Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

brush

(61,033 posts)

11. Yes, Biden didn't engage in a insurrection to prevent the transfer of power to himself.

Reply to lastlib (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 20, 2023, 05:44 PM

Dec 2023

trump did. And that's a violation of the 14th Amendment, Sec. 3. I don't get why Prof. Lessig, a well respected Constitutional scholar would make such a statement, unless he thinks it should be up to SCOTUS itself and not Colorado's supreme court to make such a ruling.

His stance is just the opposite of equally respected and conservative Constitutional scholar Judge Michael Luttig who has stated quite assertively that trump is definitely subject to the 14th, Sec. 3.

And it's absolutely ridiculous that the founders wanted to leave out the president and vice-president from being excluded from what the 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 says.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Lessig: The Supreme Court Must Unanimously Strike Down Trump's Ballot Removal [View all] Gaugamela Dec 2023 OP

The 14th Amendment MANDATES that states bear that cost..... lastlib Dec 2023 #1

According to Lessig, that mandate doesn't include POTUS/VP for the reasons stated. Gaugamela Dec 2023 #7

Yes, Biden didn't engage in a insurrection to prevent the transfer of power to himself. brush Dec 2023 #11

Any other area that Mr. Lessig would like to see us simply give up and ignore the constitutional hlthe2b Dec 2023 #2

Lessig is making a reasoned argument regarding a specific part of one amendment. He's not Gaugamela Dec 2023 #8

Obviously, you don't... hlthe2b Dec 2023 #9

What a crock NoRethugFriends Dec 2023 #3

This is an opinion piece by a Harvard Law constitutional scholar. Your comments don't address Gaugamela Dec 2023 #6

Picking and choosing, you say? I note you do NOT quote Laurence Tribe who does not hlthe2b Dec 2023 #10

Maybe POTUS and VP were included intentionally Raven123 Dec 2023 #4

They were included and then excluded, presumably because of a process of reasoning and Gaugamela Dec 2023 #5

PRESUMABLY Xoan Dec 2023 #12

I agree this could become a tit for tat feud Raven123 Dec 2023 #13

Lessig fears a civil war mymomwasright Dec 2023 #14

Merely defeating him may well trigger violence or the ultimate civil war. We have precedence hlthe2b Dec 2023 #15

There isn't going to be a Civil War. TwilightZone Dec 2023 #17

I used to think they were a bunch of all-talk blowhards. shrike3 Dec 2023 #19

Nothing has really changed - most of them still are. TwilightZone Dec 2023 #20

If the constitution is followed there is no tit for tat mymomwasright Dec 2023 #16

Reciprocation is a moot point. lees1975 Dec 2023 #18