issue. However, I do think it's important to note that given all the many charges Trump faces, at no point has the DoJ charged him with either being an insurrectionist or mounting an insurrection.
I'd have thought that given that these statutes are both on the books (so to speak), it would have been relatively easy for Jack Smith, Special Counsel to press ahead with said charges; why did he choose not to?
I'm not a US citizen & I don't particularly warm to Trump but if SCOTUS doesn't rule taking him off the ballot is illegal, I can only imgine "red" states will remove Biden (or whomever is the nominee as I suspect Biden will withdraw on health grounds), & make a complete mockery of this & every GE hereafter. Of course, each state is allowed to run elections as they see fit (& on & on the arguments go).
The whole thing is a mess, to be honest!
Edit: Comment posted at 16.00 before Cruz spoke.
Edit 2: There's a great deal of ambiguity here - who said J6 was an insurrection? Throwing fire bo m bs at The White House in the "summer of love" can equally be seen as an insurrection too, I'd argue.
Like I said, the whole things a mess & can be argued any which way.
I think it is quite a convincing argument that if you shall disqualify someone, there needs to be proper due process involved. The problem with the "fact-finding" process of these courts seems to be that they does not necessarily follow the rules for civil and criminal trial that are in place to secure the civil rights of the participants involved. Even if the requirement of conviction is dropped, it could be argued that a better society is one that at least requires the procedure of disqualification the same standards as a civil or criminal trial instead of merely "fact finding"
There is no "due process" for eligibility for office.
How do you disable somebody who is 18 years old from running then? Or apply the "natural born citizen" clause?
@@jimvert7110those are cut and dry though. They're atomic facts that need to be found that don't require judgment or opinion.
The question of whether Trump engaged in insurrection is a matter of opinion, and there are cases to be made in both directions. Such as in a criminal trial, where one's behavior is judged to either be criminal or not. To adjudicate that properly, all due process is required. The Trump question clearly falls into the latter category.
Not to mention, for a move as monumental as this, you had damn well better have all your Ts crossed and not some hand wavy fact finding.
@@govus5555 The Colorado court found that Trump did engage in insurrection and so is disqualified from that state's ballot. So yeah as a matter of political qualifications in Colorado, it is a fact that Trump is an insurrectionist. There is no legal requirement for conviction here.
@@jimvert7110 The court funnily enough didn't follow its own established procedures to come to that conclusion though.
Not a fan of Trump but I felt the argument to take him off of the ballot was quite contradictory.
For the first argument (which I felt was fairly weak), wherein many conservatives have argued that since the 14th Ammendment did not directly mention ex-Presidents, Section-3 can not apply to Trump, many legal scholars (correctly in my opinion) argued that the purpose of the statue and the legislative intent was likely meant to include ex-presidents. Essentially, they elevated the 'purposivism' and 'intentionalism' theories of statutory interpretation over merely looking to the actual language (textualism) in this case.
However, once it came to the matter of whether a conviction of insurrection was required to be removed from the ballot, proponents of Trumps removal switched their positions, now favouring 'textualism' as they look at the omission of the word 'convicted' in Section-3. It appears that many of these individuals simply adopted whichever theory of statutory interpretation best supported Trump's removal on any given point (although I also do feel any conservatives that supported the argument in the above paragraph are also guilty of this).
Futhermore, America has remarkably lenient free speech laws. Unless a specific threat was made or encouraged (for example 'you should go burn that store'), a speaker can not be punished. This reasoning goes so far that even saying 'it would be nice if someone engaged in rebellion against the USA and I would support such an action' would not qualify as 'sedition' or 'inciting insurrection'. Thus, although Trump's rhetoric was quite unbecoming of the office and distasteful, it would not qualify as either 'inciting insurrection' or 'sedition'.
If the insurrection and rebellion clause is found to be purely fact based without need for conviction, I would worry that that would open it up to abuse shortly thereafter.
I think that setting a precedent holds FAR less potential damage than to allow someone who has stated anti-democratic ideals to hold the highest office in the country. Set the precedent, then re-write the Amendment to close up any potentially damaging loopholes, is my opinion on how to cause the least amount of future troubles.
It most certainly will be abused but I don't see that as a reason to scrap it. That would be like saying murder should be legal because an innocent person gets screwed occasionally. All of life is a string of cost-benefit analyses, I would say the benefit of the clause outweighs the cost.
I agree, especially since the first clause demands due process. This is a dangerous path when you can freely ignore parts on the constitution at will.
@@levi1929Rewriting an amendment is a horrible idea. You would burn everything for your own feelings. That is far more anti-democratic than anything Trump has done.
@@angrytheclown801 this is a common claim of magaworld but you all seem to ignore the fact that there *was* due process in Colorado. There was a lawsuit and it was appealed to the state's highest court. Removal was the direct result of due process not some random, arbitrary tactic.
I love the tense Twin Peaks-esque music as you zoom in on a picture of SCOTUS 😂
I didn't expect this to age well but damn it aged like milk!
I wish jj would make a video about that.
What do you mean?
Great video, J.J.! I think one argument that Trump might also be able to use is some favorable precedent around the 14th Amendment.
In the case “In re Griffin” (1869), Chief Justice Salmon Chase (Lincoln’s treasury secretary-and no friend of secession) explicitly found that the 14th Amendment was not self-executing as applied to a state judge who had served in the Virginia House of Delegates during the war. He read Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment as requiring congressional action to activate Section Three.
While the court isn’t bound to follow previous precedent it does actually weigh quite heavily for the justices-even after some high-profile overturnings! It might be particularly relevant for the originalist justices since it provides a glimpse at what the framers of the amendment might have been thinking.
Precedent does tend to weigh heavily upon American (and English) law, because we have common law (i.e., precedent-based system of law). Now the Supreme Court can throw out precedents if it so chooses, but like you said, they have long-standing effects and may be difficult to correct.
I won't speak as to the law itself, but I do think (despite being a Leftist) that Trump SHOULD be on the ballot. I just think it seems wrong to be genuinely considering this drastic of a consequence for simply voicing support for a protest turned riot at the capital. There are tons of offices that make up our government, from Town Halls to Statehouses to the halls of Congress, all of them are constantly being protested by very passionate very angry people from both sides of the aisle and politicians on both sides of the aisle routinely express support for these demonstrations. It is a matter of both freedom of speech and the right to demonstrate that it not be illegal for politicians to express this kind of support. I know that these laws don't exist on state and local levels because it's only considered treason when it happens to a major federal institution, but still.
Also, while I don't find trying to suss out which protests are "peaceful" and which are "riots" and which are caused by police, or by instigators and which are caused by the majority of protestors themselves particularly helpful; and while I know that to say something like "Black Lives Matter is violent too" would illicit a mob of angry liberals with highly detail-oriented lists of specific ways in which specific events of January 6th differed from the specific events of various BLM protests, I do think its safe to say that the left is capable of having protests turn violent too. And I think that Left-wing politicians would say something very similar to Trump if they were in his shoes. Something along the lines of "I'm glad to see so many demonstrators out here passionate about [Abortion.] I'm sure some of you [Gun Control] supporters will be marching on the capital soon. I hope that you're all peaceful. I love you", etc.
Hope won't save us . Trump is going to destroy democracy
What I learned from this is that writing a constitution is hard.
What I learned is being a critic requires very little effort.
Never would I think that I would live through such interesting times in American history
"May you live in interesting times." -Ancient Chinese curse
The thing this video took for granted was the idea that Trump committed insurrection in the first place. Taking this as a given does make it a biased analysis from the start. Though you did give some time to the arguments showing that Trump did not commit an insurrection you didn't seem to justify anything you said.
The libs hope you just don't question that part since CNN and MSNBC have been saying it every other sentence for 3 years now. It's almost like that was coordinated.
Read J.Js replies in the comment section. This dude is anything but non-biased. 😂
@@Gameprojordanyea his replies really bothered me considering he is preaching fairness in all this.
Please read entirely before commenting:
The main point I'm stuck with is Ted's point. If he's correct, all the other points are pretty much mute. Ted's basically saying that the court was deciding if Trump should be barred from running, not whether or not he committed 'insurrection'. That means Trump has to have already been convicted in order for the State courts to rule Trump be barred on the basis of 'insurrection'. It is not up to any random courts discretion to decide if the crime was committed without due process.
This point is addressed in the video with the 'automatic activation' theory on the 14th amendment. The issue here, is that I can't think of any other example in law where you can automatically determine that a person has committed a crime. The equivalence given in the video is that 'turning 18 is automatically determined by your ID or government certs'. It's a false equivalence since 'turning 18' is not a crime. Even if there was video evidence of you murdering someone, you still get due process in court before you are convicted of murder.
THAT POINT is further addressed with the idea that 'there is evidence that the 14th amendment was meant to be used in an automatic way' since they were not taking each Confederate Representatives to trial to determine if they had committed treason. The problem I have with this argument is that we're basically saying 'It was intended to be used fraudulently back then, therefore, we should use it fraudulently today'.
I say 'fraudulently' because an automatic conviction of a crime circumvents 'Presumption of Innocence' (PoI) which is in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's not explicitly stated in the USA Constitution, but it WAS widely held to follow from the fifth, sixth and.... FOURTEENTH amendments (until now I guess because some University Prof said so...). To be more explicit, Coffin v. United States (1895) established PoI of crimes in the United States. (There is NO WAY Laurence Tribe doesn't know this BTW...).
Because of the outstanding issue of PoI in this video, I'm inclined to disagree that this was a fair analysis. I found the video to be rather vague or dismissive when discussing points beneficial to Trump's case. I also found that the CORE points contrary to Trumps case were mostly qualified with accolades (He's a prof at Harvard/Legal Journalist, so it's true. Trust me bro) as opposed to anything written down in black and white.
I still think this was a great video in getting wind on the current talking points of the trial, no matter which way it was inclined to lean. So I guess there is value to the conversation from this video for free thinkers. But don't base your opinion on this video on it's own. Apply your own critical thinking to the matter and come to your own conclusions.
I read your comment. I agree with you. Please read my comment as well (written a few minutes after yours).
This case was never clear cut. JJ did an excellent job breaking this down.
The colorado court that barred Trump from appearing on the ballot voted 4-to-3, meaning half the judges disagreed with the decision.
Their choice came after another court found him eligible to run. So even among Colorado's legal experts, it's contentious.
It is very clear cut. Nothing like an insurrection took place and this is a purely political example of election interference and voter suppression
Three-sevenths is not equal to one half. A majority is a majority.
The original Colorado decision DID find that he engaged in an insurrection, but that it did not disqualify him. But, you are right, it is a contentious issue with no definitive answer.
Also important to remember that every member of the Colorado Court that barred him from the ballot were trained in Ivy Leagues, whereas those who did not were Colorado trained.
@@Diphenhydra it was very clear cut. There was no insurrection for him to have taken part in and this was all a purely political example of election interference and voter suppression
By the way, seeing your comments on his IG page is the highlight of all of his posts lmao Keep it up J.J.!
Very well done! Thanks, J.J.
I have to call out J.J.'s definition of Originalism, because when we are talking about schools of interpretational thought, the precise definitions matter. J.J. said Originalism was "the idea that the Constitution should be read as literally as possible." This is incorrect. That is the definition of Textualism, a related -- but distinct, manner of interpretation. Originalism means that not only should the words be read as literally as possible, but that the words should be understood in the way they were at the time the wording was ratified. A great example of this is the words "well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment. In modern parlance, "well regulated" means something akin to "with lots of government oversight." At the time of the passage of the amendment, "well regulated" meant more along the lines of well provisioned and properly outfitted. The big distinction in this particular case is: what does "officers of the United States" mean, and is that the same definition the men who passed that amendment used? If not, aren't you really altering the law/amendment by legally interpreting it in a way ir was never meant to be used?
I apprieciate approaching things from a more objective perspective. Human bias is already a serious thing, we don't need people being openly biased while covering "news".
I think he does a great job with human bias; he also is aware that he has biases and makes sure he doesn't hide them when necessary. Saying that being openly biased is a problem is definitely a bad word choice. We really don't need more people to hush up about their biases to get more support and then doing things that are questionable, held up by the idea that centrism is perfect and doesn't involve its own biases. Appreciate what you want. I don't care about that for you personally. Please don't infer that *that* is my intent. PotFriend
One other potential factor in this is the fact that Trump is leading most, if not all, recent polls for the general election. They wouldn't be disqualifying just any candidate, they'd be disqualifying the most popular candidate.
Why do you think they're doing this in the first place? It all makes sense huh
It was claimed he was "ahead in the polls" in 2020
Do not trust pollsters, especially american pollsters
You're slowly catching on to what Trump supporters have been saying since 2015. The game is rigged and they're completely emboldened to openly show their hand
Ted Cruz makes a pretty convincing argument tbh. If Trump had actually been tried convicted for intersection this will be an open and shut case. But he has not.
That just means it would be open-and-shut. Nobody is disputing that. The fact that the case is not "open-and-shut" means that it's not clear-cut, it doesn't mean it's wrong. If it were obviously wrong, it would STILL be "open-and-shut," just in the other direction.
I just think that the other 3 analysts are not confident because the judges are very partisan. Ted Cruz knows the judges are partisan towards Trump, so he isn’t worried
that and it has not been done before and the court is loathe to do that - unless of course it is 2000.
Something a couple of other people have mentioned in the comments but after the Civil War it was mostly obvious who had engaged in insurrection. The Confederacy had formally declared war and secession against the United States, so anyone who agreed to hold an office of the confederacy or fought for the confederacy essentially implicitly agreed that they were an insurrectionist. They were fighting for the government that had declared insurrection.
The insurrectionist clause has only been used to disqualify a handful of candidates since then. If the 14th amendment was originally designed to remove civil war insurrectionists, it's a lot easier to argue that it wasn't originally designed to consider insurrectionists of all varieties.
@@tsnstonepilot5375 this is some serious originalist argument. Im just confused why a lot of conservatives argue that “ the 14th Amendment is only for the Civil War”. The Constitution doesn’t work like that.
When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, the founders original intent be damned. Guns only for state militias? Everyone is part of a State Militia now!!! Conservative logic is flawed and purely based on emotion lol
Hey JJ, thanks for this video, it made me more informed of this topic! I want to give even more thanks as thanks to you, I found out about the Bulwark a couple of weeks ago. Been loving their stuff since then! Cheers from California!
Appreciate your objectivity and thoroughness!
I think what Trump did on January 6th was wrong. But what’s stopping someone from accusing a democrat of insurrection and finding guilty a judge who agrees with them to remove them from the ballot? We’ve seen different Democrat appointed judges disagree on this issue so why is one judges view privileged above others
Yeah let's say Hillary is an insurrectionist for deleting emails and compromising her official duties or something. The reaching can only get worse.
Honesty is a long-dead notion in the politics of any mature nation. It’s all about which books you want to end up in, and how you want em to talk about you
Thanks for taking the time to make such a dope Video JJ!
Straight pitch I’ve seen thrown on the topic. Thank you
In the immediate post 14A times, did any former Confederate try to run for office and try to deny that he was a former insurrectionist? If one did, did he sue to clear his name?
Should Trump be allowed to dispute this charge against him? Should a court listen to him?
If a person who has had zero involvement with politics whatsoever until today choose to run for office, and someone else just asserted that this candidate was an insurrectionist, does that automatically terminate their eligibility?
Wasn’t there a court process in Colorado? The State Supreme Court didn’t just like decide out of nowhere to disqualify Trump from their state’s primary ballot.
@@boomerthomas4309 The process was someone sued asserting that trump should be disqualified for insurrection and the corrupt judges said yeah and ruled he was to be removed from the ballot
@@wiiztec careful calling them corrupt. That's libel. If you add an "IMO" or "allegedly" you'll be fine. You'll be fine anyways because they don't care about you.
@@IsYitzach Yes they don't care because I don't have the platform to seriously defame anyone nevermind public figures for which the standard is higher
@@boomerthomas4309no the court just decided without due process. Trump wasn’t present and could not defend himself or call witness
The court jsut decided on its own which is not very democratic or American.
I mean how does it make any sense that the government can jsut decide you’re a traitor guilty of insurrection but can’t do that on any other crime for you? It doesn’t
The constitution is clear, Trump still has the writ of habeas corpus like all Americans
i don't know... i enjoy your content but this seemed way off base. I think a big part of the problem is the people you're quoting are extremely radical. I think about the only thing you got right was at the end you kind of implied that this whole situation is probably not worth anyone's time.
Radical?
@JJMcCullough The only radical thing here is this video. (This is a compliment I mean radical like rad)
@@JJMcCullough The democratic party is a radical party
Your nuanced discussion of this is much appreciated.
Excellent video showing both sides while keeping any personal bias out of it! Great job JJ as always.
Legal arguments are always fascinating.
Especially by ignorant non legally informed people like jj
That was a pretty fair and balanced essay. Thanks!
Although ted Cruz is an unrrepentant quack
Lol you're kidding right?
Amazing video as always
Thanks for the video
Please do more current event analysis JJ!
Very nice analysis JJ. But I must say I am surprized, that so many scholars view this as a fact finding exercise. Because criminal culpability is more than just facts. Non est actus reus, nisi mens rea. The act is not criminal if the intent is not. This has been at the fundation of Common Law for centuries, and I'm surprized they seem so willing to dispense with it. Especially since we're talking about incitment, which really is distinguished from free speech in terms of intent, not action. The action is the same.
Thank you for this analysis
Thanks for a reasoned analysis of this topic!
idk man, im just excited to listen to the oral arguments. also, the dates have been set for quite awhile, trump v anderson will take place on February 8th at 9am
If it only prohibited people who had been convicted of Insurrection than it would still allow anyone who had merely been convicted of Attempted Insurrection. And I think we can all agree that was not the intent.
That’s a great point.
No, that's just wrong. It says "have engaged in insurrection or rebbelion against the same" meaning any kind of involvment is covered. Attempted insurrection still carries a conviction
What is the difference between insurrection and attempted insurrection? Are they not one and the same? If you rebel against the United States, successfully or not, is that not simply an act of insurrection regardless of the outcome?
@@Belmaktorits the conviction part. Being charged with something is different than being convicted.
There’s no such thing as attempted insurrection. Just as there is no such thing as attempted battery or attempted treason. This is your and this dudes entire problem you have a laughably broad notion of insurrection such that you can conceive of something as laughable as attempted insurrection but also so circumscribed that the active support the current vice president gave to the months long insurrection of 2020 is somehow not insurrection.
Thanks for this really in depth video on this topic! This election is going to be chaotic to say the least!
I think you handled this current event very well, but I would have two comments.
First, you said that originalism is the legal idea that texts (like the constitution) should be interpreted literally but that is actually the related idea of textualism. Originalism posits that the text should be interpreted in the context of the time it was written and enacted. So when it comes to broadly defined things like “equal protection” an originalist would say that this should be understood as a 19th century American would understand it while a textualist argument could be made that texts should take the meaning of the time they are adjudicated.
Second, I don’t think it was fair to make a comment about Sen. Cruz’s partisan political affiliation without doing so for Professor Tribe, who is a well known and vocal supporter of the Democratic Party in the US, having worked for the Gore and Obama campaigns
Agree. I would add, I've seen "originalism" and "textualism" be used interchangeably, so I'm not sure how people use or apply one term to mean one meaning or the other. The basic idea, though, is that if words have any meaning, then the laws that use them do too. And therefore, we decide according to what the law says.
I think, by necessity, the 14th amendment MUST require a conviction. Otherwise you could have any state just willy nilly disqualify any politician by merely accusing them of being, aiding, or comforting an "insurrectionist" without proof or due process. The excuse "but you don't need to be found guilty to have done it" misses the entire point of our judicial system; innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not the other way around. If your guilt has not been proven in a court of law, legally, you are considered innocent.
I agree. The court claimed Trump engaged in insurrection WITH INTENT so wasn't a intentional or accidential thing. That being the case, Trump would have charged and convicted first under the crime of engaging in insurrection for a court to make that finding. Trump has never been charged.
I don't see what the "necessity" is, except in your desires. But desiring something doesn't make it so. There is absolutely no language in the text of the amendment, nor anywhere else in the constitution, that means it MUST be so.
@@RickJaeger The necessity is exactly what I described. If there is no due process, any politically biased panel of judges could declare any politician unqualified merely by accusing any benign action of qualifying for a 14th amendment violation. Its against an unlikable person right now, but do you honestly think republicans would be above say, calling the "summer of love" riots an insurrection and disqualifying any democrat who supported the unrest?
If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander, and this just escalates into major issues if there is no due process.
you would love if kangaroo courts could fabricate a conviction out of thin air, then instantaneously scream guilty right afterwards 😂 typical wannabe tyrant lolberals @@RickJaeger
The amendment says "Engaging in Insurrection". We know that to be codified as crime under federal law 2383. Ergo, I think a conviction would be required.@@RickJaeger
Hi J.J.!
Very cool!
I love this video. More of this !!
This is history in the making.
The issue with the "no conviction" take where in a person doesn't need to be legally charged and then found guilty of the actual crime of being an insurrectionist is that it blatantly leads the door open to nearly free interpretation on what actually constitutes being an insurrectionists with effectively only the smallest amount of justification being needed. What is going to stop this from becoming a tool used by partisan state courts to just ban whatever candidate they want from being on the ballet? You are essentially arguing a judge or group of judges should have free reign to find a political figure guilty of insurrection and then penalize them in whatever way they see fit with no trial and little to no legal recourse, that is judicial tyranny and in total violation of the most basal legal practices written into the founding legal document of MY country. I won't claim to have a full or even summary understanding of the Canadian legal system so perhaps such action would be seen as fine or even normal to most Canadians and be seen as perfectly legal, in which case I am glad I was born south of our shared border.
What’s to prevent partisan state courts from just faking evidence and arresting every politician from the other side and sentencing them to death by electric chair?
I highly recommend contacting Uncivil Law for a talk JJ. He is a lawyer on RUclips, whose main focus is IP/Copyright and Constitutional Law. He tries to divorce his political takes from his legal analysis and a conversation between you two would be really cool to see and his knowledge of these topics/relevant cases is encyclopedic.@@JJMcCullough
@@JJMcCullough That's not exactly a fair response. Partisan state courts haven't been floating the idea to fake evidence and sentence political rivals to death.
Whereas, the Texas Lt. Gov. has floated the idea of disqualifying Biden on the basis of immigration. Now, I think this was an idea and bluster rather than any honest conviction, but if a top Republican official is floating the idea, then I don't think it's a particularly farfetched outcome.
The criminal law of conviction was not created for decades after the amendment, and yet many people were barred under the 14th amendment in the intervening years, so there's no precedent of what you're describing.
Also, if we're going to say crooked courts can do what they want, then why not just issue phony criminal convictions of insurrection immediately before barring them under the 14th amendment without cause?
@@JJMcCullough Difference is one is pretty obviously tyrannical and would be very hard to pull off without triggering a civil war/breakdown.
Partisans would much rather have a quick, easy, and sneaky way at silencing an opponent
Those claiming 'due process' is not necessary should take heed lest they become the next target.
It is necessary, and we've had it, proven to preponderance of the evidence (civil court). Mr. Smith is working on beyond reasonable doubt in DC.
It won't ever happen. The republicans don't have the balls to wield power like this. The left oppresses us openly and unapologetically because they know we're too pussy to ever do anything about it.
that was a selfie raid at best
Loving the 00s highschooler hair JJ
Thanks, JJ. A really thoughtful video. Don’t let the bastards get you down
Lol admit it this is an L
Are you kidding? This will probably be the video that makes him the most money. He really should be thanking trump for the pay check
Hey, you've got a pretty good grasp of this "politics" stuff. You should write a column or something! ;) No but for real, thanks JJ. You've made the most sense of this mess out of anyone I've seen/read so far. Even more hilarious because we're not even American.
How the fuck Trump is not in jail already is one of the most profound mysteries currently facing the world
Because we live in a country with rights and laws. Tyrants cannot lock people up for whatever reason they want whenever they want.
Donald Trump did not "plan an insurrection." The Capitol riot happened on its own, like any other riot.
I'm constantly impressed by JJ's commitment to unbiased discussion of very difficult topics. Sometimes I agree with his personal opinions and sometimes I don't, but I've never once felt that he hadn't taken both sides seriously and approached them fairly. Shame on national/international news outlets and analysts who consistently fail to reach this level of balance and insight.
That's cap and you know it. He ain't engaging with shit in the comments.
Didn't watch the video
It's so weird to read so many comments with disagreements already addressed in the video. It's like some audiences learnt a list of talking points about the subject and they go along with them whereever this subject appears, without actually "taking in" the video.
I mean, JJ did organize some of the stuff, but this conversation has been going on since the CSCs decision. Just look at "Law Tube", coverage from basically all the major faces and minor ones too. Uncivil Law even covered this a few times both singularly and in panels, with people on both sides of the debate.
We don't have to entertain this bullshit. The right way to answer to tyranny isn't to play by their rules and make legal arguments, it's to state the obvious that this is bullshit, tyrannical, and a blatant rigging of the election.
that's generally how most people on the internet argue now. I've seen it in my dad, he brings up the same talking points, but can't seem to quite explain them.
Your lawyer guy said the quiet part out loud: they're trying to use it as an ideological screening method. There are plenty of lawyers commenting on this case who are far less partisan. What made you choose these ones?
Looking good in this award winning video project, J.J. 🙂
I think the problem of using proof of citizenship and age being self evident, are not in fact correct. As there was a legal due process involved with the generation of a birth certificate.
You cannot simply claim to live in the usa and be a certain age, you must produce proof.
Nobody is disputing that. But as Ben Wittes said, producing proof is different than being convicted.
@@JJMcCullough point taken, but then, how can you produce proof of not having engaged in insurrection?
@@northernmetalworkerThis is one of those instances where you can’t disprove a negative, but you can certainly prove a positive. The evidence is overwhelming; what was shown on the news coverage on Jan. 6 was just the tip of the iceberg.
@@northernmetalworker Nice spot. You can't prove a negative, the positive has to be argued first and then that argument can be refuted on it's evidence.
Thanks JJ! Now I can finally sound more eloquent when discussing modern politics vs spontaneously bringing up flag debates or random facts on the origin of cultural icons 😂😂 just kidding, love your videos as always
"one of the saddest things in the history of our country"
*Forgets the destruction and displacement of native Americans*
*Forgets slavery*
Small grievances aside great job on remaining so fair and balance on what is such a controversial subject matter.
Never been this early to a JJ video
A President who violates his Presidential Oath should not be allowed to run for President again. Are there no consequences for violating the Presidential Oath?
Conservatives don't care about any of that it's about maintaining the status quo not about following the law or advancing quality or progressing the nation but just about maintaining an old power structure from the 19th and 20th century
And because of that desire, they are willing to overlook the gross violations of his oath and his decorum as president
@@isurvivedthebattleofwolf359 Same, if not worse, with the liberals.
What if I looked at Joe Biden and his border enforcement policy (letting people into the point where texas took over border control themselves ) and made the argument that he violated his oath to uphold the united states laws and constitution? Would you support him being forced off ballots?
What's the US presidential oath? Start as many wars as possible or you get kicked out of the cool kids club and lose out on all the perks of it, like insider trading, and the ability to completely exonerate family members who get caught doing federal crimes like owning illegal guns and large amounts of class 3 drugs? LMAO
@@isurvivedthebattleofwolf359uh ok dude. almost all presidents lie and lying is a disqualification so therefore thats a disqualification from president thats not enforced
I laughed at the idea that some people think banning him from running goes against America's democratic nature. Like...so does banning people convicted of crimes from voting, but Americans seem weirdly okay with this. It's all well and good to "let the voters decide" but it seems utterly contemptible to have a situation where a criminal, even a murderer, can legally run for office, but not vote for himself in the election. Similarly, voters decide elections, but politicians get to pick their own voters in most states, creating districts that are advantageous to the particular party in power when the congressional maps are drawn. That's not democracy - it's not democracy that in a state, 55% of people can vote for members of one party, but that party only ends up with 40% of the seats. That's fundamentally anti-democratic. So to pretend that America doesn't already have a system that rejects democracy some of the time is to ignore reality.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Even if you believe the (frankly insane) notion that 45 really won the 2020 election, such a notion was never PROVEN to the satisfaction of any court, in any state, and so in the absence of proof, the ultimate result of the election process was a Biden victory, meaning that this was still insurrection. You can't just say "my side _really_ won, so gathering a violent, heavily-armed mob and getting them to storm the Capitol building to try to ultimately install me as president is totes okay!" Whatever your belief, Biden was the declared winner, and trying to use force (which is, I'll remind you, NOT democratic in any sense of the word) to prevent him from taking office is insurrection. 45 did it in full view of all Americans. It's not a secret. Everybody knows that his aim was to take power, despite what the voters decided (so much for "let the voters decide").
For democracy to work, candidates in elections must respect the democratic process. When they are shown to lose (and unless they can prove otherwise), they need to accept defeat. And if they're not going to respect democratic principles when they lose an election, why should they be protected by them when they're are trying to run again? Furthermore, do we really believe 45 is any more likely to respect an election loss this year?
A video purely seeking objective facts and goodfaith contrasts between each perspective on the topic in today's political climate is increasingly rare. I appreciate your clear and unbaised take in these polarized times. It isn’t just refreshing. It is soothing in a world that feels like it is going crazy with misinformation and biased framing always around us.
I mean, being too young is not a crime, rebellion is. I think it matters to decide first and foremost if he did something wrong on a national level instead of letting the courts of individual states wing it. I'm not a trump supporter, I'm not even a US citizen, but given the sentiment around Trump and how opinions are divided on him, it's hard to believe there isn't some level of "we don't want him running again because a section of the US people really dislike him". I think that not proceeding like that first is a sure-fire way to make these decisions look partisan. A lot of people that vote for trump are people that feel the country left them behind, I think, and excluding trump from the ballot without a national consensus that he did them crimes is sure to reinforce that feeling.
It's not necessarily a crime. You would have to be convicted of something, and the language does not specify anything of that nature. It would be the same as being impeached and removed from office for something. It carries nothing like what it would for a criminal conviction in a court of law.
@@RickJaeger Then why is there a law that makes it a crime ? And I'm not even talking about "the guy needs to be convicted and punished by law", what I mean is "it's probably wise to come to a decision about whether the guy actually committed insurrection or not on a national level" before taking such drastic steps on a state level. I'm sure there's some way to officialize or not on a state level what he did was insurrection, and then move as a country, not just as an individual state.
@@FlavorsomeMusic Re: why there is a law that makes it a crime. I am not sure what that has to do with it. If Trump were convicted, that would of course be a no-brainer that anyone could agree that anyone else could take him off the ballot for it. That doesn't imply that a conviction is _necessary_ for the law's effect.
As for the rest, I don't know. I don't think so. I rather think the states retain the power to run their own elections, and they already do that without creating a constitutional crisis. You may be right that it would be _better_ for the country if we did come to a national consensus, but I feel that's irrelevant when it comes to the Constitution. The law is the law is the law, and the law does not say anything like "The nation must come to a consensus."
@@RickJaeger I never made the argument that it should objectively happen like that because the law forces it, I'm making the argument that the political situation in the US is tense enough as it is right now without inflaming it further. It's not because the states have the right to do it that they should, it feels irresponsible to me. I'm not making a law argument, I'm making a common sense argument.
I also never made the argument that there needs to be a court conviction, I made the argument that there should at least be a consensus on the national level, not because the law requires it, more because of the tense political situation in the states.
Politics is about compromises after all, and I see both of these things as olive branches to a majority of his supporters who will very most likely see this as some form of corruption. Some will no matter what, of course, that can't be helped.
To the common people, usually, when you're accused of a crime or at least something as important as this, you need to be proven guilty. I don't think they care about the technicalities of the constitution unless it benefits their perspective.
I'm more tackling this from the human side than the law side. I'm a hobbyist software engineer and I deal with legal licenses a fair bit, and I can assure you that a majority of people don't give a rat's arse about their license agreements and the technicalities of them, they act more on feelings, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of people in the states right now don't feel that he did insurrection. I hope this is a relevant parallel. ><
TLDR: Yeah, we're dealing with legal stuff, but we're also dealing with human beings that have nuanced perspectives first and foremost, and I see benefits in officializing whether or not he did it on a human level.
What a freaking mess.
Getting closer to that million subscribers. Good job!
Nicely done, J.J.
What would happen if the SCOTUS rules that the Colorado Supreme Court made the right decision but most other states (at least ones that are likely to vote for Trump) don't make a decision similar to Colorado?
That’s an interesting question, I don’t know. I guess in theory it would be very easy to just get a court ruling in every state.
Chaos and Bedlam!!!
@@JJMcCulloughit likely depends on the state election law and who is allowed to challenge the eligibility of candidates. It some cases it’s a voter (Colorado), other times it might be another candidate. The process also differs within each state.
@@JJMcCulloughif it were Florida or say Ohio, I would then find any evidence of insurrection and remove dems from ballots. It is so utterly retupid this video is moot. Oh wait, that's exactly what Republicans are doing. And it's easy since the media let dems say whatever incitement they wanted for almost 8 years now.
It is really amazing to watch Americans debate and care about their Constitution
its definitely important to us
They don't care about the Constitution, they care about twisting it whichever way supports the outcome the want
You say that like people don’t care about politics/law in your country, wherever you are from?
The only thing is that far too many Americans claim to care what the constitution says, but would be hard pressed to correctly name and identity more than a handful of amendments in the Bill of Rights- Namely, the few amendments they actually care about
This 14th Amendment here, for instance, is one where many laymen are in favor of openly flouting the plain language of the text because it would apply to the guy they want to vote for
United States North Carolina@@cassidyjewel3639
Looks like JJ visited Seinfeld during the low water pressure episode.
This is a solid review.
Really this comes down to do you believe the law of the US should be applied as written or if the law is subjective as situations/society changes
HONEY, wake up! New JJ!