@benjsmith.bsky.social
The experts overplayed their hands and are not neutral players. It is still disappointing to see TN preventing children getting care even if they, their psychiatrists, and their parents are all on board. TN is replacing one dogmatism with another. What about freedom and personal choice?
June 19, 2025 at 7:52 PM
The experts overplayed their hands and are not neutral players. It is still disappointing to see TN preventing children getting care even if they, their psychiatrists, and their parents are all on board. TN is replacing one dogmatism with another. What about freedom and personal choice?
But if you had somehow got Congress to agree to all that plan, it would probably be easier and much less provocative to exercise 14AS3 just to bar him from running again while not removing from the current term
January 4, 2025 at 9:35 PM
But if you had somehow got Congress to agree to all that plan, it would probably be easier and much less provocative to exercise 14AS3 just to bar him from running again while not removing from the current term
It is very risky because whether or not SCOTUS would even allow it under 14AS3 would be an open question--so the country would perhaps be uncertain about who their leader is for an extended period while SCOTUS rule on it.
January 4, 2025 at 9:33 PM
It is very risky because whether or not SCOTUS would even allow it under 14AS3 would be an open question--so the country would perhaps be uncertain about who their leader is for an extended period while SCOTUS rule on it.
But your question was "at what point should he be removed from office"? Maybe if there's a bipartisan consensus based on a concerted attempt to manipulate the electoral process after finding a way to run again, it would be best for Congress to disqualify him and allow the VP to take his place...
January 4, 2025 at 9:33 PM
But your question was "at what point should he be removed from office"? Maybe if there's a bipartisan consensus based on a concerted attempt to manipulate the electoral process after finding a way to run again, it would be best for Congress to disqualify him and allow the VP to take his place...
There has never not been a time in this country when people have been legally disenfranchised, not only children and convicts but also ex-cons and all sorts of qualifications. So any move in that direction would have to disenfranchise a substantial number in swing states to really ring alarm bells
January 4, 2025 at 9:20 PM
There has never not been a time in this country when people have been legally disenfranchised, not only children and convicts but also ex-cons and all sorts of qualifications. So any move in that direction would have to disenfranchise a substantial number in swing states to really ring alarm bells
But I don't see any meaningful way past the presidential term limit so all the other stuff is moot. SCOTUS could buy the "not self executing" argument again but it would be a new argument because 22A doesn't have an equivalent to S5 of 14A which was instrumental to their opinion on 14A S3.
January 4, 2025 at 9:17 PM
But I don't see any meaningful way past the presidential term limit so all the other stuff is moot. SCOTUS could buy the "not self executing" argument again but it would be a new argument because 22A doesn't have an equivalent to S5 of 14A which was instrumental to their opinion on 14A S3.
if I saw he had some plausible path past the Constitutional presidential term limit I would think he might try it. That wouldn't be undemocratic in itself but I'd expect he'd use every means he could to subvert democracy. Depending on how well he'd managed to manipulate the process I'd be worried
January 4, 2025 at 9:17 PM
if I saw he had some plausible path past the Constitutional presidential term limit I would think he might try it. That wouldn't be undemocratic in itself but I'd expect he'd use every means he could to subvert democracy. Depending on how well he'd managed to manipulate the process I'd be worried
Trump himself doesn't respect liberal democratic institutions. So I see the complexity. If I thought democratic institutions would not survive his next 4 years I'd see things differently. But I don't see signs of that and I am confident 2028 election will be about as fair as 2024 and 2020 were.
January 4, 2025 at 8:23 PM
Trump himself doesn't respect liberal democratic institutions. So I see the complexity. If I thought democratic institutions would not survive his next 4 years I'd see things differently. But I don't see signs of that and I am confident 2028 election will be about as fair as 2024 and 2020 were.
I value the protection of liberal democracy alongside other values. Preventing a fairly elected individual from taking office is contrary to liberal democracy, both intrinsically, and because it will undermine trust in the electoral system in the future....
January 4, 2025 at 8:23 PM
I value the protection of liberal democracy alongside other values. Preventing a fairly elected individual from taking office is contrary to liberal democracy, both intrinsically, and because it will undermine trust in the electoral system in the future....
I have a sense of engaging in something analogous to Stockholm syndrome here, but although I agree, I think yanking him out of office would be more destabilizing than whatever he is likely to do in the next four years. Maybe that's ultimately the crux between you and I, I'm not sure
January 4, 2025 at 7:06 PM
I have a sense of engaging in something analogous to Stockholm syndrome here, but although I agree, I think yanking him out of office would be more destabilizing than whatever he is likely to do in the next four years. Maybe that's ultimately the crux between you and I, I'm not sure
Considering wider consequences: S3 prevented slaves states from reasserting white supremacist social orders. That seems higher priority than stopping whatever Trump. even then, after ~4 years, Congress saw fit to pass an amnesty that mostly nullified s3 even in those abominable circumstances!
January 4, 2025 at 6:55 PM
Considering wider consequences: S3 prevented slaves states from reasserting white supremacist social orders. That seems higher priority than stopping whatever Trump. even then, after ~4 years, Congress saw fit to pass an amnesty that mostly nullified s3 even in those abominable circumstances!
No, TX is 1/10 of the population, 51% or TX is not nearly as objectionable as 51% of the whole country. Most importantly it is not nearly as destabilizing to the peace, order, and political legitimacy of the federal government.
January 4, 2025 at 6:49 PM
No, TX is 1/10 of the population, 51% or TX is not nearly as objectionable as 51% of the whole country. Most importantly it is not nearly as destabilizing to the peace, order, and political legitimacy of the federal government.
"for all offices of import" not sure
Imagine someone wins governor of CA or TX and was afterwards invalidated on the grounds they supported their states secession
Those are important offices governing major states but invalidating their elections seems much more ok
Imagine someone wins governor of CA or TX and was afterwards invalidated on the grounds they supported their states secession
Those are important offices governing major states but invalidating their elections seems much more ok
January 4, 2025 at 6:41 PM
"for all offices of import" not sure
Imagine someone wins governor of CA or TX and was afterwards invalidated on the grounds they supported their states secession
Those are important offices governing major states but invalidating their elections seems much more ok
Imagine someone wins governor of CA or TX and was afterwards invalidated on the grounds they supported their states secession
Those are important offices governing major states but invalidating their elections seems much more ok
...for a normatively acceptable bar I'd look for:
- unambiguous violation of the insurrection clause rather than a contested one that closely divides the electorate
- probably a less senior position where invalidating the result won't lead to ~51% of the electorate losing faith in democracy
- unambiguous violation of the insurrection clause rather than a contested one that closely divides the electorate
- probably a less senior position where invalidating the result won't lead to ~51% of the electorate losing faith in democracy
January 4, 2025 at 6:30 PM
...for a normatively acceptable bar I'd look for:
- unambiguous violation of the insurrection clause rather than a contested one that closely divides the electorate
- probably a less senior position where invalidating the result won't lead to ~51% of the electorate losing faith in democracy
- unambiguous violation of the insurrection clause rather than a contested one that closely divides the electorate
- probably a less senior position where invalidating the result won't lead to ~51% of the electorate losing faith in democracy
Not essentially nullifying, because without s3 it's unclear to me whether they even have the power to bar candidates that the Constitution otherwise permits...
January 4, 2025 at 6:28 PM
Not essentially nullifying, because without s3 it's unclear to me whether they even have the power to bar candidates that the Constitution otherwise permits...
Further, I am not saying they don't have the power to bar a candidate after the candidate has been elected. I'm expressing a personal opinion that in this case they should choose not to do so, using legal means available to them
January 4, 2025 at 5:13 PM
Further, I am not saying they don't have the power to bar a candidate after the candidate has been elected. I'm expressing a personal opinion that in this case they should choose not to do so, using legal means available to them
Sure yes i respect your view on it differs.
I'm not sure if Congress would be constitutionally able to write a law barring insurrectionists from running for office unless they were permitted by s3
I'm not sure if Congress would be constitutionally able to write a law barring insurrectionists from running for office unless they were permitted by s3
January 4, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Sure yes i respect your view on it differs.
I'm not sure if Congress would be constitutionally able to write a law barring insurrectionists from running for office unless they were permitted by s3
I'm not sure if Congress would be constitutionally able to write a law barring insurrectionists from running for office unless they were permitted by s3
SCOTUS found (5-4) it is not self executing 🤷 I agree with you the plain text of s3 looks self-executing. And SCOTUS's own position is that SCOTUS can and has been wrong. But I think there has to be some deference to courts' interpretation of law. If not, what's the point of having courts?
January 4, 2025 at 3:20 PM
SCOTUS found (5-4) it is not self executing 🤷 I agree with you the plain text of s3 looks self-executing. And SCOTUS's own position is that SCOTUS can and has been wrong. But I think there has to be some deference to courts' interpretation of law. If not, what's the point of having courts?
I don't know how s3 was used historically--what the process was--but that would probably be useful for understanding its point from the POV of the people who passed it.
January 4, 2025 at 7:28 AM
I don't know how s3 was used historically--what the process was--but that would probably be useful for understanding its point from the POV of the people who passed it.
I guess the point of s3 is that Congress is able to vote to bar someone from running for office or from taking their seat if they do. They could do this before the person runs for office so that voters have fair warning their vote is wasted if they vote for the candidate.
January 4, 2025 at 7:27 AM
I guess the point of s3 is that Congress is able to vote to bar someone from running for office or from taking their seat if they do. They could do this before the person runs for office so that voters have fair warning their vote is wasted if they vote for the candidate.
I think there's also a question about whether Congress have a constitutional duty to disqualify under section 3, or only the Constitutional right to give effect to section 3. Afaik it's the latter, which sort of means it's up to them to exercise prudence and go with the democratic majority.
January 4, 2025 at 7:06 AM
I think there's also a question about whether Congress have a constitutional duty to disqualify under section 3, or only the Constitutional right to give effect to section 3. Afaik it's the latter, which sort of means it's up to them to exercise prudence and go with the democratic majority.
I would love to have seen SCOTUS rule on it, well before the election, so we can have an authoritative point of view, but they didn't. So I do see your point but I don't know if you're right, and given the ambiguity, I fear a constitutional and democratic crisis if Congress disqualified.
January 4, 2025 at 7:04 AM
I would love to have seen SCOTUS rule on it, well before the election, so we can have an authoritative point of view, but they didn't. So I do see your point but I don't know if you're right, and given the ambiguity, I fear a constitutional and democratic crisis if Congress disqualified.