Trump’s Most Unhinged Plans for His Second Term
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!
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.
You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
you are without question wrong about Section 3 not covering the Office of the President.
It's amazing because I've never made this argument. I've asked why you think they didn't specify the POTUS, and that by not doing so the interpretation that the position was not included is reasonable.
I appreciate the actual attempt to answer my question now, and I will read that piece. Thanks. That seems pretty damning to the ruling by the judge, and I wonder why it wasn't brought up. I assume if this is appealed to the SCOTUS, it will be.
I'm not sure why you had to read the same thing as I have been saying all along from a dude who lived two hundred years ago, but okay I guess - it says a lot about your reading comprehension, and I'm gonna stand by that since you are continuing to insist that your question wasn't answered until just now when it very clearly was. In addition you've never once said why the "or any office" text from the actual Amendment didn't answer that question for you from the get-go, and I would like an explanation for that because it makes no sense to me, at all.
you are without question wrong about Section 3 not covering the Office of the President.
It’s amazing because I’ve never made this argument.
Fine. You are without question wrong about *there being any question as to whether Section 3 covers the Office of the President, or any other Office not explicitly listed in the text, because of that damning "or any office" text you have been so loathe to acknowledge.
I wonder why it wasn’t brought up. I assume if this is appealed to the SCOTUS, it will be.
I have been thinking about this myself, since I learned exactly what it means that the judge "found as a basis of fact" that the Big Orange engaged in an insurrection. That is being hailed as huge and I can see why. Maybe it's a tactic, and admittedly the Amendment doesn't say he must be struck from the ballot. It just says he's disqualified from taking the office. Theoretically if that "finding as a basis of fact" ruling can stand the whole way, even if he wins he won't be allowed to take the job and there'll be a runoff election. That'd be a first.
it says a lot about your reading comprehension
It's amazing that even after I say I'm convinced by your evidence (almost I still need to read the source), you still have to be a dick about it. Can't help but be a douche, I guess.
That being said, you're wrong and it's your reading comprehension that sucks. After you misrepresented my position earlier, I explicitly laid out my position and it should have been clear from it that I just think her conclusion was reasonable. But in your small little mind you can't think beyond the black and white, so the fact that I didn't find it unreasonable must mean I think it's unreasonable to include him in the list. You're seeing yourself in me.
And FTR, the part you quote still does not answer my question, but I'm hoping the answer is in the context of what you quoted. so, again, thank you for that.
Maybe it’s a tactic, and admittedly the Amendment doesn’t say he must be struck from the ballot. It just says he’s disqualified from taking the office.
I suspect, but could very easily be wrong, that to get on the ballot in most states you have to be eligible to be POTUS.
- You believe because the presidency isn't explicitly mentioned that we can't know if it was intended to be covered by Section 3
- Your logic is "they explicitly name certain offices, why not the president"
- Someone asked why the presidency wasn't mentioned at the time this section was being drafted
- the answer at the time was "i draw your attention to the text 'or any office'"
- That answers your question, explain how it does not
You believe because the presidency isn’t explicitly mentioned that we can’t know if it was intended to be covered by Section 3
Incorrect, as proven by the fact that you showed me evidence that they intended to include the presidency and I said this "damning to the ruling by the judge." But that would require reading comprehension, which a lack of you hilariously projected onto me. Although this was never true and just a straw man you've made up.
Your logic is “they explicitly name certain offices, why not the president”
As I said, it is a conspicuous omission which is why I had a hard time finding fault with the ruling. But, again, this would have just required some reading comprehension.
That answers your question, explain how it does not
I've asked it explicitly a number of times, yet you still can't understand it. Amazing. I'll try again.
Why did they list some high importance positions but not the POTUS? I'm not asking you how you think it still includes the POTUS. I've always thought it was a reasonable conclusion to think it does. Why list any offices at all, like senator and rep, if the catch all of "any office" gets them as well?
Their inclusion creates ambiguity which is why I originally found her conclusion to be reasonable. But if we have the framers of the amendment saying it applies to the POTUS, then there should be no ambiguity there any longer. This is just the first I've seen that. Pretty much every other argument has been they couldn't fathom a POTUS would he the traitor (which is laughable).
Why list any offices at all?
They're called "examples".
Their inclusion created ambiguity
No, it doesn't. Because "or" and "any" and "office" all have their own meanings, as do all the other words you completely ignored to claim there's any ambiguity. THAT is why I'm annoyed with you, because you have been obstinately declaring ambiguity and a lack of an answer when it's been right there in your face, in written words, the whole time.
But if we have the framers of the Amendment saying it applies to the POTUS, then there should be no ambiguity there any longer
Again, their answer was the same as mine, so why was the text not clear enough for you? Remember, the framers themselves said it's clear as day by simply pointing out what the text says. I want to know why you didn't take that from what's written. Not being a dick now, I actually want to understand what is ambiguous about "or any other office, civil or military".
They’re called “examples”.
Lol you don't honestly think this is the case do you? Why not give examples in every amendment? But this is certainly not how it's worded. You're just trying hand wave away this peculiarity. Why not just admit it's curious and raises questions?
Again, their answer was the same as mine, so why was the text not clear enough for you?
At no point was your position unclear; at no point did I not understand what you were arguing. The issue is that they decided to put in "examples" (lol) but not include the POTUS, and I thought that left the door open to interpret as not including the POTUS. One of them clarifying that it does still include the POTUS is very different than you simply claiming it does. The only reason this would be hard to understand is, well, if you lack reading comprehension or cant think outside of black and white.
No, the reason this is hard to understand is that the text is perfectly clear, and you STILL won't say why "OR ANY OFFICE" might not clearly cover offices not explicitly listed. Because that is what those words mean and I think you should be concerned that you can't answer that question. I would also encourage you to research the concept of "or", and of incomplete lists, as they have been around for millennia and you really ought to get caught up.
Put another way: what I want to know is why you want to focus so hard on a sentence fragment being ambiguous, when the very next words of the sentence make the meaning perfectly clear (and make no mistake, the meaning is perfectly clear to anyone who can read English).
This is how this is going, from my point of view: "Why is the President not listed" "See 'any office' right after that" "But why are the other offices listed" "Because 'any office' covers all of them, even ones that didn't exist back then" "But the President isn't listed and that creates ambiguity" "No it doesn't, because of the 'any office' text" "But it doesn't list every office" "Right. See 'any office'" "... But it's ambiguous and you're not answering my question"
Now you try.
you STILL won’t say why “OR ANY OFFICE” might not clearly cover offices not explicitly listed.
Holy shit this has been my entire point. The more you go, the more obvious you make it that it's you who lacks reading comprehension. To be clear, once again, it's because they list high importance positions, and then throw a catch all in at the end that would also cover all of those other positions. Why list those at all? Why not list the most important position? The best explanation you've come up with is "they're examples" which is a joke because it's clearly not worded in a way that would make one believe they are just examples.
what I want to know is why you want to focus so hard on a sentence fragment being ambiguous, when the very next words of the sentence make the meaning perfectly clear
Because this is why a judge, one who is an expert in law, ruled that way and I find her conclusion to be reasonable, without the clarification from a framer of whether this is supposed to cover the POTUS. It's the crux of the argument. The issue is that you just want to handwave this away because it's inconvenient for what you (and I, btw) want to be true. You sound like all the people I've debated with who claim "a well regulated militia" was just thrown in for funsies and shouldn't be considered.
“Why is the President not listed”
The fact that in none of these you include "but senator is" just leads me to believe you aren't debating in good faith. Either that or your reading comprehension is even worse than I originally thought.