"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 Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
The text mentions "elector of President and Vice President" but omits President and Vice President from the list of the disqualified. Since Electors have as their sole function the choice of and election of a President and Vice President, if the amendment authors had intended to apply the disqualification to President and Vice President, they'd have simply included President and Vice President in the list since Electors were simply a mechanism to transmit vote results from the several states.
From this we can reasonably conclude that omission was deliberate. So whether or not Trump engaged in an insurrection is irrelevant to his qualification for the Presidency.
I can read. But for fun, let's get a bet down. It's possible the SCOTUS will simply delay until the question(s) are moot since this only impacts primaries in states where Trump has little chance in the Fall. That'd be a draw by my definition.
I'm betting that SCOTUS will weigh in and will hold that the Constitution does not preclude a candidate for President or Vice President regardless of any holding as to insurrection.
I expect this will be a unanimous decision but there might be one or two of the three who might dissent. So I'm setting a threshold of 7-2 for a win for my position. A 6-3 or 5-4 in favor of Trump remaining a candidate would be a draw.
Ditto on your side where a win would be a determination that Trump is NOT qualified to be President on account of his involvement in insurrection. I'll spot you a justice so a 6-3 is enough for you to win. A 5-4 to kick Trump off would be a draw as well.
Payoff is as follows: If you win you specify a charity (501c3) to which you want my $100 to be contributed. An appropriate receipt or other evidence of payment will be provided. Conversely, if I win I will name a charity for your $100 contribution.
How confident are you in your belief that only lawyers can read the plain text of the Constitution? And if you like this can be simpler with any majority no matter how narrow determining the win.
"I'm betting that SCOTUS will weigh in and will hold that the Constitution does not preclude a candidate for President or Vice President regardless of any holding as to insurrection."
What makes you think I'm not placing the same bet?
That I believe the Supreme Court will rule a certain way on the case does not mean I agree with what you wrote.
Supreme Court decisions, past and present and future, are not "truths," "facts," or "holy writ." They are opinions and, more often than not, merely temporary law.
Typically, I'm not a betting man. Made some money one year in college on college football, but that was some time ago. When you could swing a dead cat in a university town and hit several freelance bookies, or a half-dozen of'em if you were in a bar, especially if you were visibly drunk. Since then, a cautionary glance backwards reveal more losses than wins. But I'll make you a deal here. There's a lot to this issue (and presumed SCOTUS case). I've read some, but need more intelligence. Let me research the subject and gather more of the particulars and I'll get back to you. Why not roll the dice? Deal?
Did I say that? I didn't say that. That's not how "wagering" works, or at least how placing bets for the sake of winning a bet works. Professional sports gamblers too have favorite teams, but they're not gonna lay money on them just because they're fans of said team. Pros also gather as much information as they can to beat back the house odds, which are always in play even when there is no house.
It's the Constitution. Explain why Electors are subject to disqualification while President and Vice President are not. You can't. And that'll be the determination.
If it is so clearly articulated in the Constitution, then why are we waiting for SCOTUS to review it?
Not as clearly as some suggest.
"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 Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
The text mentions "elector of President and Vice President" but omits President and Vice President from the list of the disqualified. Since Electors have as their sole function the choice of and election of a President and Vice President, if the amendment authors had intended to apply the disqualification to President and Vice President, they'd have simply included President and Vice President in the list since Electors were simply a mechanism to transmit vote results from the several states.
From this we can reasonably conclude that omission was deliberate. So whether or not Trump engaged in an insurrection is irrelevant to his qualification for the Presidency.
Now you're a lawyer.
I can read. But for fun, let's get a bet down. It's possible the SCOTUS will simply delay until the question(s) are moot since this only impacts primaries in states where Trump has little chance in the Fall. That'd be a draw by my definition.
I'm betting that SCOTUS will weigh in and will hold that the Constitution does not preclude a candidate for President or Vice President regardless of any holding as to insurrection.
I expect this will be a unanimous decision but there might be one or two of the three who might dissent. So I'm setting a threshold of 7-2 for a win for my position. A 6-3 or 5-4 in favor of Trump remaining a candidate would be a draw.
Ditto on your side where a win would be a determination that Trump is NOT qualified to be President on account of his involvement in insurrection. I'll spot you a justice so a 6-3 is enough for you to win. A 5-4 to kick Trump off would be a draw as well.
Payoff is as follows: If you win you specify a charity (501c3) to which you want my $100 to be contributed. An appropriate receipt or other evidence of payment will be provided. Conversely, if I win I will name a charity for your $100 contribution.
How confident are you in your belief that only lawyers can read the plain text of the Constitution? And if you like this can be simpler with any majority no matter how narrow determining the win.
"I'm betting that SCOTUS will weigh in and will hold that the Constitution does not preclude a candidate for President or Vice President regardless of any holding as to insurrection."
What makes you think I'm not placing the same bet?
I thought your "lawyer" snark suggested you disagree with what I wrote. If not, never mind.
That I believe the Supreme Court will rule a certain way on the case does not mean I agree with what you wrote.
Supreme Court decisions, past and present and future, are not "truths," "facts," or "holy writ." They are opinions and, more often than not, merely temporary law.
So what outcome do you think is just? Is that outcome consistent with the wager structure I proposed?
Typically, I'm not a betting man. Made some money one year in college on college football, but that was some time ago. When you could swing a dead cat in a university town and hit several freelance bookies, or a half-dozen of'em if you were in a bar, especially if you were visibly drunk. Since then, a cautionary glance backwards reveal more losses than wins. But I'll make you a deal here. There's a lot to this issue (and presumed SCOTUS case). I've read some, but need more intelligence. Let me research the subject and gather more of the particulars and I'll get back to you. Why not roll the dice? Deal?
So I take that to mean you are on the side of ballot access denial for the Donald, yes?
Did I say that? I didn't say that. That's not how "wagering" works, or at least how placing bets for the sake of winning a bet works. Professional sports gamblers too have favorite teams, but they're not gonna lay money on them just because they're fans of said team. Pros also gather as much information as they can to beat back the house odds, which are always in play even when there is no house.
On the other hand, as an "officer of the United States" it seems the Presidency is included. A poorly worded law.
It's the Constitution. Explain why Electors are subject to disqualification while President and Vice President are not. You can't. And that'll be the determination.
By the way, very little in the Constitution is "clearly articulated." This was intentional by the authors.