-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
how the anti trumpers will strike
- Thread starter tommu56
- Start date
Patriot
Well-known member
Glenn Kirschner bases his opinion that Trump is not qualified to hold office based on the 14th Amendment against insurrectionists holding office. He's wrong because, first, that amendment was aimed at former officers of the Confederacy, and second, it is his opinion that Trump committed insurrection.
That second point is the most important. Who should be the official determiner about whether or not Trump committed insurrection? The Supreme Court has said that it is congress who must determine that. Kirschner admits that the amendment also states that only congress can remove the insurrectionist disqualification by a 2/3 vote, but since it doesn't say explicitly that congress must determine insurrection, he doesn't believe congress is necessary to do so.
Put another way: On the one hand, Kirschner admits that it requires congress to remove a previous insurrection disqualification from holding office, but he doesn't believe it requires congress to establish that someone is, indeed, an insurrectionist in the first place. That initial determination that there was an insurrection and someone is an insurrectionist Kirschner thinks can be determined, apparently, by any old judge or body of judges.
Additionally, Kirschner keeps referring to Trump as "an adjudicated insurrectionist." He bases that description on the opinion of one judge, District Judge Sarah B. Wallace of Colorado, who found in her opinion that Trump did "engage in insurrection." That's one judge in one state, mind you. But, the Supreme Court ruling of Trump vs. Anderson determined that a state could not determine eligibility for holding federal office. Seems like a no brainer, then, that a judge can't make that call.
Kirschner further cites the second impeachment of Trump over the question of "insurrection." Trump was found not guilty, as we know, because it takes 2/3 of congress, in both houses, to convict at an impeachment. However, because a simple majority of both houses found Trump guilty, Kirschner asserts that it proves Trump engaged in insurrection.
Just common sense could tell us that the Founders would not have wanted a single judge in a single state to be able to determine someone an insurrectionist in order to prevent them from holding federal office, as the Supreme Court made clear. And the Constitution is clear about the 2/3 vote required for a finding of guilt in an impeachment trial, so, less than 2/3 means Trump is NOT GUILTY of insurrection, as determined by congress. Quite the opposite of what he is claiming.
Now, Kirschner believes that, even though he knows it would be shot down by the Supreme Court again, another lawsuit objecting to certification of the election should be brought, simply because it is a "righteous" fight. And that is the really the whole foundation of his argument. That it's "righteous." LOL. Well, my opinion, and that of many, if not most, others, is that it is not "righteous" because Jan 6, 2021 was NOT an insurrection, it was a riot, and Trump didn't incite it.
So it boils down to Kirschner's personal opinion, no doubt fueled by his politics and/or personal animosity toward Trump, and that's an interesting opinion, but you know what they say about opinions, and his has a particularly strong stench.
That second point is the most important. Who should be the official determiner about whether or not Trump committed insurrection? The Supreme Court has said that it is congress who must determine that. Kirschner admits that the amendment also states that only congress can remove the insurrectionist disqualification by a 2/3 vote, but since it doesn't say explicitly that congress must determine insurrection, he doesn't believe congress is necessary to do so.
Put another way: On the one hand, Kirschner admits that it requires congress to remove a previous insurrection disqualification from holding office, but he doesn't believe it requires congress to establish that someone is, indeed, an insurrectionist in the first place. That initial determination that there was an insurrection and someone is an insurrectionist Kirschner thinks can be determined, apparently, by any old judge or body of judges.
Additionally, Kirschner keeps referring to Trump as "an adjudicated insurrectionist." He bases that description on the opinion of one judge, District Judge Sarah B. Wallace of Colorado, who found in her opinion that Trump did "engage in insurrection." That's one judge in one state, mind you. But, the Supreme Court ruling of Trump vs. Anderson determined that a state could not determine eligibility for holding federal office. Seems like a no brainer, then, that a judge can't make that call.
Kirschner further cites the second impeachment of Trump over the question of "insurrection." Trump was found not guilty, as we know, because it takes 2/3 of congress, in both houses, to convict at an impeachment. However, because a simple majority of both houses found Trump guilty, Kirschner asserts that it proves Trump engaged in insurrection.
Just common sense could tell us that the Founders would not have wanted a single judge in a single state to be able to determine someone an insurrectionist in order to prevent them from holding federal office, as the Supreme Court made clear. And the Constitution is clear about the 2/3 vote required for a finding of guilt in an impeachment trial, so, less than 2/3 means Trump is NOT GUILTY of insurrection, as determined by congress. Quite the opposite of what he is claiming.
Now, Kirschner believes that, even though he knows it would be shot down by the Supreme Court again, another lawsuit objecting to certification of the election should be brought, simply because it is a "righteous" fight. And that is the really the whole foundation of his argument. That it's "righteous." LOL. Well, my opinion, and that of many, if not most, others, is that it is not "righteous" because Jan 6, 2021 was NOT an insurrection, it was a riot, and Trump didn't incite it.
So it boils down to Kirschner's personal opinion, no doubt fueled by his politics and/or personal animosity toward Trump, and that's an interesting opinion, but you know what they say about opinions, and his has a particularly strong stench.