@electricpizza5774
My guess is that the Supreme Court will point to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which reads, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." and rule that it's up to Congress to spell out the exact process of disqualification. That punts the ball over to Congress and lets the Supreme Court wash their hands of the matter without appearing to take sides.
@DGPHolyHandgrenade
There's a problem with the argument about not explicitly naming President or Vice President. Congress debated and revised the language of the 14th amendment prior to its passing and had the following exchange: "Why did you omit to exclude them?" asked Maryland Democratic Sen. Reverdy Johnson. Maine's Lot Morrill jumped in to clarify. "Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,'" Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point. It's very clear, from the framers of the law that this was to include any position of power within the US and applies to anyone who has held a position of power within the United States or the States within.
@0zyris
The argument that the President is not an office of the US state is directly refuted by the Oath that the President swears which specifies the "Office of President". I don't know why this has not been stated, (as far as I know) in any of these discussions.
@ianluna1223
I wish you did more videos involving commentary on modern politics. You're refreshingly cogent.
@betohax
Looks like Ted Cruz was right about the unanimous ruling.
@BrendanBrown1
Even though almost the whole 3rd section of the 14th amendment seems broad and ambiguous, the last part saying "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability" makes it seem like this was originally intended to be self-executing and in full effect until further legislation. This is going to be one hell of a case, indeed.
@Egg-mr7np
Good watch. My only minor contention is that I wouldn’t say Trump has ever accepted that he lost. Maybe ‘it has been accepted’ in the utilitarian sense that he is no longer living at the White House or having everyone treat him as president.
@thefreem0
Survey says: 9-0 on question 4.
@chocolatecatdad
I think Cruz is closest to what the actual opinion will be. What has to be remembered is the Civil War just ended and it was obvious who took part in the CSA government in open rebellion against the US; all you had to do was compile a list of office holders, military officers, etc. and you had a list of men who were in open rebellion against the US.
@MCKennaXC
“Today we are going to do something that we do not do often on this channel” And discuss a political topic. I’ve been subscribed for some time since you talked about politics regularly. For some time now, this has more or less transformed into a cultural analysis channel. I must say that you do a good job of covering both of these subjects! I was just surprised to see a political analysis from JJ in my notifications
@braedenh6858
The biggest issue was stated by Ben Wittes at 20:00. The amendment is about objective reality. That was a simple matter in 1865 after a Civil War in which separatists formed an independent government and fought a war against the US. No one anywhere doubted that an insurrection happened and no one disputed the people involved. But here we have a case where reasonable people can disagree whether or not an insurrection occurred, and also disagree about who was involved and to what extent if they agree it did. Because those doubts exist and haven't been resolved, I I'd bet the SC throws this out.
@hughjass1044
Since any ruling the court may give will infuriate roughly one half of the country, it seems chaos is coming regardless. It's simply a question of what kind and by whom.
@Pierre-Van-Gogh
Probably my favorite video of yours I’ve ever watched. Clear, concise, factual and informative.
@aashmankhullar6419
Not a fan of Trump but I felt the argument to take him off of the ballot was quite contradictory. For the first argument (which I felt was fairly weak), wherein many conservatives have argued that since the 14th Ammendment did not directly mention ex-Presidents, Section-3 can not apply to Trump, many legal scholars (correctly in my opinion) argued that the purpose of the statue and the legislative intent was likely meant to include ex-presidents. Essentially, they elevated the 'purposivism' and 'intentionalism' theories of statutory interpretation over merely looking to the actual language (textualism) in this case. However, once it came to the matter of whether a conviction of insurrection was required to be removed from the ballot, proponents of Trumps removal switched their positions, now favouring 'textualism' as they look at the omission of the word 'convicted' in Section-3. It appears that many of these individuals simply adopted whichever theory of statutory interpretation best supported Trump's removal on any given point (although I also do feel any conservatives that supported the argument in the above paragraph are also guilty of this). Futhermore, America has remarkably lenient free speech laws. Unless a specific threat was made or encouraged (for example 'you should go burn that store'), a speaker can not be punished. This reasoning goes so far that even saying 'it would be nice if someone engaged in rebellion against the USA and I would support such an action' would not qualify as 'sedition' or 'inciting insurrection'. Thus, although Trump's rhetoric was quite unbecoming of the office and distasteful, it would not qualify as either 'inciting insurrection' or 'sedition'.
@drewpamon
I feel like someone would need to prove in court that he committed insurrection in a full trial rather than a judge just ruling it to be true.
@EmersonKingYT
Funny how a Canadian does a better job with American politics then most Americans
@clairegresswell
I could make many an argument both for & against on this issue. However, I do think it's important to note that given all the many charges Trump faces, at no point has the DoJ charged him with either being an insurrectionist or mounting an insurrection. I'd have thought that given that these statutes are both on the books (so to speak), it would have been relatively easy for Jack Smith, Special Counsel to press ahead with said charges; why did he choose not to? I'm not a US citizen & I don't particularly warm to Trump but if SCOTUS doesn't rule taking him off the ballot is illegal, I can only imgine "red" states will remove Biden (or whomever is the nominee as I suspect Biden will withdraw on health grounds), & make a complete mockery of this & every GE hereafter. Of course, each state is allowed to run elections as they see fit (& on & on the arguments go). The whole thing is a mess, to be honest! Edit: Comment posted at 16.00 before Cruz spoke. Edit 2: There's a great deal of ambiguity here - who said J6 was an insurrection? Throwing fire bo m bs at The White House in the "summer of love" can equally be seen as an insurrection too, I'd argue. Like I said, the whole things a mess & can be argued any which way.
@dannysroadshow
"No Insurrections" 😂 nice thumbnail JJ. It had me laughing before I even clicked on the video. Well done 🇺🇸
@ravenlord4
I think the big problem is that this could be abused. If each state can decide who is an "insurrectionist" or not, then blue states will kick any red candidate off of the ballot, and vice-versa. There has to be a national standard to avoid it from becoming arbitrary and capricious.
@governorblack