Resort to personal attack again? Not able to speak reason? I pardon you yet again.
I dare you to justify that ridiculous statatement. Tell me how paracetamol is a poison, go on.
Obviously you'd love a fascist candidate who wants to restrict voting rights. Do you like slavery too?
This is true of pretty much everything, including water. In the 2000s, a woman almost died for having drank too much water to win a radio prize. Are you saying water is a poison too?
Unsurpsingly you are lying.
Aren't these part of the same claque who advocated for Iraq war and who completely missed the 2008 recession and in general climate change denialists?
”I don’t like your source” is never a valid form of criticism. Either one can engage in debate and disprove an argument or they cannot - who said it is immaterial. I’m only mentioning that he’s an educated constitutional lawyer and law professor with a history of working in government to establish that he’s a subject matter expert - his points would be equally valid if uttered by anybody else.
It's not about liking - it's about gross errors in judgement made in the past. Who says something is *not* immaterial, due to vested interests and warped perspectives. At any rate, I was talking about the entity, not John Yoo himself.
The Constitution is a publicly available document that can be read by anyone, including both of us, right now.
This is not written in some form of archaic English that would require an afternoon with a dictionary to interpret. A person can be disqualified for participating in an insurrection, rebellion or giving aid to enemies of the state, but that hasn’t been established via due process of law - the disqualification theory assumes that it is self-evident when it’s not. How can it be self-evident when these things are federal crimes? If those crimes were in fact committed, you would expect the DOJ, Congress or both to step in, but neither has. Without a guilty verdict, you are reversing the burden of proof - a candidate would have to prove that they’re *not* guilty of any random accusation, which is asinine. Moreover, Section 5 of the Amendment puts the responsibility of enforcement squarely on Congress. Furthermore, the same Amendment also empowers Congress to remove this restriction from anyone formerly barred from running via a 2/3rds vote, so there can be no confusion as to which body is supposed to make this determination overall - it’s Congress. The sections of the 14th Amendment are not divorced from each other.
And you know full well that is not what I was talking about. What I was talking about was the purely personal interpretation of the constitution you provided.
Yoo has a history of being one of the key architects of the consolidation and abuse of executive power in the G.W. Bush administration. It is not surprising that his interpretation would further that autocratic goal. Moreover, Republicans had zero regard for the law or due legal process when they refused to impeach Trump for clearly impeachable acts. Such notions are only meaningfully binding when political actors abide by law and democratic norms, behavior which has been antithetical to GOP political goals for decades now. They preach law and order whilst hypocritically undermining and flouting the law and democratic norms whenever it serves their Machiavellian aims. So, it shouldn't be surprising that critical thinkers view such interpretations as merely another exercise in conservative apologetics/motivated reasoning. Believers can, and do, rationalize, be they religious or political ideologues.
The law is always binding, particularly the Constitution which is the bedrock of all law in the land. If you think your opposition is breaking the law, there are avenues for recourse as established in law. You don’t get to break it based solely on spite.
It’s a verbatim reading of the text, there’s not much room for personal interpretation. Some terms may need to be defined, perhaps (and Yoo does that based on previous court cases), but once again, we’re not dealing with an archaic text, it can be understood plainly as-is.
Something like 30-40% of the American population has drunk the Trump Kool-Aid. As such, every indictment, every conviction, every violation of the constitution, only emboldens them and fortifies their support for Dear Leader. Getting a conviction for the highest crimes is difficult when jury pools will inevitably have some jurors who are unswayed by evidence, rule of law, and rational argument. The first victim of the Trump administration was the truth, followed by sustained corrosive attacks on democratic norms and institutions, and the appointment of Federalist, Trumpian, judges throughout the American legal system, including the Supreme Court. It's whimsy to talk about how things are supposed to work when we all know how Trump and his sycophants have intentionally corrupted the system and the critical thinking capacity of the minds of their followers, replacing logic, evidence, and the rule of law with authoritarianism, conspiracy theories, motivated reasoning, and steaming mountains of BS.
The government only exists with the consent of the governed. You don’t get to bypass due process and the rule of law because you think the electorate is too stupid to have an opinion. Moreover, Yoo touches upon this point in his article, which you should read before bringing up any further criticism because it might’ve already been addressed in the text. You don’t have to treat his opinion piece as gospel, but he raises good points that are consistent with the text of the Constitution and with legal precedent. What you’re suggesting without actually saying it verges on dictatorship. You cannot ignore established rules and institutions because of some kind of subjective belief that they’re “corrupt” which you cannot possibly substantiate. If the law says that this estimation is up to Congress then it should be up to Congress. If the issue develops to such a degree that a constitutional conflict occurs, it will have to be ruled upon in the Supreme Court, establishing constitutionality is its sole function. I very much doubt that it would find that states can unilaterally disqualify candidates based on accusations alone, anyone can be accused of anything at any time. It is through due process that we arrive at a reasonable conclusion, so it stands to reason that a verdict would solidify and better inform such decisions.
So you're saying plan JFK then? The majority of voters on both sides would support that. I'm sure there are republicans that already have plans in motion.
Good thing it's an opinion article, and smarter/more qualified people on both sides of the aisle disagree with that assessment. The 14th does not require a conviction because of the specificity and severity of the crimes it applies to.
@
BakerMan:
@
Sicklyboy:
@
Sicklyboy:
