The Trump Post-Presidency and Insurrection

It could also be argued that it doesn't apply to the president because an earlier draft of the amendment did mention the president and was later removed, but knowing the reasoning behind the change in language would be helpful.If the president isn't covered then that would mean that he isn't an officer of the United States, which would make little sense. A number of online articles make reference to the president as an officer of the Executive Branch. For example, Wikipedia describes the president as "the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch." On the other hand, Is the President an “Officer of the United States” for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment? argues at length that the president is not an officer of the United States. The Supreme Court will have the final word. We'll just have to wait and see what happens. When do you think the transfer of power begins? Yes, agreed. Trump was and is exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech as he foments distrust in a key democratic institution of the United States. He's actively undermining our faith that our elections are free and fair. Reintroducing cruel punishments like death is very alarming. If Trump hadn't denigrated public health policies then critics would have had to find far less legitimate issues to comment on.The US was among the worst performing nations in dealing with covid. Here's a map of the world with the accumulated death rate from the beginning of the pandemic for each country as of a couple weeks ago. It shows the United States as having one of the highest death rates in the world: Interestingly, the UK had an even worse performance than the US, but during the pandemic they were led by the equally incompetent Boris Johnson. Percentage-wise, those who have benefited the most from our economy should also pay the most. Well there's a spurious argument if ever there was one. Perhaps you can describe where the Constitution gives Congress the right to authorize expenditures for going to the moon, for transportation, for agriculture, or for innumerable other things that they authorize expenditures for.But regarding the actual point I made, reducing health care subsidies is alarming because it reduces the overall health of the nation. Perhaps you've seen the recent news about falling U.S. lifespans and the decreases in average height. These measures reflect on the nation's health, and it's growing worse. This blanket objection applies to almost nothing in the list.If there's a common theme running across many of the items in my list it's about putting people first. Many believe that government can be a force for good in people's lives.Small government was not the intent of the framers. Neither was big government. The size of government wasn't much a focus of their attention. They wanted to give their fledgling democracy the best odds of success. Their goals as expressed in the preamble to the Constitution include the phrase "promote the general Welfare." Again, you seem to have no idea what our democratic institutions are. Not one of those things you listed is a democratic institution. Again, when do you think the transfer of power begins? So you agree that those are among our cherished democratic institutions? Do you now understand what democratic institutions are, and that they definitely aren't the things you listed before? It's still off-topic. If you don't believe a case can be made for your claim then don't make it. That's still nonsense. No political party condones illegal immigration. Welcoming immigrants increases the wealth of the country because the number of people working and contributing increases. Discriminated peoples will always object to being the object of discrimination. This has ever been so and will always be.Everyone should oppose insurrection and favor the rule of law. The Supreme Court will eventually rule on the ballot qualification issue, and when they do I will abide by whatever they decide, whether I agree or not. How about you? If they rule Trump off the ballot will you urge insurrection? This is just plain false. Immigration has been a constant topic in the news, especially since Trump first said about Mexican immigrants, "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." Oh, sure, it makes perfect sense that if it isn't mentioned on a half-hour news program then all of mainstream media is ignoring it. Mayor Adams’s Effort to Limit Migrant Buses Faces Obstacles - The New York Times was in today's New York Times, and Justice Dept. Threatens to Sue Texas Over Migrant Arrest Law - The New York Times was in yesterday's. It's been explained to you many times that only a limited amount can fit into a half-hour TV program, but it's like you're immune to rational thought. I don't think you're happy unless you're complaining about something.--Percy

So your explanation is that Trump only says hateful things because he's frustrated that people find him hateful? You want to think that through again? Maybe his management style explains his administration's poor performance. I think it's hard to determine how much time any president spends on vacation. The White House remains with them wherever they go. Both the Times and the Post reported this, e.g., Rashida Tlaib’s Expletive-Laden Cry to Impeach Trump Upends Democrats’ Talking Points - The New York Times. Your claims are as false as your attention to topic is poor. Trump proved during his first term that he can't be managed to present a better public face, and he's shown that he can't hide who he really is.--Percy

In a Washington Post opinion piece titled Yes, Trump should be removed from the ballot, Perry Bacon Jr. argues that it should be more than just the 14th Amendment that keeps Trump from appearing on the 2024 ballot. Originalist arguments should defer to "our present-day views of what counts as rebellion, insurrection and, more broadly, conduct that is unacceptable for a president." He goes on:

Perry Bacon Jr.:

---

We don’t live in a democracy if the loser of an election gets to stay in power — and that’s what Trump tried to do. He should never be allowed to be president again.
...
It cannot be a requirement of democracy that you allow the election of leaders who will then end free and fair elections — and therefore democracy itself.

---

Couldn't have said it better.--Percy

John Dingell was a Democratic representative from the state of Michigan from 1955 until 2015. He died in 2019 and was the longest serving member of Congress in American History.Debbie Dingell and John Dingell married in 1981. When John announced his retirement in 2014, Debbie Dingell decided to run for his seat. She won the election and has served Michigan's 16th congressional district ever since.Today an editorial by Debbie Dingell appears in the New York Times: Opinion | Debbie Dingell: Why Standing Up to Trump Is Worth the Pain - The New York Times. Everyone should read it, but here are some extensive excerpts:

Debbie Dingell:

---

I was married to a great and wise man with whom I shared an incredible love for decades. I miss John every day.
...
Months after his death, when I voted for the first articles of impeachment against President Trump, he launched into a brutal attack saying that John was “looking up” at me (implying he was in hell). That’s the Trump way — the cruelty is the point, yet that awareness doesn’t make it any less painful. We’re human. He knows that, and he thrives on it.

​

I am not seeking a fight with Mr. Trump. It’s not easy to tangle with him, especially after that experience involving John. But I do know that hateful rhetoric cannot be ignored or become normalized. We have to stand up to bullies in this country, and we have to call out indignities. My bluntness about “rot in hell” being unacceptable was my unfiltered reaction and I stand by it. In my view, the only way you can deal with bullies is to consistently call out their inexcusable behavior and stand in defense of those they choose to target. Trust me, I know it can wear you down — but we can’t grow tired, and we must push back on the hatred when we see it, calling it out, using language everyone understands and in ways that prevent it from seeping into our everyday lives and routines.

​

Being in Mr. Trump’s tunnel of hate is not enjoyable. Frankly, it’s often frightening. Like many of my colleagues, I have received hostile calls, antagonistic mail and death threats, and I have had people outside my home with weapons. And it reflects the vitriol, bullying, rage and threats we are witnessing across the country today — from our exchanges on social media to dialogue with each other and with those in our workplaces, schools, gathering places, families and communities. It’s a real danger to our democracy and our safety.

​

When I expressed my thoughts about his Christmas message, Mr. Trump took to Truth Social to go after me once again as a “loser.” Unfortunately, he also brought John into his rant. I can deal with being called names and subjected to the standard venom that we’ve all become familiar with in Mr. Trump’s social media attacks. But when he brings up John, it’s one of the things that hit me hardest. It would be easy to say his words don’t hurt, but they do. And I am sure he knows it.
...
Mr. Trump’s style of politics — the disrespect, prejudice, name-calling and malice that too often get swept aside as his just calling it as he sees it — makes healthy debate and discussion virtually impossible. The word “congress” by definition means coming together. Government shouldn’t be about who can make the most noise; it’s about working together to find solutions. Take it from me: What Mr. Trump is doing isn’t honesty or candor, it’s ruthless and deliberate viciousness.

​

We can be sure Mr. Trump’s rhetoric will get only more fiery, discordant and divisive over the next year leading up to the election. We’ve already seen the dangerous and deadly consequences his words can have, and we cannot become complacent. This isn’t just about one man. We all face a choice in how we react to bullies, and we all have a responsibility to choose civility in the face of cruelty.

---

Sorry, I ended up quoting a great deal of it. There was very little I felt I could leave out.--Percy

The word "because" is your word, not mine. I'm saying that this ruling is flawed, and it's more SUSPECT because they're unelected. Yes, that was my question that you never answered. When Democrats want to do certain things, like eliminate the electoral college, legalize abortion and gambling etc., they trumpet the term "democracy" loud and clear. Other times, like getting Trump off the ballot, or imposing science to issue commands about climate change, safety regulations, or dozens of other things, they don't think too much about democracy. Republicans are much more consistent in the use of the term democracy, and how it's supposed to work in a democratic republic. It's also not entirely accurate to call them elections when they're appointed and then run unopposed. As it's not entirely accurate to call Kim Jong Un or Vladimir Putin "elected." And it's not entirely accurate when Democrats call Republicans "wrong", when Republicans point out the fact that the Colorado Supreme Court justices are appointed, not elected as most people in the U.S. think of the term. I've heard of it, I just don't think of it as being much of an election. As don't millions of other U.S. residents. That's the disagreement all right. It's a system that works sometimes, and sometimes it doesn't work very well. In this case, we see it can be a significant tool for presidential election interference.
​

Jefferson Davis never sought any political office after the Confederacy, was never charged under the 14th amendment. He was tried for a few other things, but was never convicted. Maybe he got some respect for being a "president", unlike Trump.

January 20th. This is a new age of electronics. The U.S. / the world is still coming to terms with it, largely in the same way the world was coming to terms with gasoline powered cars 100 years ago. Mud roads, bad / unavailable gasoline, it was a mess, but it happened fast, just like electronics is changing (improving?) fast today. Much easier for today's vote counting to be corrupted by only a few people. It needs to be watched carefully from ALL possible corners. The U.S. founders addressed "cruel and unusual" punishments, at a time when the hanging of horse thieves was not unusual. There are a LOT of cruel and unusual crimes. The left/right divide over capitol punishment is an old one. Going to the moon, nope, not without the consent of the states, or the people. Transportation? "to establish post offices and post roads", that would be a yes. A mandatory government retirement program (Social Security, which is going broke) no, not without the consent of the states or the people. I wasn't around in the 1930's, but I suspect the people weren't consulted about it. A national 55 mph speed limit? I WAS around in 1973, the people weren't consulted. The only way to consult the people is with an ISSUE vote. Not the guesses of Congress what the people's opinion is. But yes, the 10th amendment has been violated over and over and over and over again for the past 90 years at least. That doesn't mean it's not being violated. Then rather than growing the government, enriching itself and several other special interests, maybe the states or the people could be properly consulted about it. I understand that those on the left can switch them around. Many on the left think of the EPA, or NASA as democratic institutions. I suspect that your definition of what democratic institutions are would clash with the opinions of others on the left. I've already made an undisputable case for it throughout this thread, and it has a lot to do with this thread's topic. But I've covered the basics, nothing more to say here, unless somebody else goads me into it. A small number of them do, many companies with Democrat leadership love to exploit them. But most of them are idle and uneducated. I'd have to wait and see if they then rule Biden off the ballot by other states, for allowing an invasion of the southern border. I fully trust their ruling will work both ways. These actions by a few people in Colorado and now Maine are just stunts, a few people looking for their 15 minutes of fame, I don't think much of anything will come of it. A Fox News contributor (a week or so ago) said that;

quote:

---

Oh, by the way, if the insurrection disqualification were ever upheld, then Colorado Republicans will change their bylaws and move to a caucus system, which will then nominate Trump. They are a commonsense bunch and, of course, Joe Biden chimed in today to say Trump supported insurrection.

---

LARRY KUDLOW: Democrats refuse medications for their Trump Derangement SyndromeI'm not much interested in all those details. Those (so far) 5 people will get their death threats, and their book deal offers, and it will all be forgotten before long. Those half-hour news programs are VERY influential, largely because they're blended with local news and weather. They manage to fit a lot of fluff into those half-hour programs. Any small event in any local area that benefits liberalism. White on black crimes, NEVER black on white crimes, as one example.

Trump says a lot of things, a lot of them are common sense things that the news media covers up. (whoops, sorry) He's frustrated not because he's hateful, but because he's been the most unfairly treated ex-president in the history of the country.Richard Nixon was ragged on pretty good for 4 or so years after he resigned, but that was pretty much it. Most Democrats resented Gerald Ford being an unelected president. But once Carter was elected, Ford was forgotten. When Reagan was elected, Carter was forgotten. When Bush 41 was elected, Reagan was forgotten. When Clinton was elected, Bush 41 was forgotten. When Bush 43 was elected, Clinton was forgotten. When Obama was elected, Bush 43 was forgotten. When Trump was elected, Obama was forgotten. All forgotten when it came to criticism, but sometimes remembered fondly. When Biden was elected, TRUMP WAS HATED IN THE NEWS, criticized and reported on at least 10 TIMES more than Biden!It's so hilarious, if the news media would have dropped the Trump subject in the same way they dropped all ex-presidents of the past, Trump would be largely forgotten, and he wouldn't have the support he has! He has that support because so many people see how unfairly he's been treated! Ron Desantis is a typical presidential candidate, on the same order of past presidents like Obama, Bush 43, Bill Clinton. About the same as them in age, looks, family man status, and relative obscurity nationally before announcing his candidacy for president. I think a LOT of people across the country are tired of BOTH old men, with plenty of baggage in their past. Desantis, and probably some much younger Democrat would be running away with popularity by now, and Trump would be as obscure by now as Gerald Ford was in 1979. A lot of people like who he really is - he's no quitter.
​

Davis was charged with treason. The only reason he was not tried and convicted was because there was a general amnesty.

You must be wearing blinders.Trump says and does outrageous things because he wants press coverage. That's his MO.Yes, the press is biased. You see it as a left-wing bias, but it isn't that at all. I suspect that most people on the left would prefer it if Trump were largely ignored. The media have a bias toward entertainment values, and Trump is quite skillful at manipulating the press.

That almost doesn't even achieve the level of bad reasoning. If this Colorado SC decision is more suspect because they're unelected, then all their other decisions are equally more suspect since they were still equally unelected. Except that they're not unelected. Ah, there's the old Marc tactic of deflection. Attack instead of defend, and don't be bothered whether anything you say is true. Not even you believe you on this one. I've answered nine ways from Sunday and you ignore it every time. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up the bus there, Charlie. Your reasoning is getting worse and worse. Eliminating the electoral college would make presidents directly elected by the people, which is the very thing you want for the Colorado SC.What we're all witnessing here is you changing your definition of democracy according to party. If the Democrats want to do something, doesn't matter what it is, you'll call it undemocratic. If the Republicans want to do something, doesn't matter what it is, you'll call it democratic. What you call democracy has nothing to do with the actual definition of the word. For you whatever Republicans do is democratic, and whatever Democrats do is anti-democratic. There are relevant comparisons that can be drawn if you're interested. Take abortion. The Ohio Supreme Court with 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats dismissed the state's appeal to enforce a near total abortion ban, and they're elected. The Texas SC, all Republican and also elected, blocked an order allowing abortion. The Indiana SC, all five justices appointed by Republicans governors, upheld an abortion ban. The Iowa SC, all seven members appointed by Republican governors, have upheld a fundamental right to abortion. Some of these are still active cases under appeal.The evidence suggests that rulings are all over the place. Red SC's rule both for you and against you, independent of whether they're elected or appointed.The reason roughly half the states appoint their justices and half elect them is the tension that exists between making justice reflect electorate while at the same time insuring their independence. Read the sentence again. What it says is that it isn't "entirely accurate" to call someone unelected who is appointed and then faces a retainment election. Just as it wouldn't be "entirely accurate" for me to tell you I'm giving you a stack of pancakes for breakfast without telling you they're vegan. Once again what you say is entirely untrue. Go back and look at my chart in Message 322. About half the state SC are appointed, half elected. About half are blue and half are red. Both appointed and elected courts make rulings you don't like. Your characterization of the Colorado ruling as undemocratic because they are apointed then later face retainment elections actually looks like a post facto rationalization that does not hold water. So when a Republican runs unopposed, their election is suspect. and only because the other party chose not to run anyone, likely because the outcome was a foregone conclusion. You're calling someone suspect who is actually so successful no one wastes time and effort running against him. Care to rethnk your rationale? Except that we've dispensed with all your objections one by one. Appointing justices is not undemocratic, and both appointed SC's and elected SC's are as likely to rule for you as against you. You don't have an argument.--Percy

Davis was never tried for anything. He was indicted for treason, and if convicted he would have been disqalified from future office by the 14th amendment. He spent two years in prison awaiting trial, then managed to post bail. He remained under indictment until granted amnesty on Christmas 1868.There were many Confederates who initially sought office in the United States government and requested amnesty for their Section 3 disqualifications, showing that they understand there was no need for an adjudication process to determine they'd engaged in insurrection. Only 8 officials were ruled disqualified, but there were thousands more who didn't complete the process because they could see it would end in disqualification. Disqualifications were under the 14th amendment.It is informing to learn that two of those disqualified, Kenneth Worthy and Couy Griffin, were disqualified for knowingly and voluntarily aiding violent insurrections while having engaged in no violence themselves. So much for your definitional claim that the insurrection must include violence in a single place.But these are all just technicalities. Whether the 14th amendment exists or not, even whether the constitution exists or not, we know that what Trump did was wrong. He had people construct false elector slates, he pressured Pence to confirm false slat4es, he pressured state attorneys general to manipulate vote counts, and he incited people to go to the capitol and fight like hell.--Percy

That's just inauguration day, the day when the next president is sworn into office. It is the final part of the process.The transfer of power begins during election day as ballots are gathered and begin to be counted. It is peaceful when election stations are not closed or made otherwise unavailable or turn people away or attack people or intimidate them. It continues peaceful as ballot officials count the ballots while under observation. Revealing private information about ballot officials in order to subject them to venomous attacks and threats thereby disrupting their lives and forcing them into hiding is not peaceful.It continues with the current occupant of the White House, if he is not also the future occupant, making plans to transition government from his administration to the next, and as a practical matter for removing all personal items from the White House. Pretending they'd won the election, the Trump administration was not ready to move when it came time to vacate. There were no department guides explaining current processes and projects. The entire process was rushed and chaotic.It further continues with a Joint Congressional Session at the Capitol to certify the slates of electors from the states led by vice-president. It's peaceful when the capitol is not breached by violent protestors who force lawmakers to flee for their safety.The inauguration is the final stop in the process of the transfer of power. If there is not attack or disruption during this process then it is peaceful.The transfer of power from Trump to Biden was not peaceful because election workers became the object of threats and harassment.It was also not peaceful because of the violent breech of the capitol on January 6th that halted the certification of the electoral votes. And yet the 2020 election was judged the most free and fair in our history. Not one of the 61 cases brought by Rudy Giuliani identified any election fraud. He lost 60 of the 61 cases. The case he won was about election observers being able to get closer to ballot workers. If you're going to keep crying "corruption" year after year, it kind of helps your credibility if you occasionally find some. Isolated cases of election fraud have been identified here and there, but nothing remotely near enough to affect the outcome of an election, and usually committed by Republicans anyway. Most people have an easy time deciding whether "cruel and unusual" should be interpreted by an 18th century context or a 21st century context. People were still being drawn and quartered back in the 18th century, you know, but the Federal method of execution for much of the Republic was hanging. Obviously by 18th century standards hanging was not considered cruiel and unusual, and now it is. A strictly originalist interpretation of the Constitution just doesn't stand up because human decency keeps getting in the way. In the quote above I included the parts you left out to give your answer context. You had said nothing gives Congress the right to authorize expenditure on health care, and I pointed out that there's also nothing in the Constitution authorizing expenditures for going to the moon, for transportation, for agriculture, or for innumerable other things that they authorize expenditures for.You answer in an odd way. So you're against the space program? No. Post offices and roads have a section in the Constitution. Transportation as in highways, bridges, railways is not covered in the Constitution. So you're against the national highway system, the AmTrak railway system, and so forth? Again, we live in a representative democracy, not a pure democracy. In our system you vote for your representatives and they act for you. Same answer. How long are you going to be this dunderheaded? Pretending idiocy isn't a good strategy. Again, we live in a representative democracy, not a pure democracy. You get to vote for your representatives in the House and Senare, and for the President. That's it. The issues that come up are handled by our government representatives across the three branches of government There are some other circumstance where you might have an opportunity to vote at the Federal level during your lifetime, such as at a state convention for ratifying a Constitutional amendment. So you think that when the Federal Government builds roads and bridges that they're violating the 10th amendment? How about the NHTSA and the NTSB? Once you get a misapprehension in your head you really stick with it. Get this through your head. We live in a representative democracy. Even if the Republicans were in charge of every branch of the federal government, had every seat in the House and Senate, with both the president and vice-president Republicans, we would still have a representative democracy. You still wouldn't be able to cast individual votes for roads, bridges, trains, space missions, health care, and so on. The EPA and NASA are government agencies, not democratic institutions. Let's run it up the flagpole and see who objects. These are what I think of as our democratic institutions:

1. Free and fair elections where every citizen of voting age can vote
2. Representative government
3. Balance of powers between the three branches.
4. Peaceful transfer of power
5. Majority rule, but not majority tyranny
6. A fair justice system with equality under the law
7. Free expression of ideas
8. Universal education

Really? You think you've made an indisputable case that the mainstream media is ignoring major issues. This is right out the Trump playbook. Throw out some uninterpretable word salad and claim it settles the argument. What you've said so far barely qualifies as English, let alone an "indisputable case". But please, if you decide to make that "indisputable case" then do it in another thread where it would be on topic. Statistics clearly show that the 2nd generation of immigrants tend to become part of American culture and engage in it economically. Meanwhile the 1st generation does jobs Americans tend not to want, such as cleaning homes, picking crops, etc. This says you're looking for tit-for-tat, not justice. I think you've already destroyed any vestiges of hope that yours might be objective observations. Do you have concrete data rather than your unsupported claims.--Percy

You're changing your story. It's amazing how cavalierly you discard one failed argument and move on to the next.You said Trump says hateful things because he's so frustrated that people find him hateful. I think many people find that people's true nature comes out when they're frustrated or angry or hurt or embarrassed and so forth. This sounds like Matthew 1: Nixon begat Ford; Ford begat Carter who forgot him; Carter begat Reagan who forgot him; Reagan begat Bush who forgot him; etc... Oh, yeah, we're just laughing so hard we cant' keep our eyes dry. It's possible Trump might have faded away (though I doubt it) if this hadn't happened: He's been treated better than any insurrectionist in history. His political career is based upon claims of unfair treatment. You're one of the rubes. He's venal and viscious, and you're right, he's no quitter about it.--Percy

(marc9000 has seen this message, has laughed, but has not replied.)
​