When is an insurrection not an insurrection? When the left does it
And notice that to these two lawyers, “our democracy” isn’t so very precious:
Evan Davis, the former editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review, and David Schulte, the former editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal, argue in a joint column in The Hill that Congress not only has the power to block Trump from taking office but should.
Their column doesn’t cover much new ground. It references Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding office, despite the fact that Trump did no such thing. Heck, he hasn’t even been charged with such an offense, and when you consider the fact that rogue left-wing prosecutors have charged him with all sorts of made-up crimes, that says something. …
Not only is the foundation of their argument weak, but they’re relying on partisan cases that all failed. They’re calling on Democrats to do exactly what was once considered an unprecedented attack on democracy, which not only undermined the will of the voters but also subverted the entire electoral process. The authors insist that it’s not okay to have doubts about an election where the Democrat was declared the victor, yet it is more than okay to use bogus arguments to prevent a Republican from taking office.
“The unlikelihood of congressional Republicans doing anything that might elect Harris as president is obvious,” they write. “But Democrats need to take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.”
Actually, I don’t think “insurrection” is the proper word for their suggestion. I think “coup” is – but then again, there have been so many coup attempts against Trump ever since he won the 2016 election that I’ve lost count.
Not to mention the successful coup against Joe Biden, the rightful Democrat nominee as selected in the primaries, running for the presidency in 2024.
Coup, schmoo. The left wants what it wants and will bend the rules till they break in order to get it. However, it’s pretty easy to predict that the suggestions of these law professors won’t be carried out, as they themselves admit. I’m not really sure why they wrote the article, except to give succor to the voters still grieving for Kamala’s loss, and to keep moving that Overton Window.
Lawyer John Eastman is being disbarred for giving advice to Trump in 2020-2021. These lawyers should get the same treatment. They won’t.
Kate yes fair play in turn. If nothing is done they will do what they charged Trump and his backers and receive nothing if they do what they charged.
The Democrats started the last civil war and lost. Seems as though they are wanting to do some rhyming of history.
Coup, schmoo. The left wants what it wants and will bend the rules till they break in order to get it. However, it’s pretty easy to predict that the suggestions of these law professors won’t be carried out, as they themselves admit.
==
Minor point: they’re not law professors, though it’s possible they’ve been adjuncts in the past. Davis is a BigLaw partner and Schulte is an i-banker. Both are well-connected in the Democratic Party, especially Davis.
==
These guys are old, by the way. One is 80 and the other is 76. Robert Reich, quondam law professor, is 78. Erwin Chemerinsky is 71. Sanford Levinson is 83. All of them have taken public stances where you have to ask if it’s worse if they believe what they’re saying or they do not. The rot in public discourse has been there for a long time.
I remember long ago hearing a story of someone who was run off the road by an 18-wheeler. As the driver of the 18-wheeler passed he gave the victim the finger. The victim, recounting the incident, said he was so impressed by the sheer brass of the driver’s absolute and deliberate affront to decency that he almost admired it.
That’s kind of my reaction to the last line of that story. “No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.” We’re not only going to hatch a plan to work around the constitution, we’re going to say it’s a constitutional imperative.
Evan was disbarred by the dc bar,schulte has strong ties to obama
I look forward to Kamala Harris presiding over the counting of the Electoral College votes and certifying Trump as the winner.
Al Gore had to do it for George W. Bush, and Harris can do the same if she puts on her big girl pants.
“The left wants what it wants and will bend the rules till they break in order to get it.”
I can think of no surer means of ‘reaping the whirlwind’.
Arrest them, throw them in Jail. Give them the J6 treatment
I wish Neo would cite sources as additions to her quotes.
Is it sad if someone still has to tell people that he was editor of his university’s law review 60 years later? Or just pathetic?
@ Cicero – “I wish Neo would cite sources as additions to her quotes.”
The sources are in RED PRINT, that being “these two lawyers,” in Neo’s post, which links to this story:
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/12/26/the-left-is-pushing-congress-for-an-insurrection-january-6-2025-n4935437
The red print inside the excerpt at “a joint column” goes here:
https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5055171-constitution-insurrection-trump-disqualification/
@ Abraxas > “Is it sad if someone still has to tell people that he was editor of his university’s law review 60 years later? Or just pathetic?”
On par with “Back when I was the star quarterback at Frostbite Falls U.” from a 60-year-old, unless he’s going to follow it with a great story, preferably funny.
Is it sad if someone still has to tell people that he was editor of his university’s law review 60 years later? Or just pathetic?
==
In fairness to the shmoes in question, that may have been the editor’s idea.
What a bunch of illiterate morons. So indeed the US Constitution Amendment section 3 has this
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
but Section 5 has this:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
and indeed in 18 USC 2383 represents Congress doing that it defines the crime
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
That statute clearly references 14 Amendment Section 3 and the disability to hold office. No other Statute to my knowledge includes that penalty. Mr Trump having NEITHER been indicted under that law NOR convicted would not appear to have that disability.
That said if Mr Trump were to be considered unable to serve at this point it would throw it into the House which votes by STATE not by direct numbers. Either you would then get Mr Vance or perhaps some other compromise candidate if Mr Vance refused to serve or there was some turmoil in the Republican ranks. The recent tiff over the CR made it clear that going against the populists would be a career limiting move for the forseeable future. I can not imagine how you get other than a stalwart candidate of the MAGA flavor. Those Lawyers are merely writing bad fantasy fanfic if they think there is any way that VP Harris is doing anything other than retiring to California (or other deep blue zone) to live on her VP retirement stipend for the rest of her days,
AesopFan:
Thanks!
But I have just looked and see NO red print, none.
Cicero:
I give a link for every quote and just about every fact in every post.
The links are in dark red. Whether you see them or not has something to do with either your color perception or your computer settings. If you mouse over the link, the dark red turns to chartreuse green. Take a look and mouse around the words in the links – which in this post are “these two lawyers” in the first sentence and “a joint column” in the first sentence of the quote.
I assume you’re not red/green colorblind, but if you are then you wouldn’t see the links.
Discussion of hyper link coloration led me to fantasy of:
Ultraviolet “colorations” for the really brilliant prose
Infrared for the material that is “hot” off the press
Xray or cosmic ray “colors” for the dicey and radioative material.
Links show up differently in different browsers, and in some cases a link to a URL that has been cached by the browser because it was read independently will show up highlighted with the ‘previously opened’ color. It can also be difficult to discern very short link text on a mobile device where you can’t mouse over it. I’ve taken to trying to flag links I put in comments with site attribution to make them more evident, as well as for courtesy to acknowledge the site and give readers a heads up about where the link is taking them.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup - Pirate's Cove » Pirate's Cove
Fwiw I am red / green color blind, and I find your links very hard to discern. I wish you would change the color scheme. (Of course it’s your blog, and my wishes matter not. I enjoy it regardless.)
I give a link for every quote and just about every fact in every post.
==
Yes, but you fail to provide links to Danny Thomas theme music.
==
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9JQnskAxc8
Kamala voters don’t need succor. They already suck.