Yup, and the reason for guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of race was also a result of a specific insurrection that occurred.
I think it’s perfectly fair to say that if someone tried to overthrow the US government, they’re not qualified to be running the US government.
Can you do a text search and find the word “conviction” in the amendment?
Here’s the text:
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.
And, again, this has all gone through Congress. Trump did it. Everyone knows it. Even the Trumpists know it.
Hey - quick question for those who make articles available as gifts.
Are you paid subscribers, or just email-registered? Are you limited in the number of articles that you can gift per week/month-whatever?
The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol outlined 17 specific findings on Monday in the executive summary of its final report. Here are the findings, with additional context.
Annotation: This reflects the committee’s finding that Mr. Trump’s repeated false claims that the election was rigged had both a political and financial motive. During its second hearing, the panel introduced evidence that Trump supporters donated nearly $100 million to Mr. Trump’s so-called Election Defense Fund but that the money flowed instead into a super PAC the president had created. It was not just “the big lie,” the committee said. It was also “the big rip-off.”
Annotation: Mr. Trump and his allies filed more than 60 lawsuits challenging the results of the election and lost all but one of them. Many of the suits, the committee determined, were brought even after some of Mr. Trump’s closest aides — including his campaign manager, Bill Stepien, and his attorney general, William P. Barr — told him that there was no fraud that could have changed the outcome of the race.
I would have just responded “Yo.”
If he can say ‘Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.’ then he passes the super difficult cognitive test that republicans think is the equivalent of the MCAT.
We’re not talking about punishing people for voting for Bob Dole here.
In a number of states, you cannot run in the election as a third party candidate if you lost the primary for that state. I’m not sure how widespread that is, but it’s come up in several recent elections. I think they’re even called something like anti-spoiler rules.
I think there’s pollsters who are looking at three way races now (usually throwing in Kennedy), but I don’t know if they’ve been able to say whether he pulls more Trump or Biden voters yet.
Yeah, this was an easy one to call. It’s repeated in other countries as well.
One other factor that they don’t mention is that the surge in street opioids corresponded to a crackdown on doctors writing opioid prescriptions. I saw this coming when I was doing policy analysis and looking at unintended consequences in complex systems. I don’t remember much about what degree of a surge we saw in prescriptions, but I do remember all of those “pill mill” headlines. That always struck me as a pretty manufactured crisis - but even if not, the crackdown certainly didn’t improve the situation.
May I present to you the teratoma?
If you’re feeling brave, go ahead and do an image search. Not only more cells, but things like teeth and hair and bones.
Nice work, god. Great design. Absolute perfection in his image and all that.
It will rise to the level where the supply and demand curves meet, modulo market uncertainty and information imbalance.
I’ve rented several places that listed “no pets,” and after telling them I’d pay an extra $200 per month or whatever because I had two 75lb pit bulls, no one even blinked. If they had originally thought they could get away with charging the extra $200 and people would snap it up, they would have.
Most people renting houses do not do sufficient due diligence on market rates, and there’s enough variability in both housing and tenants that it’s probably a bit difficult to price ideally. If you have a large enough company that you can write some kind of statistical analysis and are renting similar/identical places in the same building, that’s one thing. If you’re a new buyer just purchasing a second house to rent over on 2nd Street because it’s $800k and you think you can cover the mortgage in rent after looking at Zillow, that’s something else.
It’s totally not how it works. If you could get an extra $400/month because someone was willing to pay that, you’d do it.
If you think that California landlords aren’t already charging the absolute most they can for renting houses, you’re probably paying less than $3800/month for a 2/1 built in 1906.
VP is one of the worst jobs you can have. It’s a fucking stupid job that serves no purpose. There’s already an order of succession. The VP brings less to the table than the Chief of staff and cabinet heads, which in theory and outside of the Trump administration tend to be chosen because they know how to do their jobs.
I don’t want AOC to be VP. I want her to do her job, then become a Senator who runs the fucking table on people. I want her to make Bernie and Warren look like the opening act.
Remember when the republicans regularly accused the democrats as being soft on defense and the party of “cut and run?”
I suspect you’re right, because the YT video I watched had no summary or outtro.
I’m regrettably probably going to end up signing up for paramount (again) in order to watch this, which is annoying but at least I think I will get some treks back.
I promised myself I’d only sign up for another service if I cancel one I have, though, and that’s going to be a tough choice.
I immediately watched it. It’s great to have him back.
Trump has literally argued in court that the President can do anything up to and including the assassination of a political rival with no repercussions other than impeachment. By extension, that includes the arrest and assassination of members of Congress and the courts who would oversee his impeachment and/or prosecution. They argued that this is a protected right of the office of the president in the constitution, in front of a judge.
To point out that if the same logic were to be applied by Biden to solve the Trump problem is simply showing the absurdity of the argument. You can unclutch those pearls.
You do understand that 1) these ideas are floated mostly in jest and 2) they are floated because they map more or less directly to statements Trump has already made outlining his intentions, and he will not require precedent to do so.
Trump didn’t require precedent for anything he did, up to and including not conceding the election and attempting the violent overthrow of the government of the United States. I’m not sure why people say “Appointing additional justices just means the Republicans will do the same!” Of course they’d do it tomorrow if they had the 6-3 position reversed.
Precedent (even in Supreme Court cases), congressional comity, “respect the office of not the man,” and everything else has been thrown out the window in an accelerating process, but completely since 2016.
Setting a precedent means nothing anymore, unless we can expect Joe Biden to order Seal Team Six to assassinate Trump and the FBI to arrest all members of Congress and the courts who would hold him accountable for it. There, he’d have some precedent.
The issue is that that’s who Biden and leading members of the democrats are. They do not, in my opinion, have the framework to deal with a political campaign being an existential threat.