Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,751
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Except for the minor issue that you raised... the Federal Government couldn't possibly try every secessionist who raised arms against the US or governed within the rebel territory. The 14th Amendment covered that for them. The 14th Amendment allowed a blanket judgment on an insurrection that could not possibly be viewed as anything but an insurrection/rebellion.The amendment was written with the Southern successionists in mind. I doubt that trying them for crimes was the intent. A strict reading of the amendment does not require a conviction.That can't possibly be any more wrong. This is the underlying principle of our judicial system. Unlike Russia and Iran, it is not enough for the state to assert a person committed a criminal act. It must be proven in court.Judges are supposed to follow the letter of the law, not their personal feelings. And there's nothing in the law that says a person must be criminally convicted for the law to apply to them.This sort of stuff matters. What is basis of saying he was part of an insurrection? Congress didn't rule as such. He hasn't been convicted of such a statute
Suppose Ocasio-Cortez is involved in a protest in 2025 against President *sobbing* Trump's latest policy for putting migrant children in max security prisons. What is to stop a court from saying that she participated in an insurrection and can't run for President on the ballot in Wisconsin eight years later?
Assertion of guilt by the US Government or State Government is not supposed to be enough to conclude guilt.
That isn't what we have here. We already have hundreds of convictions of people that caused the US Capitol to be evacuated on January 6th. Indeed, even the US House acted on impeaching Trump for his part in it, but Congress did not impeach. While an argument could be made that this would be separation of powers, and SCOTUS could act as a check on the Executive in this case, this isn't a Federal question. It is a state one. And that question is whether a State may disallow a person from being on the ballot in light of the 14th Amendment because of accusations against a potential candidate.