The Colorado Supreme Court made a historic ruling against former President Trump using a Civil War era constitutional amendment, but that isn't stopping his 2024 momentum.
The constitution says you have to be born in the United States to be president, but the constitution does not specifically preclude those who are born again in Christ while present in the United States from holding the office. As for the 20 year old, I’m sure that if they identify as a 35 year old it would be wrong to not accept them on their own terms.
Still, I agree with the assertion that it’s not up to states.
Seeing as the constitution doesn’t mention Christianity, you can be reborn in my ass and still can’t run for office. Also, if being reborn to a religion offers citizenship, let’s just start a line at the door, lay a Bible on the table, and have the entire world walk in.
Article II, Section 1 (Presidential Eligibility):
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Ok, so the meaning of “natural born citizen” and “age of 35 years” are very clear. My answer was somewhat facetious, but the issue is this: insurrection is not explicitly defined by federal law. So if one defines insurrection in a very narrow and specific way it could be said that president Trump didn’t engage in it.
I think trying to submit fraudulent certificates of ascertainment and telling Pence to accept them may count as both insurrection and sedition, but I can also see why someone would disagree with that. I don’t believe any reasonable person can argue in good faith that such a plan wasn’t a subversion of the established electoral process and a violation of the electoral count act.
I did. My point is it is defined in law. In my opinion Trump didn’t violate the law.
ETA: are you confused where there is a law that defines the elements but the article says it’s not defined? The elements define what it is and case law.
The page you linked to contains this sentence; “While the term “insurrection” is not explicitly defined by federal law…” which is almost exactly the sentence I wrote that you are somehow trying to refute with text that agrees with me.
So just to clarify, it’s your opinion that there was no insurrection, but you don’t deny sedition, and you don’t deny there was a violation of the electoral count act?
Edit: I guess I am confused because I can’t find an explicit definition in federal law, and the link you gave says there is no explicit definition in federal law, but you are telling me there is an explicit definition while failing to provide it.
Simply saying “here are the elements” is not actual definition, nor is pointing to case law.
This reminds me too much of Clinton and the meaning of “is”. He was semantically correct maybe, but still intentionally misleading, and still a snake.
They have a law that has it in the title. That means below is what you have to do to have an insurrection. That’s the definition. While they don’t have a definition, it’s self defining by the elements. That’s how law works.
It’s uncommon to define every word. You define the word by the elements of the crime.
" …have a law that has it in the title. That means below is what you have to do to have an insurrection. That’s the definition. While they don’t have a definition, it’s self defining by the elements…"
Bro what are you even arguing? I said there no explicit definition, you tried to prove me wrong by posting a link to a page that said there’s no explicit definition, now youre saying both things at once: “That’s the definition. While they don’t have a definition,…”
Is it the word " explicit" that is giving you trouble? It means “stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.” This is really important in law - to be super clear and not leave things open to interpretation. That’s all I was saying. While you may think the meaning is self evident, other people can come to different conclusions, and this can lead to big problems. So insurrection is not defined clearly in a way that leaves no room for confusion or doubt. It will be up to a judge to decide if it is even relevant. That’s all I was saying. I don’t think you actually disagree with me.
The constitution says you have to be born in the United States to be president, but the constitution does not specifically preclude those who are born again in Christ while present in the United States from holding the office. As for the 20 year old, I’m sure that if they identify as a 35 year old it would be wrong to not accept them on their own terms.
Still, I agree with the assertion that it’s not up to states.
Seeing as the constitution doesn’t mention Christianity, you can be reborn in my ass and still can’t run for office. Also, if being reborn to a religion offers citizenship, let’s just start a line at the door, lay a Bible on the table, and have the entire world walk in.
Article II, Section 1 (Presidential Eligibility):
Ok, so the meaning of “natural born citizen” and “age of 35 years” are very clear. My answer was somewhat facetious, but the issue is this: insurrection is not explicitly defined by federal law. So if one defines insurrection in a very narrow and specific way it could be said that president Trump didn’t engage in it.
I think trying to submit fraudulent certificates of ascertainment and telling Pence to accept them may count as both insurrection and sedition, but I can also see why someone would disagree with that. I don’t believe any reasonable person can argue in good faith that such a plan wasn’t a subversion of the established electoral process and a violation of the electoral count act.
It is defined by law and Trump didn’t commit the elements of the crime.
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/rebellion-or-insurrection#:~:text=18 U.S.C.,-2383 - Explained&text=Rebellion or insurrection is a,violent resistance to government authority.
It seems you didn’t read the text that you posted a link to. Maybe you should read it.
I did. My point is it is defined in law. In my opinion Trump didn’t violate the law.
ETA: are you confused where there is a law that defines the elements but the article says it’s not defined? The elements define what it is and case law.
The page you linked to contains this sentence; “While the term “insurrection” is not explicitly defined by federal law…” which is almost exactly the sentence I wrote that you are somehow trying to refute with text that agrees with me.
So just to clarify, it’s your opinion that there was no insurrection, but you don’t deny sedition, and you don’t deny there was a violation of the electoral count act?
Edit: I guess I am confused because I can’t find an explicit definition in federal law, and the link you gave says there is no explicit definition in federal law, but you are telling me there is an explicit definition while failing to provide it.
Simply saying “here are the elements” is not actual definition, nor is pointing to case law. This reminds me too much of Clinton and the meaning of “is”. He was semantically correct maybe, but still intentionally misleading, and still a snake.
They have a law that has it in the title. That means below is what you have to do to have an insurrection. That’s the definition. While they don’t have a definition, it’s self defining by the elements. That’s how law works.
It’s uncommon to define every word. You define the word by the elements of the crime.
" …have a law that has it in the title. That means below is what you have to do to have an insurrection. That’s the definition. While they don’t have a definition, it’s self defining by the elements…"
Bro what are you even arguing? I said there no explicit definition, you tried to prove me wrong by posting a link to a page that said there’s no explicit definition, now youre saying both things at once: “That’s the definition. While they don’t have a definition,…”
Is it the word " explicit" that is giving you trouble? It means “stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.” This is really important in law - to be super clear and not leave things open to interpretation. That’s all I was saying. While you may think the meaning is self evident, other people can come to different conclusions, and this can lead to big problems. So insurrection is not defined clearly in a way that leaves no room for confusion or doubt. It will be up to a judge to decide if it is even relevant. That’s all I was saying. I don’t think you actually disagree with me.
I don’t think there was sedition or an insurrection.
I have not read the electoral count act. As such I have no opinion on it.