That generally devolves into a civil war/upheaval, in which case the structure of the govt means little as you said, because it's about to be reformed.
Well, if you are worried about a civil conflict, there is no better way, IMO, to instigate it than to remove Trump from the ballot. Personally, I dont think we will have outright civil conflicts, but there is a very real possibility of domestic terrorism.Yeah I've said this many times. As an example if you read the Soviet or North Korean constitutions you'll see they are hugely protective of human rights and... well... yeah.
This is why I've said the law will not save us here - this is going to be a political fight and potentially a civil conflict.
Well, if you are worried about a civil conflict, there is no better way, IMO, to instigate it than to remove Trump from the ballot. Personally, I dont think we will have outright civil conflicts, but there is a very real possibility of domestic terrorism.
'Don't enforce the Constitution's provisions against insurrection because the people you enforce it against will engage in further insurrection' does not seem like a compelling argument to me.Well, if you are worried about a civil conflict, there is no better way, IMO, to instigate it than to remove Trump from the ballot. Personally, I dont think we will have outright civil conflicts, but there is a very real possibility of domestic terrorism.
Don't fall into the trap of believing that we're too egalitarian or advanced to be reduced to civil war. That's a good way to end up getting killed without putting up a fight.Yes, well, the previous time it led to civil war. I doubt it will go to that level this time as the stakes are so very, very high for everyone...but makes one wonder what happens instead? (Also makes one wonder _why_ it got to that point last time, rather than the same 'upheaval' that will presumably happen this time? Were people just less aware then of just what civil war actually entailed? Had to learn the hard way?)
Don't fall into the trap of believing that we're too egalitarian or advanced to be reduced to civil war. That's a good way to end up getting killed without putting up a fight.
The fate of all empires is to fall, don't assume our golden city on the hill is any different.
Well, the 'why' is fairly obvious, the south wanted to keep slaves to have virtually free labor, the north wanted to get rid of slavery for myriad reasons. No consensus could be reached, and eventually the southern states revolted.I don't think you are "too egalitarian" or "too advanced", I just think most of you probably realise you have too much to lose. Though, as I say, I now find myself wondering why people didn't realise that last time round. I guess historians have been debating "why the civil war happened" ever since it happened.
The Civil War happened because the South saw the writing on the wall that slavery would eventually be made illegal and figured their best shot to retain it was then.I don't think you are "too egalitarian" or "too advanced", I just think most of you probably realise you have too much to lose. Though, as I say, I now find myself wondering why people didn't realise that last time round. I guess historians have been debating "why the civil war happened" ever since it happened.
Well, the 'why' is fairly obvious, the south wanted to keep slaves to have virtually free labor, the north wanted to get rid of slavery for myriad reasons. No consensus could be reached, and eventually the southern states revolted.
Both sides thought the war would be short - quite a few initial recruits signed up for only 90 days of service. They had no idea how destructive it would become.Yeah, but did people realise what they were getting into as that all happened? Did the South realise how weak their military situation would ultimately turn out to be? Did anyone realise how bloody and destructive the resulting conflict would become? For that matter, to what extent was the North motivated by moral considerations vs economic ones? Was it inevitable that it would become violent?
(On a similar note, some of my own direct ancestors were part of the anti-slavery movement here, but I don't know how much that was a moral/religious thing and how much it was due to the fact they had major economic interests 'out East', where the plantation system didn't need slavery)
Was it inevitable that it would become violent?
Probably not. To torture a sage quote, most people have a plan until they get punched in the face. That said, everyone sure did grab themselves a rifle. The civil war was about 94% volunteer on the union side, and about 88% on the confederate side. We tend to go through cycles on that though, people forget what actual lakes of blood look like, so we need a refresher.Yeah, but did people realise what they were getting into as that all happened? Did the South realise how weak their military situation would ultimately turn out to be? Did anyone realise how bloody and destructive the resulting conflict would become?
Except they already did in Gore vs Bush.Elections are handled by the states and it's quite explicit about that i read, scotus shouldn't touch this
It is more than that.Absolutely not.
This is basic dual sovereignty. A state does not rely on the federal government for an interpretation of the law.
But those decisions can be appealed and the higher courts tend to have more judges.It is more than that.
I do not regularly encounter / think about the power of a single Judge. Things I would expect Juries to determine, one person can also do so and strip Americans of their civil rights, property, and much more. Suppose it goes along with the SCOTUS being 9 whole people who determine what the Constitution even is. So there is that....
Yet I do find myself surprised at times when trials and juries aren't even needed. The concept of due process seems... fake... when one stops and thinks about the power of Judges.
They got a really good look of things to come at the first battle of Manassas.Probably not. To torture a sage quote, most people have a plan until they get punched in the face. That said, everyone sure did grab themselves a rifle. The civil war was about 94% volunteer on the union side, and about 88% on the confederate side. We tend to go through cycles on that though, people forget what actual lakes of blood look like, so we need a refresher.
Probably a bit past the point of no return by the time people start shooting at each other but I get your point.They got a really good look of things to come at the first battle of Manassas.
But then we get these 6 conservative judges give a questionable ruling and that is now the rule of law.But those decisions can be appealed and the higher courts tend to have more judges.
I never said not to enforce it. I simply said it would be one of the most inflammatory things that could happen.'Don't enforce the Constitution's provisions against insurrection because the people you enforce it against will engage in further insurrection' does not seem like a compelling argument to me.
The constitution explicitly bars people who engaged in insurrection from office. Trump engaged in an insurrection. Either the Constitution means something or it doesn't.
Walking down that path eventually leads to people arguing over what the word 'in' means. The accusations are valid in spirit, he didn't want to lose and he wasn't willing to leave when he knew he lost, and took steps to try to stay in power. That's an insurrection even if he's shit at it. Peaceful transfer of power is a cornerstone of our government.I never said not to enforce it. I simply said it would be one of the most inflammatory things that could happen.
Still, I would feel better if Trump had been found guilty of insurrection. You say Trump "engaged in an insurrection". Did he though?? He was not physically present at the Capital, and as far as I know, it has not been proven that he directly communicated to any of the rioters to storm the Capital. More clear is that he incited the storming of the building at least in general terms of denying that the election was valid. Is that enough? IDK. Doesn't really matter I guess. No matter what any of us think, it is in the hands of the conservative Supreme Court, with three judges appointed by Trump. By all rights, those three should recuse themselves from this decision, but it will be a cold day in hell when they do so.
He attempted to seize power after an election he lost. That’s an insurrection.I never said not to enforce it. I simply said it would be one of the most inflammatory things that could happen.
Still, I would feel better if Trump had been found guilty of insurrection. You say Trump "engaged in an insurrection". Did he though?? He was not physically present at the Capital, and as far as I know, it has not been proven that he directly communicated to any of the rioters to storm the Capital. More clear is that he incited the storming of the building at least in general terms of denying that the election was valid. Is that enough? IDK. Doesn't really matter I guess. No matter what any of us think, it is in the hands of the conservative Supreme Court, with three judges appointed by Trump. By all rights, those three should recuse themselves from this decision, but it will be a cold day in hell when they do so.
or is it a coup, so then he technically wouldn't be guilty of insurrection? /s /pedantryHe attempted to seize power after an election he lost. That’s an insurrection.