Colorado and Maine Kick Trump Off The Ballot
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 янв 2024
- Did this one weird trick actually work to remove Trump? 👨💻 Remove personal information off the web with Incogni with code LEGALEAGLE legaleagle.link/incogni ⚖️⚖️⚖️ Get a great lawyer, fast! legaleagle.link/eagleteam Listen to the more of the great It's Complicated podcast here: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
⚖️⚖️⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
Will the Supreme Court uphold the decision? 👨💻 Remove personal information off the web with Incogni with code LEGALEAGLE legaleagle.link/incogni ⚖⚖⚖ Get a great lawyer, fast! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
how about that video yesterday of the Judge getting literally jumped while reading the ruling of no probation!?
SCOTUS actually has no involvement.
According to Blassingame v Trump, Trump didn't deny his role in the events of January 6th.
According to a public statement on social media by Trump, he was preparing to use the Insurrection Act (which means, on January 6th, he acknowledges that the events of that day were in fact an Insurrection).
As such, there's no dispute whether or not it was an Insurrection, and it is a matter of court record that Donald Trump started it.
Therefore, the 14th Article 3 automatically activates- no different than if he was under 35, hadn't lived in the US for 14 years, or was born in another country. There's nothing to appeal or decide, it's self evident within the Constitution itself. Even if people write in a disqualified candidate, they still are prohibited from holding office per the Constitution, no different than if 100% of voters voted for someone 20 years old.
No way, we have the best SCOTUS money can buy. Thomas has already shown his true character as a shill. We have a MAGAt court
If SCOTUS upholds Colorado's decision you better call up the church and ask if hell just froze over ..
objection: maybe I missed it, but did you address the difference between 'off the primary ballot' and 'off the ballot' and 'ineligible to take office even if elected as a write-in'?
I think it's a very stupid argument to be like "Well if you committed an act of treason against the government to gain power, you aren't allowed to serve in government unless it's the most powerful position, in which case of course you can, why not?". It just sounds like such a logical failure
Also the idea that the president should be immune from criminal prosecution. How can anyone buy that idea?
I mean leave it to trump team and his goons/believers to be mostly all about peddling logical failure
@@xxxthwagdrakexxx4672 LOL. and you support corrupt Biden..
@@AirLancer They aren't. And it won't be there position in the future with any democratic president. Politics is not about what is right. It's about who is right... and only that instance.
Well it wasn't initially directed toward any particular presidential candidate just lower office positions
I didn't realize it said in the U.S. Constitution that insurrectionists aren't allowed to run for office _unless someone gets upset about it._
That's exactly what it says in the US constitution. Thanks for educating me and everyone else. Need more human geniuses like you. Please give me more knowledge oh great one
Trump said peacefully not violently. Biden did not get 81M votes. Thats the truth.
@@justingolden21 Read my comment again.
Don't they have to be convicted first?
@@YadraVoat Nope. Stop believing the Alt Right lies. Oodles of Confederates were barred from office despite never being convicted or even charged.
I get where Vladeck is coming from, but "using the law to stop the violent mob might anger the violent mob" is still a weird reason not to do it.
The entire argument seems to be "Don't kick the insurrectionist off the ballot because that'll hurt other insurrectionists' fee-fees."
That's what the Insurrection Act is for anyway, isn't it?
It's such a dweeb centrist mindset from a person who is "book smart" but doesn't understand how people in the real world actually behave. After everything Trump has done Vladeck is still comfortable going "let them fight in the marketplace of ideas" like this is all a game to him.
So you don’t think Antifa, BLM, and Leftist protestors count as a “violent mob”?
I believe that's what's traditionally called a "hostage situation."
I really do wonder how anyone could determine the Presidency isn't an office when the oath sworn to take the position is literally the "Oath of Office"
By ditching logical consistency at the first sign of inconvenience.
Trump has argued in a previous case vs District of Columbia regarding Trump hotels that a president is an officer of the United States:
In the case of K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office, LLC, 951 F. 3d 503, President Trump successfully argued that the U.S. President qualifies as an Officer of the United States, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The court's agreed, stating this statute permitted President Trump, in his capacity as an "officer... of the United States", to remove the state suit relating to duties of his office to federal court.
By the plain reading of the 14th Am. and how SCOTUS has interpreted it since the founding.
Misapplying the law to go after someone you hate is just naked fascism.
Own it!
These freaks don’t care about laws or what is right or wrong, they care about power and using it to control you, personally.
Why should Trump not have been an officer? Didn`t he manage all his crap from the „oval office? And he surely was not only officer….he is oval too!
I can't stand the "president is not an officer" argument.
The presidential oath of OFFICE begins:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the OFFICE of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability..."
Article Two, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States:
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"
It explicitly states that the President shall hold an "Office."
@@BrendonCap Trump admitted on truth social (ugh) that he took an oath of office.
@@BrendonCapit's just like a republican to thump the constitution without actually understanding a word of it. conservatives would not give a rat's ass about the constitution if not for the second amendment, everything else is just window dressing
@@isaacgleeth3609 Exactly. Anyone who holds an "office" is by definition an officer.
@@BrendonCap Oh hey look, the writing of the constitution supports our side after all! Surely with this information you'll peacefully concede your point like a mature adult, right?
The people that have been for "state's rights" will do a complete 180 real quick...
It’s almost like it’s never actually about states’ rights, and instead is about slavery or controlling women or whatever
“States rights” do not = interference and rigging a federal election.
The people that are anti-states rights suddenly love the 10th Amendment. Just chose whichever law gets you what you want. See how this works?
Never trust anyone who puts the rights of a nebulous authority over the rights of human beings. Corporations, countries or states. Freedom not given to the people is always stolen from them.
Yup, states rights to suppress civil rights
Honestly, I think the district court used the "office" excuse just to pass the buck up to their supreme court and not be stuck being the ones who had to make the call
Seems reasonable - considering the death threats and breaking and entering that has happened in response to the ruling.
I think they did it to help settle the law and facts. District court fact rulings are very difficult to overturn on appeal. So the district court carefully established Trump engaged in insurrection. By contrast, a district court's legal conclusions only bind the district and the parties, and are easy for an appellate court to reverse. By making an almost indefensible legal ruling, the district made it very difficult for the Supreme Court to reject the factual conclusion and to uphold its legal conclusion. By passing the decision up, the Supreme Court could settle the law and facts for the whole state, and the whole country.
It would be a hard call to make, to be fair. Because if Trump actually did incite insurrection then he would be charged with it. But even the most radical progressives know that there is no case
The oath is literally called the oath of office, and it literally says "office of President". How they can claim it's not an office is beyond me.
Purposely ambiguous language makes the President out to be some position of power that can appoint officers of the state, but is not an official title that can be charged with any crime. Even thought it’s the highest position there is. Republicans will do their best to be pedantic and already show pride in a Presidency that can do whatever they want.
office vs officer
Actually the office is "Executive Office of President" but your point stands.
@@connierobinson1090 The lower court ruled that the Presidency was not an office and therefore not an officer.
Can’t tell if you’re being dishonest for really this stupid. The article he keeps referring to never said president. It labels everything under the president. Take words seriously.
How on earth can the presidency not be an office, yet in the Constitution's oath of OFFICE the president swears, it literally appears as "faithfully execute the OFFICE of President of the United States"?
I think the argument was not so much that the presidency is not an office and more that it did not fall under a literal reading of the offices listed.
This is indeed what the argument is for the most part. It doesn't specifically list president as one of the officers of the USA, so now it's vague, and the courts can decide whatever it means. @chriswarr641
Edit: To clarify, because people keep tagging me to explain things to me. I am not making a stance on this topic here, just answering the question of the person above me as to if the argument is a president isn't an office. You don't need to keep telling me you disagree with the statement, as I'm sure everyone does.
Because those arguing the president is not an officer are not using common sense or recognizing the practical limitations of language.
It’s another baseless, bad-faith semantics argument. Classic conservative literalism garbage.
Well, their argument pretty much says that not everyone who holds an office is an officer which can be true. And they use a ruling by Chief Justice Roberts that says Officers of the United States aren't voted on. The problem that they don't acknowledge in the use of that ruling is that the ruling is about the Appointments Clause in the Constitution in which Officers of the United States are appointed by the President. However, the Appointments Clause goes on to say that these Officers of the United States aren't the only Officers, just the ones whose process isn't described elsewhere in the Constitution. So while it does say what they're saying it doesn't mean what they want it to mean. They also ignore other Supreme Court cases that specifically deal with the President and call him an Officer of the United States, such as Nixon v Fitzgerald.
When the people writing Section 3 removed the presidency from the final wording, I can virtually guarantee their thought process was something along the lines of "Who would be stupid enough to let a known traitor run for the highest office in the country?"
I don't get why they would have removed the wording, if that happened...
I don't get why the system is so messed that now hundreds years later courts have to interpret what they were thinking or intending... 😮🤦♀️ Next court session with an Ouiji board? 🫠🤷🏻♀️
@@marmac83naming the presidency would be redundant. The specifically named positions are senators, representatives, and I believe judges. These are non officer positions in the government. Therefore they are not included under officer. President/VP are officers so there was no need to name them. I don’t think that they were expecting people to make an argument as stupid as the president is not an officer.
Fun Fact: Most everything on the floor of Congress gets written down. Congressional records from the debates around the drafting of the 14th Amendment include a Congressperson asking if the president was included because he wasn't listed and another responding by pointing to the "all offices civil and military" language and that questioner basically saying 'yeah that works'. The question was literally asked and answered already. There is no need to interpret, we KNOW what they meant.
@@marmac83 They said it did apply to the president in 1868 when it was written. The Colorado brief quotes the transcript already anticipating the Trump response.
The idea that if Trump is on the ballot and loses we won't end up in exactly the same situation anyway is wonderfully naive
January 6th was the the test drive, with the Heritage Foundation's Leadership Mandate and years of planning . . . the next will more than likely succeed.
My thought exactly. As if putting him on the ballot to prove that he would lose authentically would prove anything to anyone. The only people that could possibly matter to are reasonable Trump supporters, which are vanishingly rare.
These people believe that the election was stolen without any evidence. They are not very smart.
If orange man isn't given the opportunity to speak to his fans a few miles away from the capital to rile them up I think it would make a difference. Also if he does do that, and the national guard is deployed it would make a difference.
I rolled my eyes so hard at that. @Legaleagle, you can't tell us a podcast is "excellent" and then quote him saying stuff like that.
“Law is like a mush” is why politicians and all other government actors must be held to a higher standard. If you want you authority to be respected you must respect those that allow you to be in your position.
Trying to argue that Trump can't be tried for Insurrection because _he's not an Officer of the US_ is INSANE levels of "but um actually" pigeon holing.
Ikr, if THE GODDAMN PRESIDENT isn't an officer of the US, who the hell is??????
I'm pretty sure that "the office of President" is a real thing. The District that sided against disqualifying Trump must be in the district that Lowrent Bobo is running in.
1. The constitution says explicitly who the officers of the US are.
2. He's not being tried or even accused of insurrection.
He hasnt event been proven in court to have caused an insurrection.
insurrection has to be the intent of the movement, a majority of people there did not commit acts of violence or brandish weapons
They should read the transcripts of when section 3 of the 14th amendment was debated. Someone asked the question on if the president was included in this and the authors responded that it would be ridiculous if he wasn’t. Those transcripts should be sitting in the library of congress if I’m not mistaken.
Originalism only matters when it serves the majority of Supreme court justices. This is like day 2 law school stuff.
Stop being sensible with suggestions like this.
If memory serves, it was Ben Wade
Edit: It was a different Radical Republican Senator, Lot Morrill of Maine.
There are two different lines of argument; that transcript only addresses one of them.
Those debates aren't a part of the Constitution .. just like the Federalist Papers that some people love to cite.
Of course they'll argue he's not an officer when faced with repercussions but then argue in the same breath he IS an officer the instant it has some kind of benefit or protection.
Can’t be an officer as they are appointed by the senate under the appointment clause. Civil officers obey the hatch act of 1939 law and military officers must go through the academy both civil officers and military officers uses an iron clad test oath
Cant be an officer as it’s listed in the impeachment clause as well as president and vice-president
typical of Trump really, play both hands and hope to come out on top. Sadly he doesn't have daddies money anymore, so, his chances of success are slim. It's almost like the man has been raised by a criminal, to become a criminal, and yet everyone is shocked, when he does criminal things. I mean.. Trump was literally the 'bad guy' in old movies and shows - the ideal of him, what he has become, it was the "bad things to avoid' - yet... here we are.
Exactly. To argue that he had all power to make executive orders without court oversight, then say that he isn’t an officer of the US is par for the course when it comes to Republicans. Any way they can subvert responsibility and have all the power is freedom to them.
He’s not officers are nominated by the president. How can a president nominate another candidate for president defeats the 12th amendment. The Secretary of defense is an officer of the United States who’s nominated by the president and reports to the president
@@elem-sike4161 an officer of the United States is those who report to the president stupid. How does a president report to himself. Under the appointment clause an officer dr is nominated by a president. That would be called a dictator who continues to nominate himself for president. A president who is an officer of the United States defeats the purpose of having an election. Read the appointment clause
I have a processing disorder and when he said "threats of physical violence" i thought he said "threats of disco violence" and i was about to take that completely straight until i realized i didnt know what "disco violence" constituted in the legal system
I would imagine that would be violence caused by the Boogie Man.
@@andynystrom1519 I'm no expert but you might be onto something 🤔
"Never mind, the burning buildings are just the Disco Inferno apparently."
What a fine time for Stayin’ Alive!
@@DarthMcDoomington If you die a heroic disco death, do you go to Disco Elysium?
How is it okay that your legal defense is not "we didn't do it" but instead "its okay that we do it "
Not just that, but that it’s ok because he used to be president
Essentially, because from a legal perspective, it's better to get the case thrown out because of things like definitions and meanings than it is to mount a defense saying you didn't do it.
It's an onion of defense. The first layer is the court having jurisdiction, the final layer and the one you hope to never get to is saying you didn't do the thing.
That's called an affirmative defense, which normally shifts the burden of proof away from the prosecution (defense has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was okay). But lately the Supreme Court has been cosplaying as the legislative branch, so who knows what will happen.
@@At0mix Have they been cosplaying as the legislative branch? I know their reversal of Roe v Wade was the exact opposite of cosplaying - in fact them reversing that previous Supreme Court decision was done precisely because the legislative branch hadn't actually taken it upon themselves to make laws enshrining the right to an abortion into federal law in any way over decades (the Constitution has nothing to say on the matter as well). I'm not a fan of the modern Supreme Court, though I hate them far more for decisions like "Citizens United" (which massively increased corruption in our politics) than for anything in the last few years.
Because it's not a legal case but a political one. Trumps message is basically: "Yes we are corrupt and play dirty, but the democrats are way more corrupt and dirty than we are and the only reason I'm on trial is because of a political witch hunt." I don't think this defence will work in court but it doesn't need to. It's the voters he wants to convince, and I fear that it is much more effective than most democrats are willing to admit.
The “fun” thing happens if they declare the President is not an Officer of the Federal Government/Officer of the United States. Many protections currently and historically offered to presidents only apply to Officers. Specifically immunity from state prosecution, the ability to transfer court jurisdiction to federal court, and legal representation from the council
To the president on criminal matters.
The negative side is this also negates a lot of the restrictions on presidential authority, because a lot of those laws were also references to Officers of the United States. Which basically make the president much more like a monarch who can refuse restrictions on their powers at will.
Didn't Trump also invoke some of those protections while in office and/or sometime after?
Yet, none of these "guaranteed protections," have been offered to President Trump, in Domocrat states!
@@haemocyte2224 It's almost like both parties only try to change laws when it benefits them! Like how Democrats want to remove the filibuster when they're a minority. Then protect it when they're a majority. Then...
The Constitution refers to the president as an office 25 times - case closed.
@@KevinJDildonik the filibuster is a bit of an exception because Article 1 states that each sitting house of Congress establishes its own rules for operation. Obviously it was designed to ensure that either house nor the other branches could reduce the authority of Congress. But both houses have also realized the advantages of being able to redefine their own rules with a simple majority, so they have consistently protected the fluidity of the rules.
Post-Civil War America be like: "We went to all these lengths to prevent confederates from holding office, but blocking Jefferson Davis from the presidency is just a step too far".
Fun fact: Many governors and state legislators elected after Reconstruction were former Confederate veterans. That explains the immediate reversal of Black Americans' rights as revenge for losing the war to preserve slavery.
So. history is a bit weird. The 2nd amendment is set in place to ALLOW for insurrections One president even stated that for a healthy country there needs to be something like this every 10 years or so. Now, my memory is foggy on the details so it is a very loose paraphrase at best. Anyway, The entire purpose of the 2nd is to fight against tyranny and a corrupt government. So, the answer to this is IF you supported or participated in ANY form of insurrection, you can't hold office. This effectively bans competition for anyone who fought to overthrow what they perceived to be an unjust government full of corruption. Our government IS, unjust and it IS corrupt. Both sides. Not just Dems, But Pubs too. At this point, Politicians are merely fighting over who gets to control the money. That's it
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome.
Court case after court case, all with the same outcome. Any member of the public could have given DJT those verdicts in a month, let alone many many excruciating years.
More discriminating evidence from women, decades younger than him being revealed, resulting in further court cases/payouts. Women he should have no chance with, given the age gap.
Now in his mid 70’s, he watches as his life drifts away. Yet, he thinks this vicious cycle of court case after court case will see him become president again.
The opposition let DJT slip through the net once. This time they will ensure they do everything in their power (without any mercy to outsiders) to make sure all candidates are handpicked from within. The only nice saving grace DJT has is, all the dirty laundry is out in the open, plain for everyone to see.
Ironically, it was the confederates that last blocked people from being on the polls
@@jahualhaq9853 Well the definition of insanity is:
Unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand that prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or that releases one from criminal or civil responsibility.
So in a way I guess you could say that the courts are insane due to lack of mental capacity.
"You tried to fight the government with violence? You shall not become an officer any longer. President would be okay though." SURELY that's what they thought when they added the amendment. 🤦♂
How “commander in chief” doesn’t qualify as an officer with the responsibility of defending or supporting the constitution is beyond me.
He could give the order to nuke a country if he wanted but hes not an officer? That makes zero sense.
The Supreme Court is going to overturn these decisions, and Trump is going to win in November. Get your tissues ready. 😁😁
@@jeffersonadams8711Then I hope he and the GOP get the same January 6th treatment 😊
@@jeffersonadams8711 Overturn? Maybe, the supreme court is laughably unpredictable. Win in November? The majority of Americans have outgrown this stupid two party rivalry that sound like two slightly different brands that sell the same product, that being copium, and have finally realized how f*cking agitating it is. Some are starting to get ready to go third partying, and most aren't even going to bother voting left either. This has caused a panic as the democrats have lost alot of support has 63% of the country states they want a third party in a census. Trump is gonna have to pull a f*cking miracle to not sound more ret*rded then Biden, a task that is genuinely hard for him to grasp. The fact of the matter is that brother is looking at a rocky road ahead of him, even if people currently hate Biden, it doesn't automatically mean they love him either appearently. He needs to sound less like the fossil he is and more real, to put it lightly.
@jeffersonadams8711 winning to own the libs instead of winning to make the country better :/
Your priorities aren’t great, sir
It is literally called the "Office of the President." How could the position not be considered an office holder or officer?
To be fair - other than even some monarchs like frederik the great, Trump might have seen presidentship not as beeing a servant to his nation^^
@@bugfisch7012 Yes, bringing an economy that flourished, brought plans to get soldiers out of wars, and was bringing manufacturing jobs back from China to the US.
We won’t bring up how he was making the US independent on electricity.
Yup wasn’t working for his citizens at all. Keep putting your head in the sand.
If the military salutes you because you're in their chain of command, you're an officer.
It’s very frustrating now but kinda funny that when congress made the 14th amendment, they did not consider the idea of a debatable insurrection
They didn't think anyone would be stupid or crazy enough to see something like that and not call it an insurrection, is why.
No states have a right to issue a federal constitution rule. The 14th does not apply to a president
@@johnladuke6475 A bunch of drunk idiots going into the capital isn't an insurrection. For fuks sake, there's video evidence of what went on and people are still acting like it was a hostage situation. Also, can anyone please explain how Trump is responsible for what those people did?
@@JescaMLBut it says President tho?
@@OkPe-ww5rs no it does not. Where does it say that. Because elector of President and Vice-President are who we vote for under the 12th amendment. It does not list President. A president is not an officer because then we wouldn’t have elections under the appointment clause
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President
So if the electors voted incorrectly against the people they can be charged for rebellion
"Casual relationship with truth and facts" what a flowery way of describing chronic liars 😂
I think “Unfamiliar with” describes Trump’s relationship with “Truth and Facts” better! 😳
Tds^
The smartest way this was done is to cite Gorsuch' own previous ruling so when it goes to the court he will be forced to agree with himself. Which as much as an awful guy he is in general, he does tend to be one of the consistent judges.
Yep. They need to remind him repeatedly of this previous ruling.
Same with that wallflower Roberts
@@warlordofbritannia I get the impression Roberts isn't going to willingly cede power to other branches of the government if he can avoid it, and ruling in favor of Trump would do just that.
@@MarsJenkar
Roberts is the personification of the “I just wanna grill” conservative.
"permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office"
It is a black and white case, but I suspect the outcome is the opposite of what you are hoping. Gorsuch will now be ruling on the constitutional element of the asseriton that he previously made, which basically doesn't exist. SCOTUS has overturned other states attempting the same thing, for the same reason, recently... so it may be summarily dismissed under writ before even reaching SCOTUS. It is a really stupid way of doing this actually.
States are hoping that they will be able to have Trump as "off ballot" at the date when their ballots get printed, no longer. It's a political game and you are the pawns sadly.
"The president isn't an officer! He doesn't hold an office!"
*Looks at the Oval Office* "Then what's that?"
"That's just a room!"
*Takes out a List of Presidential Titles* "Chief Executive of the Federal Government. Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. US Head of State."
"Those are just words! They don't mean anything!"
"And what do we call it when we elect a President? Putting them in office?"
"More words!"
This whole argument baffles me.
Welcome to the legal profession, where splitting hairs matters
As a European I am very confused because American books and movies call the presidency and office
@@scipio109I am an American, and I am regularly confused by what the morons in our government do and say.
Legally, officers are appointed. They are wasting our time with headlines that mean nothing while they pretend to actually do something.
@@dreadkaiser1058 I'd agree, if literal interpretation of words wasn't... well, literal. In both definitions of being an officer of the US - both in simply holding an office as a part of the state government, such as a seat in Congress or the like, or as being an officer in the military, with a particular rank - the President falls under that category. They are the Commander-in-Chief, which is an actual rank in the military. They hold the Oval Office and are an official, elected into office by the people. All of that terminology checks.
One can split hairs all they like, but words mean things because we prescribe them meaning. If we suddenly decide that words arbitrarily don't mean anything when it's no longer convenient for us, then what is the point of any law or legislature? Words are the lynchpins of our society, and to pretend like their meanings are as loose as loose as a doomed tooth is to undermine that which makes us human.
To me, this argument is not worth splitting hairs over, because to split hairs here is to make a purely illogical statement and try to use it in a logical argument. If I told someone that the sky was factually purple and someone looked up at the clear blue sky, I would be treated like a moron and ignored. I understand the value of ensuring there is a fair and unbiased view on matters, but this is getting ridiculous.
And it's not like we don't all know why the Trump team is causing this much fuss; because the longer they keep things in limbo, the closer the election gets. And if a decision isn't made by that point, then Trump will likely leap onto the podium, rally his thousands upon thousands of braindead zombies, and will be a genuine threat not only to the Constitutional right of the people to live in a country free of oppression - because being under the heel of one man wielding the power of a group that literally calls themselves a militia is the very definition of an oppressive situation - but also a threat to the country as a whole, as Trump has been seen to abuse/manipulate the law to his own ends, as well as break it as casually as you or I would choose what we want for breakfast. If you put a criminal in office, you can expect him to do criminal things. And personally, I would rather not have the head of my country and face of our nation be a criminal.
I can't believe we had a Chief Justice in this country named Salmon Chase. Who was he named by? A bear?? 😂
😂😂😂😂
Lol it reminds me of boulders gate 3 and idk why but that's what it reminds me of xd everytime I see bear associated with anything now.
Them ruling that "Executive Office of the President" (Official title) is not an office, that always strikes me as strange.
They didn’t want to argue the insurrection part 💀💀💀
@@Sixsince-dd2eu Yep, and since it was not argued, it can be used as a 'statement' of fact in other civil (non-criminal cases)
"Now if you ever commit insurrection against the United States, you're gonna want a good lawyer...'
Meaning: you're not going to want Trumps lawyers.
Hmm the US seems fine, calling it an insurrection is a huge stretch, watch the footage
Or a friendly/corrupt supreme court, but you have to plan ahead for that.
I think we've seen with Trump and Giuliani and even Alex Jones that if you have enough money to pay any quality of lawyer, you can keep engaging with the legal system in bad-faith to delay any real consequences. The only time rich people see consquences is when other rich people are affected (see Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos, and Sam BankmanFraud of FTX)
"Presidency is not an officer of the United States."
That ruling was so stupid.
“Commander in Chief” sure sounds like a rank held by an officer.
I love that the argument isn't "He did not commit an insurrection," it's "ahkshually, president is not an officer"
@@brucewayne1777
That’s the first thing I noticed too 😂
Trump’s consistent in not denying that he’s a criminal, only that he should be allowed to do crimes because he used to be president
@@warlordofbritannia cause trumpers have given up the argument of he's not a criminal after 4 years of losing it. that's why they just say he should mentally be allowed to declassify documents post-presidency or that trump suggesting suspending the constitution is good.
@@warlordofbritannia not to mention the splitting of hairs when it comes to the definition of "insurrection". Common way to try and deflect by undermining the meaning of the word
I don't even live in the USA i just follow this lore because I'm out of celebrity drama. Very entertaining and educational as well 😅
Sounds like you got a U.S. base in ur country too 😜
@@USandGlobala fan base?
The Presidency is NOT an office?! Don't they take an "Oath of Office??!!!"
The only way for the country to heal is to hold accountable those who have been trying to destroy it and teach the populace to be resilient to the rampant disinformation we are steeped in.
Why can't we hold Trump accountable by voting for Biden?
@@neutrino78x
Because that's not holding anybody accountable for anything. For one to be held accountable, they must face actual consequences for their actions/behavior. If this means jail time, then so be it.
Note: this does not change the whole matter of due process as due process is part of accountability.
yeah about that Esptien list...
It’s funny, I keep hearing conservatives say these exact same things.
@@neutrino78x Because he still goes free and just keeps running till day he dies dividing the country demanding civil war every time he loses? And even then it leaves it open for some one else to take his place and keep it going unless we actually set a precedent that this is not acceptable behavior sigh.
something of note is if the Supreme court does rule in favor of Trump, it does pave the way for other Presidents to do the same thing.
I'm betting they give a limited qualified immunity to avoid just this issue. And just like it does for Law Enforcement, presidential qualified immunity will just make presidents find slightly different ways to do things that are obviously wrong and illegal but haven't been so declared yet.
You think there will be other presidents if the SC supports him??? He will declare himself supreme leader for life, and set his mob after anyone that opposed him.
I’m waiting for Dark Brandon to jail all of the Trumpublikans without trial if the SC rules in favor of universal Presidential immunity. The GQP isn’t capable of anticipating the consequences of their actions, and this would be the ultimate irony.
If Trump was allowed to "do whatever he wants" as the acting President at the time...
Then I'd love to see Biden step in as the acting president and get rid of Trump's chances to run forever.
Well he and the republican party did their best to load the court in their favor. I know judges are supposed to be impartial but they also make party-oaths too.
Holds office but not officer is mental gymnastics
I can not express how much I appreciate that you wear a tie clip properly. The frequency of which i see people wearing it a few inches from the knot is absolutely mind-boggling. Wearing it so high renders it useless, and it looks absolutely foolish.
Since the Supreme Court is all about states' rights, they should leave this to the states, right? Because the SC is so very unbiased and consistent in their rulings.
How Naive, Scotus is about party rights, protecting their party rather Dem or Rep. Currently Scotus is mostly Reps, so it will be in the Reps favor.
You owe me a new sarcasm meter - one with a larger maximum.
"Muh states rights"
Look I disagree with SCOTUS' Roe decision too but there is a big difference between abortion law and federal election law. The latter is obviously not a pure states rights issue for obvious reasons.
And if the states want to use the 14th Amendment to remove a candidate from their state elected positions I'd be all for it. What they are doing by trying to eliminate a presidential candidate from a federal election process isn't a point of states rights, infact its the most undemocractic nonsense that we have lambasted other governments over in the past.
I agree! Ban Biden in Texas! I’m so glad you agree finally someone with sense! In fact ban Nancy pelosi!
"ignoring the original meaning of the 14th amendment" but the second amendment shouldn't be touched in any way shape or form
Its amazing how much i think about this, absolute hypocrites
I think it's pretty damn clear that either/any side will ignore whatever parts of the constitution they don't like/agree with. The Left is hardcore against the first, second, fourth, and fifth, for example
@@rotmgpumcake
Hypocrites implies they have some moral principles they’re betraying.
Oh, they changed the meaning of the second amendment, as well
Just notice that the NEVER mention anything about a militia, almost like it's not even the first four words of the damn thing
@@whocares9033
To me, it’s the “well-regulated” part that they skip that I find interesting
The problem is we don't teach laws in public school. And we don't upkeep our laws, meaning we don't make sure it's written in a familiar language for the laymen and making sure all laws are searchable.
That's intentional ,you don't teach the lowerclass useful things
This whole thing is insane truly. Every step of the way. I can’t believe any of this is actually happening
Agreed. I can’t believe he was nominated the first time when he was an obvious grifter.
And the worst part? This man leads a cult of millions that will do anything to see him lead the country. Don't be shocked, be scared.
I'm having a hard time convincing myself that we're not in a doomed timeline...something went so wrong somewhere.
I’ve lost all hope in our county ever holding the elite accountable. Well see
The most powerful changes in American history of been incrementalist in nature... and you might also find that the recent Presidential histories of South Korea and Peru have some pleasant surprises in store. ;D
They do, but mostly if they're women..
Yea ready to see biden and Hillary charged along with many others 😁 get em all
@@kimielle 🤣
@@alr2157that’s the rub.
Daring to challenge the status quo has consequences.
I am genuinely baffled that someone could come to the conclusion that the presidency is not an office. Happily the Colorado SC corrected that.
The judge probably wanted to avoid the hoopla and death threats, trusting that the SC would make the correct call and take the heat.
@@BitJamrepublicans are so hypocritical it’s baffling… they are the party of “law and order” but when anointed judges make a decision they don’t like, they send death threats. Not to mention they stormed the fkn capitol building smh. Its all so god damn frustrating
This guy's intro with "now our nation can heal" said sarcastically is disgusting. We do not bow before insurrectionists in the name of "healing" anything.
The section immediately after the highlighted quote in this video is a congressional record of actual real discourse between the authors of the 14th Amendment questioning the removal of the presidency. The Senators then pointed out that it is an all inclusive list and it obviously includes the President and Vice President.
And you just have to look at the newspapers and press of the time which framed the creation of this amendment to avoid Jefferson Davis from coming to power.
Lincoln won the election in 1860 with more votes going to opponents than him, a split ticket. While a large minority of those candidate-votes were for anti-secessionists, it was considered a very real possibility that the frustrations of the War and the rallying of the southern states could hand them the election.
And their fears were warranted. Even the war hero Ulyssyes S. Grant had a small popular vote victory against a candidate who previously supported enshrining slavery in the Constitution. If it were Jefferson Davis in his stead, he may have taken it.
The way the amendment is written is genuinely weird. If they really did mean to say that the presidency is not an office, that's ridiculous. But it's also ridiculous that they list a bunch of examples without including the most important one.
Whether or not Trump officially being on every ballot and still losing would be good for the population overall is irrelevant. You know well that precidence is the basis of most case law, and the outcome of discussion will set a major precedent for the future. Regardless of how rarely it may be referred to, the times where it matters will be major decisions. We CANNOT allow future politicians to think for a second they can attempt to overthrow the government and then be allowed to run it..
That's fine because Trump made no attempt to overthrown the government.
@@Apeiron242 you are allowed to have an opinion, even if you're delusional...
So are you, shock.
Until your team is capable of successfully convicting a single person of insurrection, it didn't happen 😂
What else can be expected of the team of "fiery but mostly peaceful"
"We CANNOT allow future politicians to think for a second they can attempt to overthrow the government and then be allowed to run it"
This is such blatant doublespeak it's not even funny.
Translation: "We can't have an outsider chosen by the people attempt to disrupt the corrupt political machine in Washington and therefore we have to start rigging elections and disqualifying outsiders to ensure only the oligarchy controls the country"
When the "deep state" conspiracy theory is based on an unhealthy amount of ad-hoc reasoning to sustain its existence, then anything the courts do will perpetuate the conspiracy. For example, suppose Trump remains on every states ballot and loses, then the reasoning is the deep state rigged the election. Suppose he is removed, the deep state owns the Supreme Court. He remains and wins, but lock grid in Congress fails to pass anything of substance during the presidency, the deep state is subverting his leadership. (Ask a Trump support why he failed on his promises during the presidency, it's a weird combination of "he did deliver" and "the liberal elites subverted him!" This is even in light of the fact the Republican party controlled congress from 2017-2019) Thinking that [the court] can "manipulate" people into correct thinking by allowing voters an opportunity to reject Trump at the ballot box probably isn't going to work, primarily because conspiratorial thinking won't allow the most probable explanation win out; every "bad" event is always the "deep states" fault and thus perpetuates the conspiratorial cognition.
The fact they aren’t even trying to say he didn’t cause an insurrection, but rather that he can’t be held accountable because he isn’t technically an officer* just shows how freaking off they are
Trump hasnt been charged with anything, cops willing let everyone in, pelosi let it all happen. What planet are you on? The one where you dont have common sense?
Thing is he really didn’t cause an insurrection. His supporters chose that of their own accord and it wasn’t even an insurrection.
there are people trying to say he didnt cause insurrection. most actually say that. their argument is absolute garbage, but they still say it
@@BakingBadOBXas can be seen above.
Because he didn't cause an insurrection?
Not sure where this "the president is not an officer" argument comes from. The presidency is a US office that someone occupies, and in the military we were always told the president is an officer. If the presidency is not an office, then what is it?? A monarchy?? 🤷🏻♂️
I agree that "the president is not an officer" argument is dumb, but that's not what most of the right is arguing from. There has been no conviction, let alone charge, of insurrection or treason on Trump's part, and that is the argument that most of them are using.
And even if he isnt a officer he takes a oath to uphold the and defend the constitution.
@@cpdthehousehunters3908 How did Trump not uphold and defend the Constitution to the best of his ability? He even called in the national guard, but Pelosi blocked them from being deployed
@@ronanKGelhaus you have seen the video and still have to ask that question, really? Hmm small hint what might be the purpose to send national guard, maybe the clue is within the command structure if a national emergency is declared. You are allowed to use the internet and help from friends to figure it out.
@@ronanKGelhaus 3 years on and there's still someone that repeats their Tucker talking points as fact. Pelosi NEVER blocked deployment of the national guard, actually she was demanding it be deployed.
I liked the argument that since Trump claims he won the second election, he shouldn't be allowed to stand for third time.
Love it😂
No. That's admitting that Trumps "claims" are some sort of alternative reality.
If that were to be used, it would immediately incriminate everyone in the WH, and a whole lot of other people that helped facilitate that act!
wrong. it's based on terms served, not elections won. trump served one term.
EDIT: I am wrong. While the 2nd Amendment does cover "term limits" (as a more broad term, I guess) the language is specific to the number of elections. Better explanation below from @GreenLuthor.
Well technically... it makes you ineligible if you're elected twice, and the election happens in December. Trump's claim was that he won the November popular appointment of Electors.
If I remember correctly, Lincoln wasn’t on the ballot in a couple of southern states during the 1860 presidential election. But, That was over 160 years ago. The total population and mass of land in the united states has changed drastically since then.
Happy New Year, Mr. Legal Eagle🎉
Thank you for all your great videos 🙏🕊
Saying that the President of the United States is not an Officer of the United States is like saying the CEO is not an Officer of their company. It's quite literally in the damn name.
Hmmm. What do you mean by "quite literally" and what do you mean by "in" and what do you mean by "the damn name"?
@@ps.2and you, what do you mean by "mean" ?
@@ps.2 aw little buddy, i'lll explain.
CEO means chief executive officer, they were saying that the president is like the CEO of the united states, the former having executive officer literally in the damn name. Since you seem like you need help, i'll explain the comparison a little more as well. The president is /like/ (notice this is a crucial word they used in their comparison) a CEO because the president is the highest /office/ i.e. /chief/ of the /executive/ branch of governement.
Hope I helped, make sure your parents know what you're watching on youtube!
@@TheWentzMachine
3 people really liked that you missed the joke. Your CEO argument doesn't work because you misassumed that Trump's legal team cares about laws
They would make into law that 2+2=5 on election day of a year ending on 24 if doing so allowed to void laws against insurrections
Notice that by asking one line you had to waste your time writing 20 which won't be read anyway. That's Trump's tactic.
Also, what is this "branch" of governement you are talking about? Everybody knows the president don't waste his time catering to a damn tree! 😅
@@TheWentzMachinelmao
“Well I believe in States’ Rights! Wait no, not those states right!”
These are the same people that are against a big government but want the government to tell you what books your child can read, what they can learn, who you are, what bathroom you can use and what your doctor can and can’t do for you or your child’s healthcare.
@@toedrag-releaseNo, parents shouldn't have that right. No parent group has ever found an elementary school library filled with books about minors and adults having sex.
Parents have a right to decide what's in their home, not in a public school.
@@toedrag-release you do realize that this applies to more than elementary schools, also a lot of dr. Seuss’ books are being taken down? I would get it if the books were something like porn, but they are not. It’s normal books that are being taken out. These people taking them down have not even read all of the books being taken down so they base it off the title sounding bad ( assassination classroom, a manga about how when a teacher is dedicated to their students learning and is taking the time to teach each one how they learn the students are able to prosper)
@@todd1928i would also add that parents have the right to sit on the board of education and attend pta meetings to bring said concerns to light without the need for government intervention.
@@kogasoldier9379 The Dr sues books being taken out by people who are on the left for being "racist". If that's their opinion and their area the parents have that right.
Can you tell me which books are being banned for their scary name and not content?
@@toedrag-release People make ruckus for no reason like it's their job. But please, list your sources for these ridiculous claims.
I *really* love the popup box noting that we could go watch the trial, etc.
Would you please put links to those resources in future videos?
That's pretty huge, it means that, at least on a statewide level, the government is finally recognizing what we all know happened
What happened?
Michigan's law couldn't prohibt Trump from the PRIMARY ballot. The main and actual election ballot is a different thing.
That does seem to be the case, as far as a cursory look suggests. They seem to create their list from what the media thinks the list is, and let the candidates remove themselves (or add themselves, if not included). I didn't see any means for someone else to challenge inclusion.
Well, if you ain’t on the primary ballot you ain’t gonna be on the regular ballot.
The Primary exception doesn't really make much sense. If you're not qualified to run in the General, why bother running in the Primary?
Yeah, this is a good point. Even in those cases, the court made it clear, they can come back when it comes to the actual election ballot.
It's a weird argument that could end up happening. He is allowed to be a candidate in the primary, but if he wins, he can't be a candidate in the election.
I have heard (and could be wrong) that the reason Colorado went through is because the state law explicitly states that ineligible candidates in the election are not allowed in the primary. That is something the state can control.
Finally, what about the New Jersey case where the courts ruled that Chris Christie is not allowed as a candidate in the primary? That was based on number of acceptable signatures in the petition, but, hey, shouldn't the voters get to decide? Where do the courts get to prevent them from selecting him?
Oh, that outrage only applies to the orange one.
@@catherinegearhart2102 Not at all. Third parties generally don't qualify to participate in Michigan's presidential primary but their nominees can appear nonetheless. It could also be the case that the person eventually nominated by a party just inexplicably chose not to compete in one or more states. Unlike other primaries, the presidential primary is about choosing the state's delegates to the national convention. You need neither win it nor participate in it to receive the party's nomination - it just usually works out that the winner does get nominated and does participate everywhere.
I live in Colorado & it's been a very interesting to see what precedent this sets on a civil discussion level. Depending on how this goes, history may see Colorado's decision as beneficial or a hindrance so this may be considered a historical moment.
Edit: Even more historical in a political context
Definitely. In the present it might be considered a relatively "small" event, but historically, this might be seen as a catalyst for greatness or disaster
It's already historic, first time a US president has been found to have committed an insurrection
Every moment in time can be considered historical since it happens only once, that doesn't says much IMO.
It'll mean the constitution means something.
@@brodriguez11000sorry these days only the 2nd amendment is worth anything, apparently
It's good to see you show up on my timeline of vids, tonight. It's been awhile. Welcome back!
Never have I been truly worried about the future of the US, until this issue was sent to scotus. They are rapidly undermining their credibility, neutrality, objectivity, and either way this goes I think a huge chunk of the country will look on them as a politically motivated joke- and we’ll be headed for real trouble
Nah just because they don’t make decisions based on what you think is right means they are biased or thrown out thier objectivity
@@PureSinaatraaman you are so wrong.
Absolutely. They vote against trump and the right will say they are traitors (because of course a conservative court is supposed to be "loyal" to him) and paid off by the left, they vote for him and the left will have further proof to the idea that the court's loyalty to the right outweighs their support of the constitution and confidence the SCOTUS will dissipate by most that are not on the far right. It's lose-lose, which is why any argument that voting against trump somehow fractures the country more is perplexing to me.
They are already seens as political hacks. The moment you know how something would he decided just looking at the make up og scotus or who appointed which judge means there is 0 objectivity with laws outside of obvious violent and petty crimes
most rational people would be a bit more worried about the fact that political parties are now making attempts to remove opposition front runners from even being on the ballot
How any judge could interpret section 3 of the 14th amendment to mean the President is NOT and officer of the United State boggles my mind! If any of these judges are electable we need to vote them out as their judgment is extremely questionable! They are NOT qualified to be sitting on any bench anywhere in judgement of anyone or any issue!
those were trial court judges, and the only judgments from them that matter are the factual judgments -- that jan 6 was an insurrection and that trump participated in it. those findings are all but impossible for appeals courts to throw out. so they did what they needed to do. they got the law wrong, but there are multiple appeals courts to help them with that.
Blatant bias. Despicable
@@GodBlessTheATF I actually think the first Colorado judge was scared for her safety and the safety of her family if she disqualified Trump. However, that is still no excuse for not upholding the Constitution!
Supreme Court judges (who are the judges who will have the final say in this matter) are appointed by the president. No election, no restrictions (beyond that candidates must have a license to practice law).
Yes, this probably violates the basic democratic concept 'separation of powers'.
At first I was 100% with you on this, but the fact that an earlier draft of the 14th Amendment specifically included “President” helps me understand what caused the judge to rule that way. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a bit absurd to argue the president should be excluded (since it’s clear they hold an office everywhere in the Constitution) but I can understand where that judge is coming from.
This is going to be an anxious year. It feels like a pot is getting close to boiling over and we just keep checking under the lid every month to see if it's going to blow. Anyway back to work. Thanks for the video.
I felt this way in 2020 but started reading more history and humans are just always a mess. We (humanity) has felt like this since the beginning. Media doesnt help that anxiety.
Deep breathes, spread calm. We (humanity) will continue to survive
@@kristibunny1620 Humanity will continue, but if Trump wins there will be many groups of people who will not survive.
Dems keep adding fuel to that fire, and I wish people would wake up and realize that
I'm pretty unexcited for the insanity that is the state of this country over the next few years.
Please do a deeper dive into the possible decision the Supreme court might make! Like, if they rule that the President is NOT an officer, does that mean the president is the only person legally allowed to carry out a coup, and to still run for president in the future?
No, any civilian who has never sworn an official oath to the country could do the same as long as he/she meets the other requirements to be elected President.
I'd like to see them rule he's not an officer, when he's already successfully argued to a federal court that he WAS an officer.
In the case of K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office, LLC, 951 F. 3d 503, President Trump successfully argued that the U.S. President qualifies as an Officer of the United States, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The court's agreed, stating this statute permitted President Trump, in his capacity as an "officer... of the United States", to remove the state suit relating to duties of his office to federal court.
In regards to different voting systems in each state, it's worth pointing out that Members of the European Parliament are voted on by the citizens of each country in the EU according to each country's own voting systems. When the US was established, the states were fairly separate, perhaps not as much as the EU member countries are now, but similarly. Since then, the US has become much more federally oriented, but still retains a lot of that separation by state. It's understandable why it's like this, even if a system chosen anew would probably look very different.
It drives me up the wall that we have a law that says "no, you can't be in government if you tried to destroy that government", we watch Trump do so *in real time*, but we have to be like "yeah, but it will push Jan 6 supporters further away if he faces the consequences for the very actions *they supported him taking*".
Yes, this! Completely agree.
Exactly, the argument is so wrong-headed. The only outcome that _wouldn't_ infuriate the Trump loyalists is Trump winning -- with how much they either supported and/or downplay the events of January 6th, and the sheer volume of propaganda they consume, it's completely unreasonable to think that they would care one iota whether Trump lost the election or was disqualified.
People need to stop giving the benefit of doubt to those who have clearly shown that they do not deserve it. We need to stop pretending that the supporters of the insurrectionists are just momentarily-confused reasonable people; they aren't, and trying to appease them isn't going to do anything worthwhile.
he hasn’t been tried in a court of law. Last time I checked you are assumed innocent until found guilty
@@magusd123 Sometimes if a guy explicitly says "I will accept the results of the election *if I win*" assuming guilt isn't as unfair as it might otherwise be.
Assumed innocent in the eyes of the law, sure. He can't be probably punished until he's found guilty in a court of law. But it's hard to argue the average joe has to assume he's innocent when everything he says is more along the lines of "what I did wasn't illegal" or "it was for the good of America" rather than explaining how he's innocent.
@@magusd123 Yes, so have the trial before he can stand for president again. Lots of people are suspended from their post, until they have been found innocent or guilty. Better still, have a 70 age limit, so Trump and Biden can make way for people that are more likely to be around long enough to see the consequences of their actions.
Cool upload, please keep them flowing! ❤️
"Stand back and stand by."
That should incriminate him right there.
For what? That’s too vague. Call the Gogol out for his actual failings not crap attributed to him that he didn’t do
Also the part where he said the constitution could be suspended. That's a real standout for me.
@@calebcollins5887 what do you mean he didn't do. He literally said that and they thought they were his personal militia. Their leader was convicted on seditious conspiracy charges
@@SocialDownclimber That would just be making what is already de facto, de jure. I don't like it, but gun laws are unconstitutional, as is the PATRIOT Act. Trump suspending the Constitution would not really change much, except it would break the mental barrier preventing the people from defending themselves against government overreach.
Actually, it sounds like a great idea now that I think about it.
It is not necessary to hold a trial to determine if Billie Eilish cannot be on the ballot, she is not over 35 so it is self-activating. It is not necessary to hold a trial to determine if Arnold Swatzenegger cannot be on the ballot, he was not born in the USA so it is self-activating.
Never thought I’d be agreeing with someone named Andrew Johnson on the 14th Amendment
Yes, but with the 14th amendment, it says they have to have committed a criminal act.
So, what is way we determine, in the USA, if someone has committed a criminal act? Through a trial by jury, yes?
I don't like Trump, don't get me wrong. But I don't see the Supreme Court letting this stand without a conviction of Trump.
@@warlordofbritannia 🤣 Nice one! Well played, sir.
Trump didn't commit an insurrection, though. He was acquitted of this charge by the senate in the second impeachment. The Colorado Judge lied.
A trial is for a crime but determining if someone is a natural born citizen is looking at records, very different, but both require validation, though through different means.
By the way you don't have to be born on US soil to be president, you have to be born to a parent that is a US citizen.
God I would kill to have mainstream news media that gave nothing but news reports as well researched, thorough and objectively analytical as your videos. Awesome. (and I’m not even American)
Where are you from?
Really love the “Did you Know” addition, keep those up!
I so wish CNN, MSNBC, etc where as thorough and succuint in their reporting on this issue - as legal is.
MeidasTouch does pretty good too
Well.... they're Republican owned now so go figure
No mainstream media normally go into great detail because the audience turn off as they can't/don't/won't listen to details.
Ironically here in the uk one of the most popular complaints against the BBC is that they give too many details and confuse people. Which is either a "woke", "Liberal", "fascist" etc tactic to confuse people. The exact same news report and analysis piece can enrage both Left and Right wings into foaming rage.
"Where as"?
Those outlets need to have news or commentary on news, all day everyday. This channel only very rarely releases more than half an hour of content per week.
The research costs become uneconomical, so they substitute it with lighter research and interviews with experts.
If the Supreme Court might being feeling scared of violent threats over this case, how will they feel about getting violent threats over a future case while there is an administration that doesn't care about their safety and would even encourage those that threaten them. They could either confront those threats now with the suport of an administration that will back them up or they can face those threats later with an administration that won't back them up.
I came for your view and stayed for the comments, all the way from he UK. Very insightful.
Thank you so much for this video! Its nice to have an explanation of wth is going on 😅
I suspect that if SCOTUS overrules the current ballot bans it won't be over the question of whether the President is an officer of the United States, though one or more concurrences will mention it. Rather it will be over who gets to invoke the insurrection clause.
yeah. as was mentioned in the middle of the video (close to the midpoint I think), there's a big question as to whether the 14th amendment is self-executing. and there's precedent to say that it isn't. and Congress didn't establish any mechanism.
@@jwil4286 The actual problem is that politics is moving faster than the courts. I don't think past politicians had to foresight to see the intentionally dilapidated judicial system the US currently has. Where as in there time someone like John Brown was tried and executed within short period of his arrest, it's been 4 years since the January 6th insurrection and no trial has occurred yet. They likely assumed that anyone having committed a crime serious enough to be recognized as insurrection would have been tried for the crime long before they ever had an opportunity to run for office again.
Yet after decades of Political games intentionally slowing the judicial process down to a crawl we find ourselves in a position where someone who obviously committed treason and has stated an intent to do so again is seeking re-election, and there's no clause within the law or the constitution to prevent anyone from doing so while under suspicion of breaking constitutional or even regular civil law.
They're not going to rule on it. He mentions it for all of 1 second at 11:35 even though it's an important detail but the Colorado court stayed their own order "pending SCOTUS review".
What he also didn't mention is that SCOTUS is not obligated to review it. Which means that their order is effectively stayed indefinitely. Nice one! +1 for the virtue signaling colorado supreme court
All SCOTUS has to do is nothing, they took care of the problem.
The SCOTUS can't anyways.
It's a State matter, not a federal one.
They have no jurisdiction.
@@tsnstonepilot5375What he does mention, though, is that if SCOTUS doesn't make a ruling, they're giving the lower courts a power they should logically want to keep for themselves. Letting the lower courts have the final word on such a big issue isn't good for them.
How could they argue that "Presidency" isn't an office when:
(1) It is literally called The Executive Office of the President
(2) It specifically includes all offices civil or military that aren't exclusively listed
(3) The president is also the Commander in Chief, which is clearly an office
hey. if its an obvious fallacy. lettem use it lol
There is actually a word play you can find by reading the Constitution like a riddle and inferring definitions from context. Still, it is stretch and should never be the way constitutional law works.
Excellent explanation of the case, thank you
Thank you again for explaining this part of the law. I truly appreciate this because it can get overwhelming and confusing without a legal expert kind of breaking it down to explain. I thought at first the question would be whether or not he was convicted but your explanation completely smashes that thought to pieces. Thank you again 😁
You're in for a rude awakening if you think that explanation is correct. Of course a conviction is needed, otherwise it's an unproven allegation.
@@brainstewX For 14th Amendment conviction is not required. See all the Confederate rebels barred with no formal conviction.
@@henryward5457 Trump isn't a Civil War veteran, so what is your point?
@@brainstewX The 14th amendment's application isn't restricted to Civil War veterans.
@@Anvilman The Civil War was officially deemed an insurrection. January 6 never was. An allegation is not enough to say someone violated the 14th; it must be proven, and Trump was already tried and acquitted for insurrection by the federal government in the second impeachment. The states do not have the authority to overturn the federal government's rulings on constitutional matters. Glad I could help clear up your misinformation.
The presidency of the United States... is _not an office?_ What did they conclude it was, a bowl of chicken noodle soup?
I have yet to hear anyone on the political right use the office argument, although it appears to technically be correct. It mostly seems to be a left-wing strawman, although I'm sure someone is actually using it. The actual argument I hear righties using is the fact that Trump has not been charged, let alone convicted, of insurrection.
Great video as always. I can’t help but scratch my head like many other younger adults at the ‘is the presidency an office’ thing. We’ve memorized the fact it’s an office since we were children. The second sentence of Article 2 “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President….”
Not just younger adults, plenty of older adults are scratching their heads at that too. It's just that we've seen how the legal system contorts to appease those in power.
Finally! You cover this topic.
I have now read way more about the history of the drafting of Article 3 of the 14th Amendment and its application than I ever thought I would ever need to in my callow youth. There is absolutely no way anyone rational can look into that stuff and come to any conclusion except that Trump is barred from all federal offices unless he gets that 2/3rds vote from Congress.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit
Tell me you didnt graduate high school without telling me you didnt graduate high school.
NPC comment
Salty Trump cultists are salty XD
@@Anvilman right cause my guy is the one trying to remove candidates from ballots and canceling primaries so no one can choose anyone else than him. Like Biden.
Fascinating (and depressing) how philosophies of constitutional interpretation change depending on whether originalist or "living document" backs your case better
"How dare they take these unprecedented actions against a former president.......... who did unprecedented things"
Thanks for the explanation.
This channel will keep me sane throughout this election year.
If the supreme court found that trump was not a part of an insurrection would it not open up appeals from the convicted under insurrection to say there was none?
No because the argument would be Trump wasn't a member of the instruction, not the instruction didn't happen
That depends on how the Supreme explains that judgement
Not necessarily. Those on the grounds of the Capital that forceble entered would not find a defense there.
@@deidyomegaNot a single person has actually been criminally charged with insurrection.
Weird. 🤔
@@jtjames79 Yeah they were merely charged with...*checks notes*....seditious conspiracy. Totes different, amirite? What's weird is how people want to slice hairs around what the crime is called and not what Trump clearly and obviously did. If it wasn't an insurrection and violence wasn't being used to further a political goal, why exactly was Babbitt shot?
The people who wrote it literally said it applied to the president.
He was already acquitted by Congress for participation in insurrection. This is a headline push and nothing more.
@@mf-- that's a lie
@@mf--
“equited”
@@mf--Impeachment isn't a standard criminal trial and being acquitted by a group of your friends doesn't really have the same gravitas as being acquitted by an unbiased group of strangers.
@@mf--You mean forgiven by fascists who think corruption and insurrection should be rewarded.
You know Trump is eventually in serious legal trouble when they don't despute whether he's guilty of doing something, but rather the wording of a law is mildly purposefully vague.
Love your work Perun
This isn't about Trump or the presidency, its about states rights! You believe in states rights, right Republicans?
only when it comes to taking peoples' rights away
@@aa-tx7th considering the state doesn't give or take your rights, it's only suppose to recognize and uphold the rights given by god.
@@zippyj.r.4486Just completely nonsensical.
@@zippyj.r.4486 No rights are given by any Gods, especially not in secular countries 🤡
States' rights is an old Democratic position from the Civil War, when they got upset the Republicans won and tried to secede. Republicans believe in liberty, justice, and equality for all.
I don't understand. Isn't it literally called the office of the president? The executive office? How is the president not an officer?
Could you do a video on what will be argued in the SCOTUS and your take on the arguments?
I know you focus on US law, but you have on occasion discussed cases outside the US. I was wondering if you might do a video on Oscar Pistorius or more broadly on subject of resentencing. I wouldn't have thought it possible for an appeal to result in a more severe charge (in Pistorius' case from culpable homicide to murder).
My issue with the political take "It's better if he loses fair and square" is that already happened?? That's why we're in this mess in the first place! He lost fair and square and then tried to overthrow the government. But instead of him facing the legal consequences of those actions, people are recommending "maybe he'll be cool about it this time"
Exactly. It's deluded to think that the trump fanatics will ever accept their guy lost, repeatedly, fair and square. They live in an alternate reality. We cannot let their alternate reality affect actual reality.
We also can't choose to ignore the Constitution because we're afraid of what the fanatics will do.
"Without fear or favor" has never been more important.
Amen.
💯
But he's going to start acting presidential any day now!
I actually thought that maggots moved on after he was quiet and Biden was inaugurated. Sure they’d bring up how Biden sucks which is typical but they’d move on to desantis or Haley.
The full and proper title is "The Office of The President of The United States ".
How would it's occupant not be an officer?
Also, he or she is the Commander In Chief of the armed forces, also an "office ", with an "officer " as this is purposely designated as a non military personnel.
There is precedent here also:
Jefferson Davis, the former President of the Confederacy, who, after serving two years in prison for treason and being bailed out awaiting trial, fled the country and eventually returned to the state of Mississippi, had his Senate seat denied because he had not been pardoned, under this same article, even though he was never tried or convicted.
Maybe the Presidential Oath of Office may hint that the Presidency is an "office".
Thank you!!! Another great video.
We can quibble back and fourth on the exact words of section 3 forever, but the heart of the issue is this, “An oath to the state was sworn, and it was broken”.
Any textualist or originalist will have to eat their hat at this point. During the ratification of the 14th amendment, this issue if whether the president is an office holder, and why the president's position was removed from the language, was brought up and they all agreed that the president was an office of the executive. It's literally in the legislative record. It would be like if Republicans knew "the right to bare arms" meant the literal right to bare the arms attached to your shoulders and decided to change the meaning of the word.
Well, the framers based the "well regulated militia" as the first phrase of the 2nd Amendment becaused they liked the Swiss model, where the people had the duty to defend the nation against invaders and insurrection and riot, so all capable people had to learn to use weapons and keep them safely. It was instead of having a standing army, they thought, so all men should be trained to be able to be soldiers.
Somehow, USA judges ignore the intent of the founders: where the Swiss have laws about all being required to be trained and have regular practice, safe storage, with ammunition stored separately and some weapons having a part also separated, most weapons if carried in public to be unloaded and a special licence being required to carry a gun with ammunition, the USA forgot the duty to protect the society and the responsibility for safe handling and skills training...
and kept only the second phrase about the right to have the killing machines.
Seems SCOTUS is only originalist when it suits them.
Bare is naked and bear is to carry, correct?
@@joseenriquemendeznunez4255 Good point, the NARA image of the 2nd Amendment shows it was spelled "bear" - but the way USA education is going, they could convince their followers that the spelling question is "just semantics." (Which it is, but not as their followers infer.)
The whole "You can't support the Constitution and also disagree with the government banning people from ballots if they have a chance of beating establishment candidates" narrative is ridiculous.
The 14th Amendment bars people guilty of insurrection from holding office. Donald Trump has not been found guilty of committing insurrection and having a private kangaroo court hearing say someone is guilty of something is meaningless in a country where you stand trial and get judged by your peers after pleading your own case.
@@old_grey_cat the framers probably intended for the people to be able to fend off a tyrannical government because they just got done fending off a tyrannical government with an armed civilian population
That "Did You Know?" Box at 12:20... 😂
The notification noise you use when an info box pops up makes me think there is something from meta for me, as generally Iisten more than watch. Thus, checking meta almost constantly means it takes forever to get through on of these uploads without losing concentration. Cheers.