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

mymomwasright

(444 posts)

14. Lessig fears a civil war

Reply to Gaugamela (Original post)

Wed Dec 20, 2023, 06:43 PM

Dec 2023

As he says in the article; "But excluding him, wrongfully, by a close vote of the Supreme Court could well trigger the next Civil War. We must defeat him politically—not through clever lawyer interpretations of ambiguous constitutional texts." Fear of civil war shouldn't be a reason to skirt the law or ignore the constitution!
He also says "Lash argues that it could make sense because the Framers of that clause likely expected it to apply to Civil War insurrectionists alone. No one, he argues, feared an insurrectionist presidential candidate after 1865." Because the amendment doesn't specify "Civil War" anything it throws all future candidates into a generalized bunch.

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 I note you do NOT quote Laurence Tribe who does not hlthe2b Dec 2023 #10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