Theme: Constitutional Order

That is an assumption. It would mean that we could do the same to Biden for his insurrection of opening the border to invasion – heck, forget insurrection it could be treason for that matter. Or we could say that the failure of biden to suppress the insurrections by BLM and ANTIFA were an act that disqualifies him. (There are in fact suits underway making both of these claims as a vehicle for demonstrating the possibilities to the high court.)

You have opinions. But you’re an average person. The average person feels or intuits everything but thinks little, and when he does so, thinks poorly. In matters of causal density in a causal hierarchy, the average person – meaning all but a few people – merely justify their intuitions given their limited knowledge, and their limited knowledge is selected to confirm their priors.

Courts need criteria of decidability regardless of opinion and whether an insurrection existed or not at present is a social construction not a decision that survived adversarial competition between parties by the facts in a court competent to make such a decision.

Reply addressees: @xjadewarrior @NoahBookbinder

No noah. The court will state that only the congress or the supreme court may convict someone of insurrection, and further that the states, in matters of the presidency, serving the people not the state,may not override a population’s choices only determine whether sufficient…

MATT: FALSE
“The monarchy is above the law in the restoration of the law”

This applies to the president. It’s a purely via negativa license.