• IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    The amendment was initially written to prevent people who fought in the Confederate army during the Civil War from running for elected offices after the war was over.

    It was written so as to exclude every last member of the Confederacy outright, not ones that happened to be convicted in court cases.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      In particular, they realized a few years later exactly how broad it was, and passed a law to clarify that ordinary soldiers wouldn’t count in this, with the 2/3 majority called for in the amendment, as they were intending this to be used on politicians and officers who engaged in insurrection. So it’s quite clear that the people who wrote the amendment intended it to apply without being proven in a court of law first.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_Act

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Forswearing the states and joining the Confederacy was a provable action though.

        You can’t prove Trump engaged in insurrection without a conviction, and, again, “Well, just LOOK at him!” is not a valid legal argument.

        • VerdantSporeSeasoning@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          We also had congressional investigations and hearings about January 6th, so there is a lot of legwork there that shows his behavior–with sworn testimony. It’s not like there’s not plenty of public evidence, including tweets and voice and video recordings of Trump himself.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            But, again, there are millions of folks out there who say his actions were justified. You and I both know they weren’t, but that’s not an objective truth. A court ruling is. You are guilty or not guilty. You are liable or not liable.

            If we’re going to tell someone “Sorry, you don’t qualify anymore…” there needs to be an impartial judicial ruling that’s the basis for it, again, like the Cowboys for Trump guy. Convicted for 1/6, then court disqualification.

            I don’t believe he would have been disqualified if he hadn’t been previously convicted.