Lawfare Live: Trump's Trials and Tribulations, Feb. 8
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июн 2024
- On Feb. 8 at 4 p.m. ET, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes will sit down with Lawfare Legal Fellow and Courts Correspondent Anna Bower, Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff, Lawfare Associate Editor Hyemin Han and law professor at Indiana University Gerard Magliocca for this week’s episode of “Lawfare Live: Trump’s Trials and Tribulations.”
![Moneybagg Yo - WHISKEY WHISKEY [feat. Morgan Wallen] (Official Audio)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kJamyq0WplE/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for this intelligent commentary. Appreciated. So much better than turning to MSM
Fear drove the justices to slither out of the obvious.
Quinta expected the judges to do judging? Seems like a big ask.
Another thought: the amendment may well not be intended to cover the president himself, since it DOES explicitly cover presidential electors. At the time electors held a far more powerful and independent role in the process than they do today, and their names were the ones that actually appeared on ballots. As KBJ alluded to, it is the electoral college that would have been understood by the amendment framers to be the more likely infiltration point for insurrectionists.
Love love love the bathroom background 😂
Thank you Ben! I agree! I’m hoping Macafee does exactly this- reveal the circus. I cannot believe the silence I’ve seen from various personalities.
SCOTUS is in the bag for Trump. Thomas should have recused.
Sure, so then it could be 8-0 or 7-1 lol. Haha Embecile.
Aid and comfort only applying to giving aid to wartime enemies in opposing countries doesn't hold water.
"Senators barred four more members for disloyalty during the course of the war. On December 4, 1861, the Senate expelled John Breckinridge of Kentucky for taking up “arms against the Government he had sworn to support.” On January 10, 1862, the Senate voted unanimously to expel Missouri’s two senators, Waldo Johnson and Trusten Polk, for “sympathy with and participation in the rebellion against the Government of the United States.” On February 5, 1862, the Senate passed a resolution to expel Indiana’s Jesse Bright for disloyalty to the Union based on a letter he addressed to “His Excellency Jefferson Davis,” in which Bright introduced his acquaintance, a Texas arms dealer, to the president of the Confederacy." Source U.S. Gov Site
Clearly, Waldo and Trusten lost their seats for "aid and comfort" by simply sympathizing with insurrectionists.
As a non-lawyer, what concerns me is that whether or not Trump was guilty of insurrection was determined by the Colorado Supreme Court and by the Maine Secretary of State. If these decisions were upheld would that not set a bad precedent where a candidate is essentially being put on trial by different states with different outcomes? It would make more sense to require that the candidate in question be convicted in a federal criminal trial of insurrection, and then this verdict would apply to every state.
The justices seemed to share your concern. However, if you look at the history post-American Civil war, there were a number of people in prominent positions of the Confederacy who were never charged under any criminal law, and some of them fell under a general amnesty, but clearly engaged in insurrection. The Congress and the states did not want to have them in government, which is why they passed the amendment: to weed out people who shouldn't be in government without the expense of having thousands of trials.
How this shakes out 150 years later is a different question.
Thanks Lawfare! Separation of powers loom large lately. Would it not violate separations of powers to have Congress decides who meets the standards? Does not the Constitution devolve running elections to the states, so states should be the ones to decide disqualification, though I would not be excited about Texas?
Aid and comfort.. promising pardons for convicted seditionists?
Section 3 is five better than Section 8.