Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) called former President Trump a “liar,” after he suggested a recent push to use the 14th Amendment to keep him off the ballot in the state was “electio…
Not necessarily. Just like the constitution doesn’t specify when a fetus becomes a human (therefore fueling the whole dumb religious arguments), this doesn’t specify the requirements for someone to be labeled an insurrectionist. Requiring a conviction ascertains that being removed from the ballot is a criminal punishment, but it’s not been specified as a criminal punishment in any existing legal documents, and that’s where the grey area comes in.
I agree that it would make sense for it to require a conviction based on that language, and if it gets appealed SCOTUS will likely enact that requirement, but legal nonsense isn’t as nice and simple as “a implies b” so until something is explicitly stated in all permutations of the issue, what is and is not legal, in explicit terminology then technicalities will make a lot of stuff possible.
Not necessarily. Just like the constitution doesn’t specify when a fetus becomes a human (therefore fueling the whole dumb religious arguments), this doesn’t specify the requirements for someone to be labeled an insurrectionist. Requiring a conviction ascertains that being removed from the ballot is a criminal punishment, but it’s not been specified as a criminal punishment in any existing legal documents, and that’s where the grey area comes in.
I agree that it would make sense for it to require a conviction based on that language, and if it gets appealed SCOTUS will likely enact that requirement, but legal nonsense isn’t as nice and simple as “a implies b” so until something is explicitly stated in all permutations of the issue, what is and is not legal, in explicit terminology then technicalities will make a lot of stuff possible.