Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot based on the claim that he is constitutionally barred from office because of the January 6 insurrection.
If the presidency isn’t a civil or military office, nothing is. It’s literally the highest one of both categories. Civil officers are any positions within the executive or judicial branches. The legislative branch positions that are singled out exclusively are to highlight that these are also included, as if they only said civil or military offices, it could be implied that the amendment would only apply to the executive branch and judicial branch. The electors from the electoral college to select the president are even singled out too, as again they are totally seperate from the executive branch, it was just making clear that these would be included in addition. I can’t see how anyone would read this and think, wow, whoever wrote this wanted an insurrectionist to be able to hold no position in government except for the most powerful position in all of government, that one we intend to hold wide open for them. If the amendment said the presidency is excluded from this, then I think you and the judge would have a case. It’s clearly just making it’s wording as comprehensive as possible to imply that it’s excluding insurrectionists from every level and position in government across all branches and even weird things like the electoral college.
The legislative branch positions that are singled out exclusively are to highlight that these are also included, as if they only said civil or military offices,
That would be the definition of “superfluous”, and that isn’t how legal texts are written.
it could be implied that the amendment would only apply to the executive branch and judicial branch.
I’m not sure it’s wise to bar anyone from becoming President on the basis of something that “could be implied”. The fact that Senators and Representatives are mentioned explicitly is contrary evidence, not supporting evidence. there are about a million other, better, clearer ways the drafters could have phrased it if they intended to include the Presidency.
It’s unfortunate that people around here don’t seem to recognize the exacting standard to which legal texts are—and in most cases should be—held. I was sincerely hoping he would be barred from the Presidency on these grounds, but I’m not surprised that he wasn’t. I support the dynamic interpretation of laws in our current political climate (originalists and such are morons), but let’s not forget the need for it only arises from the endless failures of the legislature.
If the presidency isn’t a civil or military office, nothing is. It’s literally the highest one of both categories. Civil officers are any positions within the executive or judicial branches. The legislative branch positions that are singled out exclusively are to highlight that these are also included, as if they only said civil or military offices, it could be implied that the amendment would only apply to the executive branch and judicial branch. The electors from the electoral college to select the president are even singled out too, as again they are totally seperate from the executive branch, it was just making clear that these would be included in addition. I can’t see how anyone would read this and think, wow, whoever wrote this wanted an insurrectionist to be able to hold no position in government except for the most powerful position in all of government, that one we intend to hold wide open for them. If the amendment said the presidency is excluded from this, then I think you and the judge would have a case. It’s clearly just making it’s wording as comprehensive as possible to imply that it’s excluding insurrectionists from every level and position in government across all branches and even weird things like the electoral college.
That would be the definition of “superfluous”, and that isn’t how legal texts are written.
I’m not sure it’s wise to bar anyone from becoming President on the basis of something that “could be implied”. The fact that Senators and Representatives are mentioned explicitly is contrary evidence, not supporting evidence. there are about a million other, better, clearer ways the drafters could have phrased it if they intended to include the Presidency.
It’s unfortunate that people around here don’t seem to recognize the exacting standard to which legal texts are—and in most cases should be—held. I was sincerely hoping he would be barred from the Presidency on these grounds, but I’m not surprised that he wasn’t. I support the dynamic interpretation of laws in our current political climate (originalists and such are morons), but let’s not forget the need for it only arises from the endless failures of the legislature.