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.
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.
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.