• kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    19 hours ago

    The argument is probably that (A) the only way to say that he participated is to convict him, otherwise he’s considered innocent and (B) he didn’t participate, he just incited it (using language that was just vague enough to make it difficult to prove).

    • LOGIC💣@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I think you’re essentially correct with regard to the text, but I think if you take the obvious intentions of the authors into account, then Trump shouldn’t have been allowed to run, and shouldn’t have been allowed to be sworn in.

      It’s a giant problem, but I think that if you look into the circumstances of the 14th Amendment, it was clearly to stop officials from the Confederacy from becoming US government officials, the vast majority of whom (all of whom?) were never convicted of insurrection. I think the authors intentions were clear. If you engaged in something that was like an insurrection, then you simply can’t run for office, even if the situation was not completely clear. I think the amendment was more-or-less designed to prevent people in almost the exact same situation as Trump from becoming government officials.