- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
Many of Trumpās proposals for his second term are surprisingly extreme, draconian, and weird, even for him. Hereās a running list of his most unhinged plans.
Many of Trumpās proposals for his second term are surprisingly extreme, draconian, and weird, even for him. Hereās a running list of his most unhinged plans.
What I am stating hasnāt shifted at all. Your āargumentā is that because the President isnāt explicitly listed in the text, then āwe canāt know if theyāre coveredā. Do you think every list everywhere has to be exhaustive, even when criteria and examples are listed? You know what the text does state?
Section Three states:
Iāll bold and italicise the really important bits, and delete the bits that arenāt relevant, because you seem to have trouble with the word āorā in lists:
The ONLY argument that āthis doesnāt cover the Presidencyā is that āThe Presidency is not an Office of the United States, and the person who holds the Presidency is not an Officer of the United Statesā. This is obviously wrong as the actual, explicit text is āany office, civil or militaryā, and the actual requirement is āhaving previously taken an oath of office, then engaging in insurrection against that officeā.
YOU are obviously wrong, because āany officeā is pretty fucking explicit - the Presidency is an Office of the US, as laid out in that 55 page paper you refuse to fucking read. āCivil or militaryā - the President is both. āPreviously having taken an oath as an officer of the United Statesā - check, taking the Presidency does indeed require an oath beforehand. āHaving engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the sameā - yep, he did that too. Thatās all the requirements, so are you still going to come back with ābut president not listed š¤ā as though itās at all valid?
Edit: Fuck this, Iāve made my point very clearly, and there is no point in engaging further with you because either you get it or youāre a concern troll - maybe both. Good day.
Incorrect. To be very clear, my argument is that itās a very conspicuous omission from a list that explicitly calls out some high importance positions, but does not call out the most important position. And due to that, I have a hard time finding it unreasonable when someone interprets the law to not include that conspicuously omitted position.
You act like Iāve denied it says āany office.ā I have not. Iāve asked you why it calls out a high importance position, but does not call out the most important high importance position. Itās a question that you donāt have any answer for, so you just keep repeating your point. Or, now, making up my position so you can attack a strawman.
Incorrect. By definition, the way you are interpreting it, it would implicitly include the POTUS. And this is where my issue lies. It does explicitly call out some high importance positions, but not the presidency. Those high importance positions would also be included under any office. So why explicitly call out some, but not others, if āany officeā covers all of them? Youāve completely failed to answer this question. Again, itās fair to admit you donāt have an answer but you donāt think it matters anyway. Itās just then we would have to āagree to disagreeā that itās reasonable to consider the parts other than āany officeā and ask ourselves what the intent was.
Youāre inability to answer the question is not my fault, but your own. Why are you trying to blame me? The parting shot is incredibly childish.
Nope, I have answered the question multiple times. I am now taking care of my mental health because you are arguing in bad faith. For the benefit of the community though, here we go:
So when I asked
The answer is āyesā, apparently. Does the text list every office of government covered in Section 3? Iāll save you the answer: no it does not. If it did, that would be impressive, because most of them didnāt exist at the time, for example any ranking position of the Marine Corps. The Framers knew they couldnāt name every office that might ever be created, so they didnāt try. They listed some examples, and the criteria for triggering the disqualification.
Did you know this exact question came up at the time? I couldnāt find the source at the time but I didnāt think it was important because, you know, the text covers it with the āoathbreakerā requirement as has already been discussed. But, here it is: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/lsb/lsb10569
Specifically:
Iāll highlight that last bit again:
That is from this paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3748639
Which you can view in the browser. Do try to read these ones, they do prove that I have answered your question already and you are without question wrong about Section 3 not covering the Office of the President. You can press āctrl + fā on a Windows keyboard or ācommand + fā on a Mac, if youāre having trouble reading all those words and just want to skip to the relevant bits instead of arguing with me that your question has not been answered.
Itās amazing because Iāve never made this argument. Iāve asked why you think they didnāt specify the POTUS, and that by not doing so the interpretation that the position was not included is reasonable.
I appreciate the actual attempt to answer my question now, and I will read that piece. Thanks. That seems pretty damning to the ruling by the judge, and I wonder why it wasnāt brought up. I assume if this is appealed to the SCOTUS, it will be.
Iām not sure why you had to read the same thing as I have been saying all along from a dude who lived two hundred years ago, but okay I guess - it says a lot about your reading comprehension, and Iām gonna stand by that since you are continuing to insist that your question wasnāt answered until just now when it very clearly was. In addition youāve never once said why the āor any officeā text from the actual Amendment didnāt answer that question for you from the get-go, and I would like an explanation for that because it makes no sense to me, at all.
Fine. You are without question wrong about *there being any question as to whether Section 3 covers the Office of the President, or any other Office not explicitly listed in the text, because of that damning āor any officeā text you have been so loathe to acknowledge.
I have been thinking about this myself, since I learned exactly what it means that the judge āfound as a basis of factā that the Big Orange engaged in an insurrection. That is being hailed as huge and I can see why. Maybe itās a tactic, and admittedly the Amendment doesnāt say he must be struck from the ballot. It just says heās disqualified from taking the office. Theoretically if that āfinding as a basis of factā ruling can stand the whole way, even if he wins he wonāt be allowed to take the job and thereāll be a runoff election. Thatād be a first.
Itās amazing that even after I say Iām convinced by your evidence (almost I still need to read the source), you still have to be a dick about it. Canāt help but be a douche, I guess.
That being said, youāre wrong and itās your reading comprehension that sucks. After you misrepresented my position earlier, I explicitly laid out my position and it should have been clear from it that I just think her conclusion was reasonable. But in your small little mind you canāt think beyond the black and white, so the fact that I didnāt find it unreasonable must mean I think itās unreasonable to include him in the list. Youāre seeing yourself in me.
And FTR, the part you quote still does not answer my question, but Iām hoping the answer is in the context of what you quoted. so, again, thank you for that.
I suspect, but could very easily be wrong, that to get on the ballot in most states you have to be eligible to be POTUS.
Incorrect, as proven by the fact that you showed me evidence that they intended to include the presidency and I said this ādamning to the ruling by the judge.ā But that would require reading comprehension, which a lack of you hilariously projected onto me. Although this was never true and just a straw man youāve made up.
As I said, it is a conspicuous omission which is why I had a hard time finding fault with the ruling. But, again, this would have just required some reading comprehension.
Iāve asked it explicitly a number of times, yet you still canāt understand it. Amazing. Iāll try again.
Why did they list some high importance positions but not the POTUS? Iām not asking you how you think it still includes the POTUS. Iāve always thought it was a reasonable conclusion to think it does. Why list any offices at all, like senator and rep, if the catch all of āany officeā gets them as well?
Their inclusion creates ambiguity which is why I originally found her conclusion to be reasonable. But if we have the framers of the amendment saying it applies to the POTUS, then there should be no ambiguity there any longer. This is just the first Iāve seen that. Pretty much every other argument has been they couldnāt fathom a POTUS would he the traitor (which is laughable).
Theyāre called āexamplesā.
No, it doesnāt. Because āorā and āanyā and āofficeā all have their own meanings, as do all the other words you completely ignored to claim thereās any ambiguity. THAT is why Iām annoyed with you, because you have been obstinately declaring ambiguity and a lack of an answer when itās been right there in your face, in written words, the whole time.
Again, their answer was the same as mine, so why was the text not clear enough for you? Remember, the framers themselves said itās clear as day by simply pointing out what the text says. I want to know why you didnāt take that from whatās written. Not being a dick now, I actually want to understand what is ambiguous about āor any other office, civil or militaryā.