Skip Navigation

Trump’s Most Unhinged Plans for His Second Term

nymag.com Trump’s Most Unhinged Plans for His Second Term

He’s openly plotting to persecute his enemies, assume kinglike powers, and deport millions of people. But at least we’ll all have flying cars!

Trump’s Most Unhinged Plans for His Second Term

Many of Trump’s proposals for his second term are surprisingly extreme, draconian, and weird, even for him. Here’s a running list of his most unhinged plans.

107
Lemmy.org - Politics @lemmy.org Mazdak @lemmy.org

Trump’s Most Unhinged Plans for His Second Term

6 0

Trump’s Most Unhinged Plans for His Second Term

92 8

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
107 comments
  • Your “argument” is that because the President isn’t explicitly listed in the text, then “we can’t know if they’re covered”.

    Incorrect. To be very clear, my argument is that it's a very conspicuous omission from a list that explicitly calls out some high importance positions, but does not call out the most important position. And due to that, I have a hard time finding it unreasonable when someone interprets the law to not include that conspicuously omitted position.

    I’ll bold and italicise the really important bits, and delete the bits that aren’t relevant, because you seem to have trouble with the word “or” in lists:

    You act like I've denied it says "any office." I have not. I've asked you why it calls out a high importance position, but does not call out the most important high importance position. It's a question that you don't have any answer for, so you just keep repeating your point. Or, now, making up my position so you can attack a strawman.

    YOU are obviously wrong, because “any office” is pretty fucking explicit

    Incorrect. By definition, the way you are interpreting it, it would implicitly include the POTUS. And this is where my issue lies. It does explicitly call out some high importance positions, but not the presidency. Those high importance positions would also be included under any office. So why explicitly call out some, but not others, if "any office" covers all of them? You've completely failed to answer this question. Again, it's fair to admit you don't have an answer but you don't think it matters anyway. It's just then we would have to "agree to disagree" that it's reasonable to consider the parts other than "any office" and ask ourselves what the intent was.

    Fuck this, I’ve made my point very clearly, and there is no point in engaging further with you because either you get it or you’re a concern troll - maybe both. Good day.

    You're inability to answer the question is not my fault, but your own. Why are you trying to blame me? The parting shot is incredibly childish.

    • You’re inability to answer the question is not my fault, but your own. Why are you trying to blame me? The parting shot is incredibly childish.

      Nope, I have answered the question multiple times. I am now taking care of my mental health because you are arguing in bad faith. For the benefit of the community though, here we go:

      So when I asked

      Do you think every list everywhere has to be exhaustive, even when criteria and examples are listed?

      The answer is "yes", apparently. Does the text list every office of government covered in Section 3? I'll save you the answer: no it does not. If it did, that would be impressive, because most of them didn't exist at the time, for example any ranking position of the Marine Corps. The Framers knew they couldn't name every office that might ever be created, so they didn't try. They listed some examples, and the criteria for triggering the disqualification.

      Did you know this exact question came up at the time? I couldn't find the source at the time but I didn't think it was important because, you know, the text covers it with the "oathbreaker" requirement as has already been discussed. But, here it is: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/lsb/lsb10569

      Specifically:

      One scholar notes that the drafting history of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that the office of the President is covered:

      During the debate on Section Three, one Senator asked why ex-Confederates “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you all omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation.” Another Senator replied that the lack of specific language on the Presidency and Vice- Presidency was irrelevant: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”

      I'll highlight that last bit again:

      Another Senator replied that the lack of specific language on the Presidency and Vice- Presidency was irrelevant: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”

      That is from this paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3748639

      Which you can view in the browser. Do try to read these ones, they do prove that I have answered your question already and you are without question wrong about Section 3 not covering the Office of the President. You can press "ctrl + f" on a Windows keyboard or "command + f" on a Mac, if you're having trouble reading all those words and just want to skip to the relevant bits instead of arguing with me that your question has not been answered.

107 comments