A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot based on the claim that he is constitutionally barred from office because of the January 6 insurrection.
Or! Not and, or. It’s saying you can’t be a representative or senator or hold any civil or military offices (members of the executive branch, ie the president). Were they supposed to go and list every single position in the executive department within the text of the amendment? That’d be ridiculous. That’s why they wrote all civil offices, all military offices, anyone who swears to uphold the constitution. You’d have to bend over backwards logically here to say the presidency isn’t a civil or military office that swears to uphold the constitution. It obviously is. What else would a civil or military office be? So I guess we need a new amendment that lists each individual job title of the tens of thousands of jobs within the executive department to satisfy this judge and you?
Were they supposed to go and list every single position in the executive department within the text of the amendment?
That’s not what I’m saying.
The question I would be asking is, “Why were Senators and Representatives mentioned explicitly?”, to which my answer would probably be that the drafters didn’t consider the Senate or House to be ‘civil or military offices’. Otherwise, why bother? This is an Amendment to the Constitution ffs, there shouldn’t be a single superfluous word in it. My next question would then be, “If the drafters didn’t consider the Senate or House to be ‘civil or military offices’, would they have considered the Presidency to be one?”, to which my answer would probably be ‘no’ despite very much wanting it to be ‘yes’.
My third question would be, “Did they just forget or something?”, and my answer would be, “Gee I sure hope so. Better assume they did.”, which is why I’m not a judge.
If the presidency isn’t a civil or military office, nothing is. It’s literally the highest one of both categories. Civil officers are any positions within the executive or judicial branches. The legislative branch positions that are singled out exclusively are to highlight that these are also included, as if they only said civil or military offices, it could be implied that the amendment would only apply to the executive branch and judicial branch. The electors from the electoral college to select the president are even singled out too, as again they are totally seperate from the executive branch, it was just making clear that these would be included in addition. I can’t see how anyone would read this and think, wow, whoever wrote this wanted an insurrectionist to be able to hold no position in government except for the most powerful position in all of government, that one we intend to hold wide open for them. If the amendment said the presidency is excluded from this, then I think you and the judge would have a case. It’s clearly just making it’s wording as comprehensive as possible to imply that it’s excluding insurrectionists from every level and position in government across all branches and even weird things like the electoral college.
The legislative branch positions that are singled out exclusively are to highlight that these are also included, as if they only said civil or military offices,
That would be the definition of “superfluous”, and that isn’t how legal texts are written.
it could be implied that the amendment would only apply to the executive branch and judicial branch.
I’m not sure it’s wise to bar anyone from becoming President on the basis of something that “could be implied”. The fact that Senators and Representatives are mentioned explicitly is contrary evidence, not supporting evidence. there are about a million other, better, clearer ways the drafters could have phrased it if they intended to include the Presidency.
It’s unfortunate that people around here don’t seem to recognize the exacting standard to which legal texts are—and in most cases should be—held. I was sincerely hoping he would be barred from the Presidency on these grounds, but I’m not surprised that he wasn’t. I support the dynamic interpretation of laws in our current political climate (originalists and such are morons), but let’s not forget the need for it only arises from the endless failures of the legislature.
Or! Not and, or. It’s saying you can’t be a representative or senator or hold any civil or military offices (members of the executive branch, ie the president). Were they supposed to go and list every single position in the executive department within the text of the amendment? That’d be ridiculous. That’s why they wrote all civil offices, all military offices, anyone who swears to uphold the constitution. You’d have to bend over backwards logically here to say the presidency isn’t a civil or military office that swears to uphold the constitution. It obviously is. What else would a civil or military office be? So I guess we need a new amendment that lists each individual job title of the tens of thousands of jobs within the executive department to satisfy this judge and you?
That’s not what I’m saying.
The question I would be asking is, “Why were Senators and Representatives mentioned explicitly?”, to which my answer would probably be that the drafters didn’t consider the Senate or House to be ‘civil or military offices’. Otherwise, why bother? This is an Amendment to the Constitution ffs, there shouldn’t be a single superfluous word in it. My next question would then be, “If the drafters didn’t consider the Senate or House to be ‘civil or military offices’, would they have considered the Presidency to be one?”, to which my answer would probably be ‘no’ despite very much wanting it to be ‘yes’.
My third question would be, “Did they just forget or something?”, and my answer would be, “Gee I sure hope so. Better assume they did.”, which is why I’m not a judge.
If the presidency isn’t a civil or military office, nothing is. It’s literally the highest one of both categories. Civil officers are any positions within the executive or judicial branches. The legislative branch positions that are singled out exclusively are to highlight that these are also included, as if they only said civil or military offices, it could be implied that the amendment would only apply to the executive branch and judicial branch. The electors from the electoral college to select the president are even singled out too, as again they are totally seperate from the executive branch, it was just making clear that these would be included in addition. I can’t see how anyone would read this and think, wow, whoever wrote this wanted an insurrectionist to be able to hold no position in government except for the most powerful position in all of government, that one we intend to hold wide open for them. If the amendment said the presidency is excluded from this, then I think you and the judge would have a case. It’s clearly just making it’s wording as comprehensive as possible to imply that it’s excluding insurrectionists from every level and position in government across all branches and even weird things like the electoral college.
That would be the definition of “superfluous”, and that isn’t how legal texts are written.
I’m not sure it’s wise to bar anyone from becoming President on the basis of something that “could be implied”. The fact that Senators and Representatives are mentioned explicitly is contrary evidence, not supporting evidence. there are about a million other, better, clearer ways the drafters could have phrased it if they intended to include the Presidency.
It’s unfortunate that people around here don’t seem to recognize the exacting standard to which legal texts are—and in most cases should be—held. I was sincerely hoping he would be barred from the Presidency on these grounds, but I’m not surprised that he wasn’t. I support the dynamic interpretation of laws in our current political climate (originalists and such are morons), but let’s not forget the need for it only arises from the endless failures of the legislature.