“Removing a candidate from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is not something my office takes lightly,” California’s Democratic secretary of state previously said.
“Removing a candidate from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is not something my office takes lightly,” California’s Democratic secretary of state previously said.
I’m not disagreeing with that. I’m disagreeing with your assertion that courts should care about what the people think. If anything, when the law is ambiguous the courts look at the legislative session notes, speeches, drafts…etc to try and figure out what the original intent was (or throw it back to legislature to rework). I never said it’s some kind of rigid holy truth.
Well the original intent of the insurrection clause was to prevent the same senators/congressmen who seceded and started the civil war from being eligible for federal office. This obviously doesn’t apply in Trumps case since there was no civil war and Trump was the lawfully elected president of the US at the time.
And this has to do what with your original comment and assertion?
It was responding to your original assertion.
Which in Trumps case has nothing to do with the original intent of the law (insurrection clause, since no insurrection has taken place.)
As for my original assertion. The General Public is absolutely the folks the justice system should be accountable to, after-all government is supposed to be FOR the people. And if The People want to vote for someone who wants to overthrow the government, the courts have no business saying they can’t.
So if you think the court shouldn’t care about the general public, then the insurrection clause doesn’t apply. If you think the court should care about the general public, then they have to let the voters decide.
In either case Trump belongs on the ballot.