Asha, I listened to It's Complicated yesterday so I hope I can remember what I thought. I was surprised Renato just kept saying, "It's not going to happen" and he offered only one reason, that the conservative SC won't rule that Trump is disqualified. But they don't have to rule on that. They can just rule on what constitutes insurrection or rebellion and whether Trump committed it. Then the states have the basis for disqualifying him from their ballots.
If they won't do that, they can rule that Trump gave aid or comfort to those who committed seditious conspiracy. The evidence is there: When he told them to go home, he said, "We love you." That's giving comfort.
Also, Renato said the section hasn't been cited since after it was first passed, as far as he knew. Please tell him to check out law professor Mark Graber's book, "Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty : The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform After the Civil War" (2023). I listened to a podcast from the Constitution Center with him and I believe he said it has been cited since the 1860s and 70s. He also said the SC could rule NOW on what constitutes insurrection and rebellion, as soon as one of the cases being filed now make it to the SC.
And another thing, Renato: This isn't a slippery slope where Republicans could turn aroung and keep a Democrat off the ballot, not based on this section of the amendment because a Democrat would not do what Trump did. There would be no basis for it.
I agree. The whole issue before scotus will be what the meaning of insurrection and rebellion is under the 14th Amendment and whether trump's actions were "engaging" in such defined meanings. Much as we all believe that the whole Stop The Steal action, including the violence of Jan 6, constitutes insurrection and/or rebellion, we are not the deciders of the definitions of constitutional terms.
My main fear is that scotus will define the terms so narrowly that only a declared war, like the civil war, will count. Thus the 14th would become much less useful in future, when for example a mob actually hangs the VP to stop him from acting. We shall see.
A bunch of people argue that the prosecution of the Proud Boys etc proves this was an insurrection. But they were charged with seditious conspiracy. That statute has several parts, only one of which is insurrection. Destruction of federal property works all by itself under that statute.
You're thinking the majority will rule that only a declared war counts as an insurrection or rebellion? I hope the opposing attorney is really good at dismantling that! And brings in the law professor I mentioned, Mark Graber.
Not thinking. Worrying. At least something with organized armies. I wouldn’t agree but I don’t agree with a whole lot this court does and not just on political grounds. Their reasoning is so often shoddy and dishonest.
In college, I learned that the phrase "hoist by his own petard" refers to the fate of a person who placed a bomb near a gate and the bomb exploded prematurely "hoisting" the would-be bomb placer.
I enjoy the tv clips so much and have been enjoying going over the lessons a second time and making more sense of our history with these lessons. I see now how national security is constrained in some ways in our democracy yet quite robust in other ways. It’s all new to me. Great guest speakers too! John Sipher is now a favorite follow on X because you introduced him to us and he’s so smart and communicates so well. Like you, Asha!
For following Trump stuff, You and Renato are great at explaining the criminal justice system and keeping us up with current events. The ABC clips do this too. I am working full time in an unrelated field that is demanding much mental effort and still I like this content. Will have to skip the book club though
Asha, a topic I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on is Thomas and Alito’s financial disclosure forms. Was there anything juicy? Seems like they were released while we’re all focused on Fulton County.
The fantasyland segment of your podcast was pretty fantastic, I could have easily listened to an hour of that.
Candy land though, that’s serious stuff:
Fresh out of the university I somehow ended up behind the wheel of a semi hauling candy from Hershey to the west coast (never any candy corn to my knowledge, or at least not a reportable quantity); I did it a few times—candy out and usually a load of French fries back from Idaho.
The holy grail were the chocolate covered cherries; they paid the best because they implode crossing the continental divide. The only way to get chocolate covered cherries out west is to head south and across I-10
This morning on CNN the commentator stated that Trump’s poll numbers have risen after each of his four indictments and will likely to do so if there’s a fifth indictment. Sadly, I don’t believe the Republican Party has yet to “hit rock bottom.”
Almost seems meadows is still working on trumps behalf get trial moved; it will set a precedent for Trump getting removed to Fed court as well, thus avoiding televised proceedings..
Despite my incredibly abysmal opinion of Donald Trump, I would not support barring him from any ballot under the 14th Amendment until he is convicted of crimes related to insurrection or rebellion. If he's convicted, however, I would support such efforts.
But, given that such an outcome is unlikely before November 2024, I'd say the primary focus needs to be showing up at the polls and getting others who believe in democracy to do the same.
Informative as always, Asha. Appreciate your insights and nuance so much. A question I had while watching "It's Complicated". I understand the concerns of 'weaponizing' the states, but how should we respond when this is already happening? What I'm referring to are actions such as the removal of the 3 representatives from the TN state house, the refusal of Alabama to follow the rulings of the federal judiciary, the ideas being floated to silence the justice in WI by impeaching but not removing her, not to mention all the legislation making it more difficult for citizens to vote. I appreciate trust the rule of law and the power of the ballot which seem to be holding at present, but I fear one side is more willing to play by the rules than the other, and therein lies the rub.
..<><> .. Ms.Asha am surprised You didn't respond on Rudy Giuliani's attack on Ms.Fani Willis ..stating .."She is ignorant with the RICO Act" and has filed motions to Court to "!Quash his Indictment!" @AshaRangappa
Interesting question I don't know the answer to. One reason for denying bail is flight risk. After conviction, while it is being appealed, is there any similar provision for bail and refusal of it, resulting in incarceration during the appeal? And if so, who decides it: trial court or appeals court?
Asha, I listened to It's Complicated yesterday so I hope I can remember what I thought. I was surprised Renato just kept saying, "It's not going to happen" and he offered only one reason, that the conservative SC won't rule that Trump is disqualified. But they don't have to rule on that. They can just rule on what constitutes insurrection or rebellion and whether Trump committed it. Then the states have the basis for disqualifying him from their ballots.
If they won't do that, they can rule that Trump gave aid or comfort to those who committed seditious conspiracy. The evidence is there: When he told them to go home, he said, "We love you." That's giving comfort.
Also, Renato said the section hasn't been cited since after it was first passed, as far as he knew. Please tell him to check out law professor Mark Graber's book, "Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty : The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform After the Civil War" (2023). I listened to a podcast from the Constitution Center with him and I believe he said it has been cited since the 1860s and 70s. He also said the SC could rule NOW on what constitutes insurrection and rebellion, as soon as one of the cases being filed now make it to the SC.
And another thing, Renato: This isn't a slippery slope where Republicans could turn aroung and keep a Democrat off the ballot, not based on this section of the amendment because a Democrat would not do what Trump did. There would be no basis for it.
I agree. The whole issue before scotus will be what the meaning of insurrection and rebellion is under the 14th Amendment and whether trump's actions were "engaging" in such defined meanings. Much as we all believe that the whole Stop The Steal action, including the violence of Jan 6, constitutes insurrection and/or rebellion, we are not the deciders of the definitions of constitutional terms.
My main fear is that scotus will define the terms so narrowly that only a declared war, like the civil war, will count. Thus the 14th would become much less useful in future, when for example a mob actually hangs the VP to stop him from acting. We shall see.
A bunch of people argue that the prosecution of the Proud Boys etc proves this was an insurrection. But they were charged with seditious conspiracy. That statute has several parts, only one of which is insurrection. Destruction of federal property works all by itself under that statute.
You're thinking the majority will rule that only a declared war counts as an insurrection or rebellion? I hope the opposing attorney is really good at dismantling that! And brings in the law professor I mentioned, Mark Graber.
Not thinking. Worrying. At least something with organized armies. I wouldn’t agree but I don’t agree with a whole lot this court does and not just on political grounds. Their reasoning is so often shoddy and dishonest.
Understood.
In college, I learned that the phrase "hoist by his own petard" refers to the fate of a person who placed a bomb near a gate and the bomb exploded prematurely "hoisting" the would-be bomb placer.
I enjoy the tv clips so much and have been enjoying going over the lessons a second time and making more sense of our history with these lessons. I see now how national security is constrained in some ways in our democracy yet quite robust in other ways. It’s all new to me. Great guest speakers too! John Sipher is now a favorite follow on X because you introduced him to us and he’s so smart and communicates so well. Like you, Asha!
For following Trump stuff, You and Renato are great at explaining the criminal justice system and keeping us up with current events. The ABC clips do this too. I am working full time in an unrelated field that is demanding much mental effort and still I like this content. Will have to skip the book club though
Thank you, Amy! 🙏🏽
Asha, a topic I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on is Thomas and Alito’s financial disclosure forms. Was there anything juicy? Seems like they were released while we’re all focused on Fulton County.
The fantasyland segment of your podcast was pretty fantastic, I could have easily listened to an hour of that.
Candy land though, that’s serious stuff:
Fresh out of the university I somehow ended up behind the wheel of a semi hauling candy from Hershey to the west coast (never any candy corn to my knowledge, or at least not a reportable quantity); I did it a few times—candy out and usually a load of French fries back from Idaho.
The holy grail were the chocolate covered cherries; they paid the best because they implode crossing the continental divide. The only way to get chocolate covered cherries out west is to head south and across I-10
This morning on CNN the commentator stated that Trump’s poll numbers have risen after each of his four indictments and will likely to do so if there’s a fifth indictment. Sadly, I don’t believe the Republican Party has yet to “hit rock bottom.”
Almost seems meadows is still working on trumps behalf get trial moved; it will set a precedent for Trump getting removed to Fed court as well, thus avoiding televised proceedings..
So is it alright to bring up an affirmative action question at office hours? :-/
Interesting discussion on history of 14th Amend, Sec 3. And practical implications for applying it.
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vUFA2MjY4NzY1MDQz/episode/NDk5ZmU3MjYtNDgzYS0xMWVlLWE0NjMtZjdjN2JkNDdlYjA2?ep=14
Despite my incredibly abysmal opinion of Donald Trump, I would not support barring him from any ballot under the 14th Amendment until he is convicted of crimes related to insurrection or rebellion. If he's convicted, however, I would support such efforts.
But, given that such an outcome is unlikely before November 2024, I'd say the primary focus needs to be showing up at the polls and getting others who believe in democracy to do the same.
Candy corn is a sick joke.
Informative as always, Asha. Appreciate your insights and nuance so much. A question I had while watching "It's Complicated". I understand the concerns of 'weaponizing' the states, but how should we respond when this is already happening? What I'm referring to are actions such as the removal of the 3 representatives from the TN state house, the refusal of Alabama to follow the rulings of the federal judiciary, the ideas being floated to silence the justice in WI by impeaching but not removing her, not to mention all the legislation making it more difficult for citizens to vote. I appreciate trust the rule of law and the power of the ballot which seem to be holding at present, but I fear one side is more willing to play by the rules than the other, and therein lies the rub.
Asha, you posted two clips from ABC News. Who is the anchor in both clips you are in?
Diane Macedo
..<><> .. Ms.Asha am surprised You didn't respond on Rudy Giuliani's attack on Ms.Fani Willis ..stating .."She is ignorant with the RICO Act" and has filed motions to Court to "!Quash his Indictment!" @AshaRangappa
wAc @CrowBwell9
Interesting question I don't know the answer to. One reason for denying bail is flight risk. After conviction, while it is being appealed, is there any similar provision for bail and refusal of it, resulting in incarceration during the appeal? And if so, who decides it: trial court or appeals court?
I found a great website with a huge selection of Donald Trump mugshot t-shirts with the REAL mugshot from Georgia!
https://donaldtrumpmugshott-shirts.com/